“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[pood]

You have insulted this auhor but he is impotent.

He is impotent? So genitals are not a sex organ?

 

[peacegirl]

You have insulted this auhor but he is impotent.

He is impotent? So genitals are not a sex organ?

Why are you bringing this shit up when you misunderstood what he was even talking about, and now you're weaponizing it? It's sneaky and disingenuous. Is it because you feel threatened, so now you have to grab at straws?

 

[pood]

You have insulted this auhor but he is impotent.

He is impotent? So genitals are not a sex organ?

Why are you bringing this shit up when you misunderstood what he was even talking about, and now you're weaponizing it? It's sneaky and disingenuous. Is it because you feel threatened, so now you have to grab at straws?

More obvious ad homs and insults from the prevaricating, ignorant little weasel who, like her idiot father, knows nothing about anything.

 

[pood]

Unanswered questions for @peacegirl:

How is it logically possible for light to be at the eye instantly if it takes light time to get to the eye?

How is it possible to measure a finite speed of light if we see instantly?

If legs are non-functioning at birth, does that mean they are not legs??

 

[peacegirl]

You have insulted this auhor but he is impotent.

He is impotent? So genitals are not a sex organ?

Why are you bringing this shit up when you misunderstood what he was even talking about, and now you're weaponizing it? It's sneaky and disingenuous. Is it because you feel threatened, so now you have to grab at straws?

More obvious ad homs and insults from the prevaricating, ignorant little weasel who, like her idiot father, knows nothing about anything.

That is not an ad hom. That is an attack on the author that has no relationship to the eyes or the rest of his book, for that matter, and if you keep it up, I'll report you in the hope that they put a stop to it.

 

[peacegirl]

Did you ever wonder why the eyes of a newborn baby cannot focus the eyes to see what exists around him, although the other four senses are in full working order?

Nope. Because the whole baby is not in full working order and takes about 25 years to get there.

The muscles aren’t in full working order, the senses and perceptions aren’t in full working order, the brain goes through major reorganizations that can affect judgment, risk taking among other things, the proprioceptive system is not in full working order, the vestibular system is not in full working order, bones change, puberty happens.

He was referring to the "five" senses, and each one is considered in full working order at birth except for the eyes. Scientists say it's because the ciliary muscles are not developed. That is their theory, but Lessans had a different take.

So yeah - no I don’t wonder that at all. I expect babies to be still developing for quite some time. It’s a thing they do.
When I look at a baby, I do not see a being that can see perfectly yet, nor stand up, nor coordinate it’s limbs, nor detect heat well, or cold, nor coordinate vocal cords, nor pinpoint the directions of noises well, nor swallow reliably, nor regulate emotions.

I don’t know about the babies you look at, but mine couldn’t even hold their heads up when they were born. So no I didn’t wonder why they couldn’t. I knew they were still developing.

When it comes to the 5 senses, 4 are considered to be in full working order. You are conflating the fact that many things change as children develop, and the fact that the 4 senses are considered, by scientists, to be fully functioning at birth, except for the eyes. Why is that?

 

[peacegirl]

There is nothing that can be done, no explanation, fact, example, model, experiment or argument that could possibly convince peacegirl that the author was wrong about the nature of sight.

That is the nature of Faith.

Why would I if the author wasn't wrong, and this is not a matter of faith?

As it happens, he is demonstrably wrong. The evidence for that has been explained so many times that it has become tedious.

The problem is that you won't acknowledge the demonstrated fact that the authors claim is wrong. Which makes it a matter of a belief held without the support of evidence, in this instance, even in the face of evidence against it, which makes it a matter of faith.

You have faith in the claim, which for your own reasons you are not willing to relinquish.

So, if you believe it's all faith on my part, you can surely explain his observations and reasoning that prove him wrong, correct?

Light provides the brain the ability to look through the eyes, as a window, to see the world as it is, not as it was. There is nothing that is so preposterous about this claim that it is impossible to consider.

Indeed there is not.

However, once we do consider it, a number of serious flaws become apparent.

A few moments of careful consideration are all that is required for any reasonable person to determine that it is not a correct (or even possible) description of how seeing things works.

Of course, there is nothing that compells anyone to be reasonable. People can and do belive all kinds of unreasonable, and even contradictory, things.

You are biased, bilby.

You are wrong (and insulting).

I didn't mean to insult you. I'm just stating it as I see it.

I do understand why but the problem is that you are putting this author in a category that, as I said earlier, doesn't belong.

I am not putting this author anywhere. I don't know or care anything about him as a person. I do know that his ideas about sight (as portrayed by you) are contradictory and therefore wrong.

