A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I have never seen a purple cow,
And I never hope to see one.
But I can tell you now,
I'd rather see than be one.

And just where do you think they get the milk to make purple ice cream?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The truth is in daylight we get true colors everywhere we look because the full spectrum of light coming from the Sun is in every ray.

Wonderful, perhaps now you will define what a "Ray" of Sunshine is, how big is it, and what is in it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Wonderful, perhaps now you will define what a "Ray" of Sunshine is, how big is it, and what is in it.

I would also like to hear how shadows and atmospheric scattering don't affect "true color"

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nature is not redundant.

Originally Posted by "peacegirl

It still sounds very haphazard to me, but of course not to you since you've got an answer for everything

Light should not be bringing special effects when we don't want them.

Originally Posted by "peacegirl

Nature is well-designed. It is not haphazard.

Er...what? Sorry peacegirl, but you don't get to dictate how nature is. The universe doesn't care if you find it strange or haphazard, or random or daft, or immoral.

The difference between you and the rest of us is that we go out an look at how the universe actually behaves, rather than assuming it behaves in a way we find pleasing, and trying to come up with conspiracy theories and a multitude of random extra beliefs to preserve an idealized notion of how the world works.

So if you find the way light behaves strange, or unpleasant? Tough. That's how it works, and we've checked it works this way. Welcome to science. Unlike you, and Lessans, who decided how it should work, and tried to ignore everything that contradicted you.

You also never apologized for your blatant lie earlier, that you used to try and get out of a ridiculous contradictory statement you made. Are you going to?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light is light, why are you trying to limit things?

In case it isn't already blatantly obvious, Peacegirl is desperately trying (and succeeding) in redirecting discussion away from the obvious impossibility of her own account of vision by trying to paint the afferent account as somehow implausible too. And she doesn't care how stupid she makes herself look in the process.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do believe Lessans is right regarding the eyes.

No you don't. Your behavior is not that of one who believes what they are saying. You constantly lie, evade, and weasel, refusing to answer even the simplest of questions about your own claims. You want to believe Lessans, and you may even believe that you believe him, but you clearly don't. Your transparently dishonest behavior shows otherwise.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, are you happy to leave efferent vision as a big fat contradiction that no-one in their right mind could ever take seriously? Does it not bother you at all that you are positing photons at the retina without being able to explain where they came from or how they got there? Why do you keep pretending that this problem doesn't exist? Do you think that if you ignore it, it will just go away? Do you think other people might be so stupid as to not consider it a problem either?

[peacegirl]

No, if the light reflected from the object covers a larger area on the retina. And in order to get there, it needs to travel: it is this travelling that makes the area larger or smaller. If objects had some sort of direct relationship with the brain through the eyes, then there would be no explanation for why there is such a thing as perspective.

They don't have to have a direct relationship with the brain.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So can you please explain how in efferent sight, the exact same effect is caused by a completely unrelated mechanism?

It's the same mechanism except in the efferent account the object is present. Optics works the same way, which I've said countless times.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Same mechanism? So light travels and hits the retina, signal goes down the optic nerve etc?

No, I said optics works the same way in either model.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, are you happy to leave efferent vision as a big fat contradiction that no-one in their right mind could ever take seriously? Does it not bother you at all that you are positing photons at the retina without being able to explain where they came from or how they got there? Why do you keep pretending that this problem doesn't exist? Do you think that if you ignore it, it will just go away? Do you think other people might be so stupid as to not consider it a problem either?

If you understood that in the efferent account size and brightness are the only requirements for sight because it puts the film/retina within optical range of the object, you would understand why light doesn't have to travel millions of miles for us to see it, and why we would be able to see a distant object before we would see each other, which would take another 8.5 minutes. I am so tired of trying to explain this. I know I'm going to be considered a fundie as long as this goes on. No one will ever take this seriously [not in here anyway]. If you think it's all hot air and makes no sense, then let's let it rest? This would be a good time.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I said optics works the same way in either model.

