Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Oh dear. Reading comprehension, Peacegirl. I didn't say that the visual spectrum works differently for different species. The point was rather that the part of the full electromagnetic spectrum that consititutes the visible part differs for different species.
|
[...*crickets*...] |
Are you still claiming that there is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum that works differently than all the rest? If so which part? That which comprises the visual spectrum for humans? ...for dogs? ...for birds? ...for fish? |
Whether the full electromagnetic spectrum which constitutes the visible part differs for different species, or not, doesn't change anything in regard to this version of sight. It also makes no difference that different species can see at different ranges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If the full spectrum works in the same way, then you were wrong when you previously claimed otherwise. And you are violating the laws of physics simply by distinguishing between (P) and (N)light.
|
How so? |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Because according to the laws of physics, all light is traveling electromagnetic radiation, and these laws do not allow for another form of light that doesn't travel through space and time.
|
There is no other form of light Spacemonkey. But non-absorbed blue light does not bounce, it reveals the object when we're looking. Once the image is no longer at the film/retina, white light resumes traveling because the blue light joins with the other light in the visible spectrum. If you don't understand this in the context of efferent vision (how the brain works), this won't make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Again, you're weaselling.
|
Where? |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spcemonkey
In every post you make to me where you avoid my questions. You are weaselling whenever you claim I am starting from an afferent position but do not show me any afferent assumption or presupposition in my questions. You are weaselling whenever you bring up eyes and vision in response to a scenario that does not involve any eyes. You are weaselling every single time you post.
|
I have explained the presupposition you're making. The second you start talking about bouncing, you're making an assumption that comes from this position. You have yet to think in terms of the efferent perspective and start from this vantage point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The only one that fails is YOU because, once again, you think you are trying to work backwards to see how this could be true, but by the very things you say show me that you are not working backwards to see how this could be true.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Such as...? Please quote for me something that I've said which is inconsistent with me working backwards exactly as I've said I'm doing. Why can't you just stop weaselling and actually answer the occasional question?
|
You're not working backwards because if you were you wouldn't keep making the same mistake. How can there be two sets of photons when you're looking through the light to see the object in real time; or how could the photons be teleporting? If the object is large enough and bright enough, the light is instantly at the film/retina as you use that light, as a condition, to see what exists in reality. This changes the entire picture of what is actually going on with the eyes, and it doesn't violate the laws of physics.