They are not contradictory. The only thing that this knowledge disproves is that light brings an image of an event or object from light sources that are long gone.

And ultimately he isn't here, so he can't answer my questions. YOU are. It's not his ideas I am discussing; It's YOUR presentation of his ideas. And as you have presented them, these ideas are demonstrably and provably wrong.

If you think these ideas are so important, why hide behind their (deceased) originator?

If I were hiding, I wouldn't be here. But I'm also a steward of his work, which requires me to be careful how his discovery is presented. This has nothing to do with me or MY presentation. It has everything to do with his authorship and his style of writing that took him 7 books to explain. That said, if I can clarify something that wasn't understood, I will do my best to help. I've already explained a lot in my own words, but there is no way his claim will be understood if it's given in a half-baked fashion.

It's really sad because you are an obstacle, not a truth-seeker, as you seem to think you are.

It's really sad that you can't defend your whacko ideas, and have to resort to dumb personal insults, and hiding behind a dead man who cannot argue his own positions.

I didn't mean to insult you, but you do A LOT of insulting yourself. Why the double standard?

Your mind is made up, which doesn't give this author a chance in hell.

My mind is still not made up now, because I am giving YOU a lot more chances than YOU deserve to explain this; And yet you squander your opportunities to do so on this emotional drivel about how cruel and unfair I am, rather than just trying to explain your ideas of how sight works, without contradicting yourself, or making claims that are easily disproven by simple experiments.

The experiments on Earth are not being challenged. Optical theory isn't being challenged. The speed of light isn't being challenged. Time, space, and distance in 3 dimensions aren't being challenged.

If anyone disagrees with this position for reasons that create a mismatch, you falsely conclude the mismatch is the author's fault.

If a position entails a contradiction, it is wrong. That's not a false conclusion. And it is the fault of the person presenting the position - in this case, YOU.

If you understand and agree with your author, and you accurately present his ideas, then any problems with his position are automatically also problems in YOUR position.

And if you misunderstand, disagree, or don't convey his ideas accurately, then (again) any problems are down to YOU.

This is YOUR fight. Not your father's, nor anyone else's.

And it was your poor decision to start a battle of wits when you are so very poorly armed.

I never thought of it as a battle of wits. I just wanted to share this claim (which isn't his major one, btw) because of its importance regarding our relationship with reality but not realizing the difficulty in presenting what has been accepted as fact, whether it comes from preconceived ideas about light itself, the fact that my answers are poorly constructed, or the fact that the claim, if right, would cause a major disruption in scientific circles.

Do you not see the problem here? I hope you don't throw out Lessans' claims so quickly because you will leave behind the possibility that he was right and give up or may delay what could not have been seen without a more careful investigation.

I am seeing a big problem here. You are (unreasonably) whining about how unfair I am being, and being careless with the facts to the point of recklessness, instead of helping me with my investigation.

Focus. Precision. Clarity.

Present a detailed model for how you think vision works. Be specific; Step through a sequence of events. Don't use words to mean something other than their common meanings, without first defining precisely how you are using them, and exactly what they mean in your argument.
Leave no opportunity for misunderstanding. If misunderstandings arise, take steps to quash them by explaining your meaning in greater detail.

Tell us how vision works, according to YOU.

If you can't do that, it's a strong indication that you don't even understand it yourself, and should be learning, rather than trying to teach.

If the discourse can stay friendly, a lot more can be accomplished. I am in defensive mode a lot of the time due to name-calling and other expletives, which isn't helping. I know you won't like this, but the only way for progress to be made is for me to carefully post the chapter, paragraph by paragraph. You still may not see his proof, but it's worth a try. At the very least I will be able to move forward knowing I did my best.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

That is not true using the definition that Lessans ascribed to these words. You can't see in real time and see in delayed time. It's one or the other.

Huh? That is an un-response, a non-response to my comment which noted "It is at least conceivable that vision could have both afferent and efferent aspects. This means that proving efference is not sufficient to preclude afference." Is your unresponsive response supposed to indicate that neither efferent vision nor afferent vision refers to mechanism or process directions? Are they both supposed to be simply alternative terms which can losslessly substitute for real-time vision and delayed vision respectively? Because if that's the case, it is necessarily the case that Lessans proved nothing, because, while definitions in scientific and philosophical contexts can cohere in consistency, in such contexts there is no such thing as definitional proof of or for what is actual. Definitions are stipulations, and the presence of stipulations are loci at which reasonable doubt and alternatives are to be sought. Such is the nature of language and the nature of rational analysis. Definitions and stipulations can be suitable at best as starting points in the pursuit of those invariances which transcend the definitions and stipulations - the perspective with which and the context in which - analysis commences. Rational analysis seeks invariances and the limits of their extent rather than mere consistency. Any analysis which operates as if a definition in itself is sufficient to impart invariance ends up being a very shallow analysis indeed, an analysis which will struggle even to climb out of conceivability to achieve the status of the merest possibility. If you didn't follow all that, here is the bottom line: Lessans proved nothing. That is not a big deal. Proof is more often than not a fool's errand. But Lessans and you make it a bigger deal than it is by claiming to have proved despite not having done so.