Yeah, optics is the scientific model of vision and light physics, so optics can't work the same in both models. As you said, they are complete opposites. Right?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you understood that in the efferent account size and brightness are the only requirements for sight because it puts the film/retina within optical range of the object, you would understand why light doesn't have to travel millions of miles for us to see it, and why we would be able to see a distant object before we would see each other, which would take another 8.5 minutes. I am so tired of trying to explain this. I know I'm going to be considered a fundie as long as this goes on. No one will ever take this seriously [not in here anyway]. If you think it's all hot air and makes no sense, then let's let it rest? This would be a good time.

That was another evasive weasel response. Not a single answer to anything I just asked. You are again just ignoring the problem and begging me to let it rest. And you can't be tired of trying to explain this, because you've never once even tried to explain where the light at the retina came from or how it got there. All you've ever done is evade and weasel. You are a fundamentally dishonest person.

Peacegirl, are you happy to leave efferent vision as a big fat contradiction that no-one in their right mind could ever take seriously? _____

Does it not bother you at all that you are positing photons at the retina without being able to explain where they came from or how they got there? _____

Why do you keep pretending that this problem doesn't exist? _____

Do you think that if you ignore it, it will just go away? _____

Do you think other people might be so stupid as to not consider it a problem either? _____

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, you now have three inconsistent principles regarding Lessans newly ignited Sun example:

(1) There are photons at the retina instantly at the moment the Sun is ignited.
(2) These photons came from the Sun.
(3) These photons had a travel time.

These three statements cannot all be true. So which one will you give up?

Are you going to give up one of these three inconsistent claims? Or are you happy to leave efferent vision as a big fat contradiction that no-one in their right mind could ever take seriously?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

In Lessans' newly ignited Sun example...

1) Will there be photons at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited (i.e. 12:00)?

2) If so, where did these photons come from? (Name a location)

3) When were these photons located at that location? (Specify a time)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They really don't vary to the degree you are insisting.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They really do.
LED vs. Florescent vs. Strong Daylight vs. Cloudy Day vs. Forest/Sand/Water vs. Sunset vs. Noon vs. Shadows. Every one of these is different and will change color perception.

It does not change blue to orange.

Yes, we see shadows that may change the hue somewhat, but this doesn't change green grass to red grass in daylight.

No it doesn't. Why would it? The chemical composition of plants reflects green for the most part. Green wavelengths are found in most types of source light.

God (or nature) did not intend grass to be red and that's why we don't see it as red.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

ROFL, are you shitting me with this "intention" of nature?

Why does that make you laugh?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Grass doesn't usually reflect red because for most varieties the chemical composition is such that the plant absorbs the red part of the spectrum for photosynthesis.


Absorption spectra showing how the different side chains in chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b result in slightly different absorptions of visible light. Light with a wavelength of 460 nm is not significantly absorbed by chlorophyll a, but will instead be captured by chlorophyll b, which absorbs strongly at that wavelength. The two kinds of chlorophyll in plants complement each other in absorbing sunlight. Plants are able to satisfy their energy requirements by absorbing light from the blue and red parts of the spectrum. However, there is still a large spectral region between 500 and 600 nm where chlorophyll absorbs very little light, and plants appear green because this light is reflected.

There are grasses that appear reddish and purplish though.

Interesting.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see it as green because the green photons are at the retina.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, because that is the wavelength of light reflected off the green grass.

Your theory about bouncing light coming from all directions sounds redundant. Nature is not redundant.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Gibbering again.

Not really. I'm trying to make sense out of what you're saying.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light travels and reflects off things and is absorbed by things all the time, because those are the immutable properties of light.

This doesn't change how the eyes function.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You would think we would be seeing all kinds of hues ( like the ones you just showed) based on a partial spectrum.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We do.

We don't see completely different colors unless we purposely shine a blue light or red light on something.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure we do. See the examples I posted. Tell me how many distinctive hues and shades are represented in this picture of a single leaf. You can't because there are literally thousands.

