Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
How can you use so many words and still say absolutely nothing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are confused and doing the same thing you did with the greater satisfaction principle, making it sound as if all that it is is a tautology.
|
I am not doing anything. It is a tautology as you are stating it. If you add some actual mechanisms to your explanation it would cease being a tautology, but in all this time you've never done so.
You refuse to explain the "mirror image"...what exactly is it? How is it formed? |
What do you mean how is it formed? It is formed through light. |
How? Where does the light come from and where is the mirror image located and by what mechanism is it formed? Does the light somehow arrange itself into a mirror image like nanobots or what exactly?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
How does it work, exactly? You refuse to account for how light behaves in your model. You've refused to explain what the photoreceptors (rods and cones) actually do to facilitate efferent vision.You refuse to even call them photoreceptors!
|
I really don't see the value in getting into this again. Rods and cones play an important part in sight, but they don't explain the direction in which the eyes see. |
What is their role, exactly? Explain what the rods and cones do in efferent vision?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You say light is a condition, but refuse to explain it's role. Does it need to be at the object? At the eye? Both? You refuse to explain how light comes to be located on the surface of camera film in Lessans scenario of the newly ignited Sun
|
I have explained the role of light when it comes to the visual spectrum, but you're not listening. |
No you haven't explained its role, you've only said it is a condition, not why it is a condition, not what it does in the efferent model.
Quote:
|
If light is a condition of sight, it means what it says. It does not cause sight.
|
LOL, see! You just did it again. This is not an explanation of anything at all! |
LadyShea, you are skirting the issue, not me. All of things that you are asking are secondary. He was describing from observation what the role of light is in sight. This goes back to his conclusions based on his astute observations that light, without the object in one's field of view, does not travel beyond that optical range. |
Lessans never said anything about field of view or optical range or light ceasing to travel (which is impossible). Those are terms you came up with in trying to formulate a model since he failed to provide one.
Quote:
|
It does not have a life of its own whereby it brings information to the brain after the event (the material substance that comprise the object) is gone.
|
Light exists separately from the source of emission and has immutable properties that can be empirically observed and measured. Any model you come up with must include these properties, otherwise it is an impossible model you are positing |
We are talking specifically about the visible spectrum which has nothing to do with the measurement of light and its properties. There is absolutely no conflict here, so don't try to make it appear that there is. As I've said a thousand times, this has to do with how the eyes function, not light. You don't seem to understand the difference.