The only optic-related gap is his claim that light does not strike the optic nerve.

And sound "does not strike" the auditory nerve, and, yet, hearing is afferent by your own reckoning. That establishes an inconsistency with regards to what you express. But that's not particularly interesting, because inconsistency is not always fatal for an idea since there are often multiple ways by which inconsistencies can be remedied without dispensing with the central idea that is being promulgated.

Scientific theory leaves open the possibility that something that has been established as true could still be proven wrong. Factual means there is no possibility that something that has been established as true could be wrong.

By your understanding, facts are both the goal and the bane of science. Facts are the bane - the death - because facts utterly preclude there being any worthwhileness to further investigation with regards to those facts. Now, the fact of the matter is that your understanding of fact is not the only possible understanding, and your understanding does not even well characterize how that word is used in scientific circles as well as elsewhere. Were you to actually investigate the matter, you would find that fact does not refer so much to an understanding for which it is impossible for that understanding to be wrong. Instead, you would find that fact indicates an understanding taken to be correct (or true) even if it is not - meaning that the understanding is only subject to being revisited for reconsideration if and when there is reason to do so. The fact that science gives at least lip-service to the provisional status of its viewpoints (including its facts and truths) is in no way sufficient to justify any alternative viewpoints, facts, or truths. The scientific viewpoint (or, rather, the scientific ideal), indeed the philosophical viewpoint (or, rather, the philosophical ideal) is that all facts and truths are subject to revision or discarding when reason is presented to do so (such as when an unanticipated problem is encountered). As I keep telling you, Lessans and you have provided no such reason with regards to efferent vision and real-time seeing. To put it another way, Lessans and you have failed to make clear any reason for thinking that the notions of vision as efferent and real-time seeing offer any possibility for improved understanding, and that is what is (call it psychologically) needed before others will take up the demonstrations which Lessans never undertook himself.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...

I agree with this visualization, ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Okay. I know that there will be later disagreements to go through. Here is the next visualization. All I have done is change the flat rock to a human eyeball, presumably attached to a living functioning human of normal health and vision, but the full person is not displayed for sake of simplicity.

Do you agree with visualization or disagree? Note that the only thing I changed where you had previously agreed is that at the destination I have placed an eyeball there instead of a flat rock.

Also, note, that earlier in the discussion, when we discussed an object changing from red to blue, you had said that a "blue wavelength" would be at the photoreceptor. Here, however, there is no concrete photon with a blue wavelength present at the eye. The first photon of blue wavelength, i.e. the closest is 0.5 seconds away, which is the same thing as 93,000 miles away.

The photon at the eye has a particular "energy signature" (my phrasing) in electron volts and frequency. The other closest photon of blue wavelength has a different energy signature.

Do you agree that a photon of red wavelength is present at the eye? Or do you think it is a photon of blue wavelength?

The most important question is just whether you agree or not with the visualization?

Any response to the question?

I haven't received an answer yet. To repeat, at time= 1 second, there is a photon of red wavelength present at the eye, but the nearest photon of blue wavelength is 93,000 miles (or .5 seconds) away.

In physics, how can a photon of blue wavelength surpass the gap of 93,000 miles or 0.5 seconds. Here are some theoretical ways:

• (1) The brain opens up a wormhole, bending space time. If this were so, the brain would have enormous energy, orders of magnitude more than it does. We also would observe all kinds of other things teleporting from 93,000 miles away, which we do not.
• (2) The photons transfer their energy to photons further out. Then, this would mean that the energy transfer is faster than light, a violation of physics. Even if we were to allow this, then the new photons having transferred energy would become red while the old ones ahead became blue. So we would end up seeing red eventually after seeing some blue. Unless it kept going for some weird reason, but there is no infinite source of energy to maintain that transfer. It also violates conservation of energy.
• (3) Some kind of unknown photon tunneling behavior. This would still be a problem because it would not eliminate the photon of red wavelength, resulting in a purple view of the flower rather than blue or red. Also, tunneling would require equivalent states between the origin and destination of which these are certainly not equivalent. So this also is problematic for multiple reasons.
• (4) There were already blue photons resting in the space between the flower and the eye, and the flower turning blue just "activated" them. Photons cannot sit still; they only exist at speed c. If there were blue photons already at the eye, they must have been emitted by a blue object prior to t=0, meaning the eye would be seeing a blue flower before it actually turned blue. Contradiction.
• (5) Time travel: The blue photon somehow travels backward in time by 0.5 seconds to arrive at the eye at t = 1 second. This violates causality. If light could travel backward in time to satisfy a future observation, we would see effects before their causes in everyday life, destroying the arrow of time and violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Each theoretical (or even scifi) way examined violates physics or results in a contradiction or other observed phenomena inconsistent with reality.

 

[peacegirl]

That is not true using the definition that Lessans ascribed to these words. You can't see in real time and see in delayed time. It's one or the other.

Huh? That is an un-response, a non-response to my comment which noted "It is at least conceivable that vision could have both afferent and efferent aspects. This means that proving efference is not sufficient to preclude afference." Is your unresponsive response supposed to indicate that neither efferent vision nor afferent vision refers to mechanism or process directions? Are they both supposed to be simply alternative terms which can losslessly substitute for real-time vision and delayed vision respectively? Because if that's the case, it is necessarily the case that Lessans proved nothing, because, while definitions in scientific and philosophical contexts can cohere in consistency, in such contexts there is no such thing as definitional proof of or for what is actual. Definitions are stipulations, and the presence of stipulations are loci at which reasonable doubt and alternatives are to be sought.

It wasn't the definition that was proof of anything. It was just a clarification of what he meant by "seeing in real time." You are right that definitions can get us into trouble. This shows up in the discourse between free will and determinism. Everyone seems to have a different definition of these terms, which is no basis on which we can communicate effectively.

Such is the nature of language and the nature of rational analysis. Definitions and stipulations can be suitable at best as starting points in the pursuit of those invariances which transcend the definitions and stipulations - the perspective with which and the context in which - analysis commences. Rational analysis seeks invariances and the limits of their extent rather than mere consistency. Any analysis which operates as if a definition in itself is sufficient to impart invariance ends up being a very shallow analysis indeed, an analysis which will struggle even to climb out of conceivability to achieve the status of the merest possibility. If you didn't follow all that, here is the bottom line: Lessans proved nothing. That is not a big deal. Proof is more often than not a fool's errand. But Lessans and you make it a bigger deal than it is by claiming to have proved despite not having done so.

You're completely off base when it comes to your cursory analysis. Even though it may be true that "proof is more often than not a fool's errand," Lessans was no fool.

CHAPTER ONE: THE HIDING PLACE

p. 61. Definitions mean absolutely nothing as far as reality is concerned. Regardless of what words I use to describe the sun, regardless of how much I don’t know about this ball of fire, does not negate the fact that it is a part of the real world.

The only optic-related gap is his claim that light does not strike the optic nerve.

And sound "does not strike" the auditory nerve, and, yet, hearing is afferent by your own reckoning. That establishes an inconsistency with regards to what you express.

No, I just wasn't as detailed as I could have been. The point I was making was that the ear is an afferent organ.

But that's not particularly interesting, because inconsistency is not always fatal for an idea since there are often multiple ways by which inconsistencies can be remedied without dispensing with the central idea that is being promulgated.

Very true.

Scientific theory leaves open the possibility that something that has been established as true could still be proven wrong. Factual means there is no possibility that something that has been established as true could be wrong.

By your understanding, facts are both the goal and the bane of science. Facts are the bane - the death - because facts utterly preclude there being any worthwhileness to further investigation with regards to those facts. Now, the fact of the matter is that your understanding of fact is not the only possible understanding, and your understanding does not even well characterize how that word is used in scientific circles as well as elsewhere. Were you to actually investigate the matter, you would find that fact does not refer so much to an understanding for which it is impossible for that understanding to be wrong. Instead, you would find that fact indicates an understanding taken to be correct (or true) even if it is not - meaning that the understanding is only subject to being revisited for reconsideration if and when there is reason to do so. The fact that science gives at least lip-service to the provisional status of its viewpoints (including its facts and truths) is in no way sufficient to justify any alternative viewpoints, facts, or truths. The scientific viewpoint (or, rather, the scientific ideal), indeed the philosophical viewpoint (or, rather, the philosophical ideal) is that all facts and truths are subject to revision or discarding when reason is presented to do so (such as when an unanticipated problem is encountered). As I keep telling you, Lessans and you have provided no such reason with regards to efferent vision and real-time seeing. To put it another way, Lessans and you have failed to make clear any reason for thinking that the notions of vision as efferent and real-time seeing offer any possibility for improved understanding, and that is what is (call it psychologically) needed before others will take up the demonstrations which Lessans never undertook himself.

He has definitely given reasons for thinking that the notion of vision as efferent opens up the possibility for a better understanding of our world and our relationship to it. You just don't see it yet, and you may never, but it still wouldn't make him wrong. Only if his proof failed would it make him wrong.

INTRODUCTION

p, 2 Throughout history, there has always been this skepticism before certain events were proven true. It is only natural to be skeptical, but this is never a sufficient reason to exclude the possibility of a scientific miracle. You may reason that many people have been positive that they were right, but it turned out they were wrong, so couldn’t I also be positive and wrong? There is a fallacious standard hidden in this reasoning. Because others were positive and wrong, I could be wrong because I am positive. The first astronomer who observed the mathematical laws inherent in the solar system that enabled him to predict an eclipse was positive and right, as well as the space scientist who foretold that one day man would land on the moon. Edison, when he first discovered the electric bulb, was positive and right. Einstein, when he revealed the potential of atomic energy, was positive and right — and so were many other scientists — but they proved that they were right with an undeniable demonstration, which is what I am doing. If my demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and only then am I wrong. There is quite a difference between being positive or dogmatic over knowledge that is questionable and being positive over something that is undeniable, such as two plus two equals four. Just bear in mind how many times in the course of history the impossible (that which appeared to be) has been made possible by scientific discoveries, which should make you desire to contain your skepticism enough to investigate what this is all about.

 

[peacegirl]

...

I agree with this visualization, ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Okay. I know that there will be later disagreements to go through. Here is the next visualization. All I have done is change the flat rock to a human eyeball, presumably attached to a living functioning human of normal health and vision, but the full person is not displayed for sake of simplicity.

Do you agree with visualization or disagree? Note that the only thing I changed where you had previously agreed is that at the destination I have placed an eyeball there instead of a flat rock.

Also, note, that earlier in the discussion, when we discussed an object changing from red to blue, you had said that a "blue wavelength" would be at the photoreceptor. Here, however, there is no concrete photon with a blue wavelength present at the eye. The first photon of blue wavelength, i.e. the closest is 0.5 seconds away, which is the same thing as 93,000 miles away.

The photon at the eye has a particular "energy signature" (my phrasing) in electron volts and frequency. The other closest photon of blue wavelength has a different energy signature.

Do you agree that a photon of red wavelength is present at the eye? Or do you think it is a photon of blue wavelength?

The most important question is just whether you agree or not with the visualization?

No, I don't, but this visualization is getting to the root of the problem, and I thank you for that. If light is traveling and hitting an object, the photon that came first would be seen, but this is not comparable to the eyes. The eyes would see each color change instantly, but only if he was right about real-time vision which is the exact opposite of what science believes is happening.

?

Don2, this graphic is correct because light travels, and a red photon would be seen before the gradually changing blue photon. Light follows the laws of space, distance, and time. The problem is that you are not understanding that if the brain and eyes work as Lessans described, there would be no law broken as far as physics is concerned, even though the object's reflection or pattern would not be traveling beyond the inverse square law. If he is right, the role of light reveals this pattern when we are looking at the real thing in real time rather than waiting for the pattern or wavelength/frequency to arrive through space/time.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

He has definitely given reasons for thinking that the notion of vision as efferent opens up the possibility for a better understanding of our world and our relationship to it. You just don't see it yet, and you may never, but it still wouldn't make him wrong.

There are all sorts of possible ways by which to come to "a better understanding of our world and our relationship to it." The issue at hand is whether the Lessans way is unavailable to anyone for so long as they hold to vision as afferent. Put another way, the issue is whether thinking of vision as afferent itself precludes coming to a better understanding or even coming to the supposedly better understanding which Lessans puts forth. I have seen no reason to think so. That is to say that efferent vision and real-time seeing do not strike me as linchpins or keystones to that better understanding which Lessans supposes to assert.

Only if his proof failed would it make him wrong.

Proof. Yet again there is this claim of having proved. Regardless, I have seen no proof or reason for believing that without accepting vision as only efferent it is not possible to attain "a better understanding of our world and our relationship to it" or to attain an understanding which is at least as good as that proffered by Lessans.

 

[peacegirl]

He has definitely given reasons for thinking that the notion of vision as efferent opens up the possibility for a better understanding of our world and our relationship to it. You just don't see it yet, and you may never, but it still wouldn't make him wrong.

There are all sorts of possible ways by which to come to "a better understanding of our world and our relationship to it." The issue at hand is whether the Lessans way is unavailable to anyone for so long as they hold to vision as afferent. Put another way, the issue is whether thinking of vision as afferent itself precludes coming to a better understanding or even coming to the supposedly better understanding which Lessans puts forth. I have seen no reason to think so. That is to say that efferent vision and real-time seeing do not strike me as linchpins or keystones to that better understanding which Lessans supposes to assert.

They are linchpins to the understanding of his claim as to how we become conditioned by words that are not symbolic of reality but appear to be. It will finally allow us to separate reality from fiction, which will prevent the use of words that have hurt millions by thinking they were born physiognomically inferior due to what the brain was able to do. This also applies indirectly to other values contained in words that will go by the wayside, such as brilliant, stupid, educated, uneducated, intelligent, unintelligent, etc. This is explained in Chapter Eleven.

Only if his proof failed would it make him wrong.

Proof. Yet again there is this claim of having proved. Regardless, I have seen no proof or reason for believing that without accepting vision as only efferent it is not possible to attain "a better understanding of our world and our relationship to it" or to attain an understanding which is at least as good as that proffered by Lessans.

Again, light is either hitting our photoreceptors and going through the process of transduction that reconstructs data into an image, or it's not. If it's not, then it's not an afferent mechanism. If it turns out that we see the way Lessans described, then it is efferent. It is not possible, therefore, to gain an understanding of our world and relationship to it if efferent vision is not included in the analysis, since it is this very understanding of how the brain and eyes work that is necessary for understanding how we become conditioned to seeing what is just an appearance of reality, not reality itself.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Don2, this graphic is correct because light travels, and a red photon would be seen before the gradually changing blue photon. Light follows the laws of space, distance, and time. The problem is that you --

***FULL STOP***

Oh no. The problem is not with me. The problem is that you have just conceded that this graphic represents correct physics, yet you previously stated that a blue wavelength would be present at the photoreceptor at this exact moment.

are not understanding that if the brain and eyes work as Lessans described, there would be no law broken as far as physics is concerned, even though the object's reflection or pattern would not be traveling beyond the inverse square law. If he is right, the role of light reveals this pattern when we are looking at the real thing in real time rather than waiting for the pattern or wavelength/frequency to arrive through space/time.

Your description here is a retreat from the concrete components and measurements we are analyzing in this hypothetical. Again, you explicitly stated before that a blue wavelength would be present at the photoreceptors.

Let's review. Here is your post:
[https://iidb.org/threads/revolution...sm-and-free-will.28694/page-393#post-1352860)

Here is exactly what you wrote:

We see blue the instant red changes to blue because the blue wavelength/frequency is now at our photoreceptors, as long as the object can be seen.

If there is only a photon of red wavelength at our eye at t = 1 second, then it can *only* interact with a photoreceptor tuned to that specific red energy level. It cannot trigger a photoreceptor tuned to a blue energy level, because a photon of blue energy is still 93,000 miles away.

Since you agree that the graphic is correct and that the nearest blue photon is 93,000 miles away, you must retract your previous statement. There is **no** blue wavelength/frequency at our photoreceptors at t = 1 second. Therefore, by the laws of physics, the eye cannot see blue at that instant.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

They are linchpins to the understanding of his claim as to how we become conditioned by words that are not symbolic of reality but appear to be. It will finally allow us to separate reality from fiction, which will prevent the use of words that have hurt millions by thinking they were born physiognomically inferior due to what the brain was able to do.

Prevent?!?!?! I'm going to ignore that germ of a repulsive goal or "value". Anyhow, belief in vision as only efferent and belief in real-time non-delayed seeing are demonstrably unnecessary to explain and understand how words condition: there was awareness regarding the fact that words frame and condition prior to Lessans putting forth the notion of vision as only efferent. Awareness that words frame and condition did not derive from the efferent vision idea. The Lessans view is neither proved nor necessary.

This also applies indirectly to other values contained in words that will go by the wayside, such as brilliant, stupid, educated, uneducated, intelligent, unintelligent, etc.

A world without such distinctions is a world without discernment and values. The lack of discernment and values does not effect a better understanding. A world devoid of discernment and values is not a better world. The supposed consequence of the widespread acceptance of efferent vision is sufficient reason for rejecting the truth of efferent vision. Can you figure out why that is so?

It is not possible, therefore, to gain an understanding of our world and relationship to it if efferent vision is not included in the analysis

Oh, but efferent vision has been included in the analysis right here in this ad infinitum discussion. At best, the efferent vision notion is benign. However, as addressed above, the ethic which purportedly follows necessarily from that at best benign notion is repulsive for the reasons above noted.

 

[peacegirl]

They are linchpins to the understanding of his claim as to how we become conditioned by words that are not symbolic of reality but appear to be. It will finally allow us to separate reality from fiction, which will prevent the use of words that have hurt millions by thinking they were born physiognomically inferior due to what the brain was able to do.

Prevent?!?!?! I'm going to ignore that germ of a repulsive goal or "value". Anyhow, belief in vision as only efferent and belief in real-time non-delayed seeing are demonstrably unnecessary to explain and understand how words condition: there was awareness regarding the fact that words frame and condition prior to Lessans putting forth the notion of vision as only efferent. Awareness that words frame and condition did not derive from the efferent vision idea. The Lessans view is neither proved nor necessary.

Belief in real-time non-delayed seeing is demonstrably necessary to explain and understand how words condition us visually, even though there was awareness regarding the fact that words have framed and conditioned many prior to Lessans putting forth the notion of vision as only efferent, because these types have nothing to do with vision. You are barking up the wrong tree but trying very hard to throw Lessans' claim into the wastebasket too soon. In the case of the conditioning being referred to, it is the result of how the brain and eyes function specifically; therefore, Lessans' view is absolutely proven to be necessary.

This also applies indirectly to other values contained in words that will go by the wayside, such as brilliant, stupid, educated, uneducated, intelligent, unintelligent, etc.

A world without such distinctions is a world without discernment and values. The lack of discernment and values does not effect a better understanding. A world devoid of discernment and values is not a better world. The supposed consequence of the widespread acceptance of efferent vision is sufficient reason for rejecting the truth of efferent vision. Can you figure out why that is so?

No, because it is not so. He wasn't saying a world devoid of discernment and values is a better world. You're all wet.

It is not possible, therefore, to gain an understanding of our world and relationship to it if efferent vision is not included in the analysis

Oh, but efferent vision has been included in the analysis right here in this ad infinitum discussion. At best, the efferent vision notion is benign. However, as addressed above, the ethic which purportedly follows necessarily from that at best benign notion is repulsive for the reasons above noted.

And it's completely wrong, because he wasn't saying that we shouldn't have values. All you're doing is jumping to premature conclusions that have no resemblance to anything he wrote.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Belief in real-time non-delayed seeing is demonstrably necessary to explain and understand how words condition us visually, even though there was awareness regarding the fact that words have framed and conditioned many prior to Lessans putting forth the notion of vision as only efferent, because these types have nothing to do with vision.

Huh? Your edit made your posting less intelligible. I guess that your "these types" refers to conditioning as long understood pre-Lessans and his efferent vision notion. However, if you think the pre-Lessans ideas about conditioning can have no relation to vision - specifically afferent vision - then you have not well understood those other conditioning-related notions.

When you use a term as common and well-characterized as conditioning but you mean something supposedly novel, it is incumbent upon you to disambiguate by distinguishing the supposedly new meaning from the already established understanding. Neither you nor Lessans has done any such thing. Conditioning as seen from the afferent vision perspective has not been shown to be different from conditioning as seen from the efferent vision perspective. There is, of course, the difference between afferent and efferent, but that is not sufficient to account for any supposed but never identified differences regarding the nature of conditioning itself. You and Lessans claim that there are types of conditioning accounted for by efferent vision which are not accounted for by afferent vision (otherwise you have no point to make), but neither of you ever supports that contention, and neither of you demonstrates that accepting efferent vision makes apparent types of conditioning which were never observed or anticipated or which cannot be accommodated from the afferent position.

He wasn't saying a world devoid of discernment and values is a better world. You're all wet.

If the goal is for contrasting terms to "go by the wayside", if the goal is to have "go by the wayside" such contrasting terms as educated-uneducated, brilliant-idiotic/stupid/dull-witted, attractive-unattractive, beautiful-repulsive, etc., then the goal is to eliminate the terms upon which discernment conceptually depends. It is frankly idiotic and stupid to prevent or wish away utilization of such terms. With regards to the issues with which you have seemed most concerned, the further discernment - the greater discernment - regards whether those terms are to be used to publicly denigrate, and that means that, yes, it is possible that denigration might sometimes be the most proper or most efficient and striking way of expressing objection. Of course, the recourse to denigration should never be reflexive - even if only because that would indicate there having been a lack of discernment.

 

[peacegirl]

Belief in real-time non-delayed seeing is demonstrably necessary to explain and understand how words condition us visually, even though there was awareness regarding the fact that words have framed and conditioned many prior to Lessans putting forth the notion of vision as only efferent, because these types have nothing to do with vision.

Huh? Your edit made your posting less intelligible. I guess that your "these types" refers to conditioning as long understood pre-Lessans and his efferent vision notion. However, if you think the pre-Lessans ideas about conditioning can have no relation to vision - specifically afferent vision - then you have not well understood those other conditioning-related notions.

The word "conditioning" can have different meanings. He specifically stated what kind of conditioning is related to how we see. Other types of conditioning are operant and classical, which are forms of social conditioning, not the kind of physical conditioning that Lessans demonstrated due to his claim regarding the eyes.

conditioning (noun)

1. the process of training or accustoming a person or animal to behave in a certain way or to accept certain circumstances:
   "social conditioning"

When you use a term as common and well-characterized as conditioning but you mean something supposedly novel, it is incumbent upon you to disambiguate by distinguishing the supposedly new meaning from the already established understanding. Neither you nor Lessans has done any such thing.

That is what he did by specifying what this conditioning entailed. Where have you been?

Conditioning as seen from the afferent vision perspective has not been shown to be different from conditioning as seen from the efferent vision perspective. There is, of course, the difference between afferent and efferent, but that is not sufficient to account for any supposed but never identified differences regarding the nature of conditioning itself. You and Lessans claim that there are types of conditioning accounted for by efferent vision which are not accounted for by afferent vision (otherwise you have no point to make), but neither of you ever supports that contention, and neither of you demonstrates that accepting efferent vision makes apparent types of conditioning which were never observed or anticipated or which cannot be accommodated from the afferent position.

He demonstrated that efferent vision is what allows this conditioning to take place, which could never occur if the eyes were afferent.

He wasn't saying a world devoid of discernment and values is a better world. You're all wet.

If the goal is for contrasting terms to "go by the wayside", if the goal is to have "go by the wayside" such contrasting terms as educated-uneducated, brilliant-idiotic/stupid/dull-witted, attractive-unattractive, beautiful-repulsive, etc., then the goal is to eliminate the terms upon which discernment conceptually depends. It is frankly idiotic and stupid to prevent or wish away utilization of such terms.

You are wrong, and the sad part is that you don't understand why. You have no understanding as to why certain words are misrepresentations of the real world and cause harm. I am really surprised by your flawed reasoning.

With regards to the issues with which you have seemed most concerned, the further discernment - the greater discernment - regards whether those terms are to be used to publicly denigrate, and that means that, yes, it is possible that denigration might sometimes be the most proper or most efficient and striking way of expressing objection. Of course, the recourse to denigration should never be reflexive - even if only because that would indicate there having been a lack of discernment.

Michael, give it up. You have no understanding of any of his discoveries. You see a word that he wrote and you run with it, thinking you got something over on him, when you have done no such thing. You have accused him of things he didn't say or do without ever asking one pertinent question regarding why he claimed what he did. Who does that if they are sincerely interested? Your interpretation that efferent vision is not needed for his proof is pure nonsense. Moreover, denigration of any kind is a bad thing and will never be a way to elicit change in the new world. You've really gone off the rails.

denigration (noun)

1. the action of criticizing or belittling someone or something, especially in an unfair way:

 

[pood]

Pure peacegirl. So purely pathetic.

 

[DBT]

There is nothing that can be done, no explanation, fact, example, model, experiment or argument that could possibly convince peacegirl that the author was wrong about the nature of sight.

That is the nature of Faith.

Why would I if the author wasn't wrong, and this is not a matter of faith?

As it happens, he is demonstrably wrong. The evidence for that has been explained so many times that it has become tedious.

The problem is that you won't acknowledge the demonstrated fact that the authors claim is wrong. Which makes it a matter of a belief held without the support of evidence, in this instance, even in the face of evidence against it, which makes it a matter of faith.

You have faith in the claim, which for your own reasons you are not willing to relinquish.

So, if you believe it's all faith on my part, you can surely explain his observations and reasoning that prove him wrong, correct?

That's been done over and over by multiple posters, to no avail.

You ignore the explanations, only to reassert the claims.

Like eye focus development in infancy, which does not support the authors claims relating to the role of eyes and the nature of vision.