That's because of the pigments in the plants. That's not what I meant. A red color will not look blue in daylight, but it may look like a darker red if there is a shadow or if the sun is setting. It won't look like a completely different color though.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Unique Color Count for this image is 164,280 according to my imaging software

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never seen a blue tree or purple grass.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And plants reflect the green wavelength for the most part, though this changes as seen with Fall colors and though there are exceptions

Purple Fountain Grass

Great picture (thanks) but it doesn't change the fact that grass all over the world is green.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As I said, plants reflect the green wavelength for the most part. That species of grass is purple, however. So now you have seen purple grass.

Very cool. Nature is amazing!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But what if there is no other object around except for one, then what?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If full spectrum light is striking an object it absorbs whatever wavelengths it absorbs and reflects whatever wavelengths it reflects, which is based on its chemical composition, and we will perceive color based on the reflected wavelengths.

Right, but in order to reveal its color the non-absorbed wavelength has to be there.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The color is not "revealed", the color perceived is due to the wavelengths reflected.

Whatever you say.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It still sounds very haphazard to me, but of course not to you since you've got an answer for everything

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is haphazard, because there are many factors involved.

Nature is well-designed. It is not haphazard.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nonsense.

What do you mean nonsense? I think nature has an order to it, although it can be violent.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Color correction is a huge aspect of photography, and lighting is a huge aspect of things like product display and decorating due to all the variables.

We're talking about nature right now, not manipulating the lighting to get different effects. The truth is in daylight we get true colors everywhere we look because the full spectrum of light coming from the Sun is in every ray.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to make sense out of what you're saying.

No you're not. You're only trying to divert attention away from your own contradictory claims, and pretend that the afferent account doesn't make any sense either.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A red color will not look blue in daylight, but it may look like a darker red if there is a shadow or if the sun is setting. It won't look like a completely different color though.

(My bold.) And no-one has said that it should. No-one has said that objects should appear completely different colors from their actual colors under normal daylight conditions.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

In case it isn't already blatantly obvious, Peacegirl is desperately trying (and succeeding) in redirecting discussion away from the obvious impossibility of her own account of vision by trying to paint the afferent account as somehow implausible too. And she doesn't care how stupid she makes herself look in the process.

After 10+ years of practice, she's getting good at it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They don't have to have a direct relationship with the brain.

In the book Lessans claimed that the brain looked out through the eyes and had direct contact with the light (photons) that were in direct contact with the object, which would make it a direct relationship between the brain and the object through the light, which is only a condition of sight and not the cause.

Light is a condition of sight but not the cause? Does that make sense to anyone, even Peacegirl?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not change blue to orange.

Uh no, who said it would? Why is that even on the table?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it doesn't. Why would it? The chemical composition of plants reflects green for the most part. Green wavelengths are found in most types of source light.

Why does that make you laugh?

Only beings can formulate intent.

You keep insisting you don't think God is an actual being, then you make statements like this that can be attributed ONLY to a being. That is inconsistent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Interesting.

Uh huh. Do you understand it at all?

Not really. I'm trying to make sense out of what you're saying.

Redundancy is not at all applicable to the properties of light, and nature is often redundant. So yes, you are just spouting nonsense aka gibbering.

Also, you should already have understood the basics of optics since Middle School. If you don't understand it at even that basic level, how can you comfortably deny its veracity?

This doesn't change how the eyes function.

Hello from left field non-sequitur deflection!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A red color will not look blue in daylight

You're right, but how does this relate to the discussion or to anything I've said? Oh, it doesn't! You seem to be building a brand new strawman to beat up.

There is both order and entropy in the Universe and much of it looks haphazard. Have you ever seen a flounder? They have two eyes, both situated on the same side of the head. There are plenty of examples of very poor "design" in nature. I'd be happy to point you to some, as these are often used in Creation vs. Evolution debates

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is both order and entropy in the Universe and much of it looks haphazard. Have you ever seen a flounder? They have two eyes, both situated on the same side of the head. There are plenty of examples of very poor "design" in nature. I'd be happy to point you to some, as these are often used in Creation vs. Evolution debates

"Poor Design" in nature is only a result of human misunderstanding of nature. Nature always designs (if you like that discription of what nature does) organisms to function in the environment in which they need to function. There are no organisms that are poorly designed to function, which means they are able to survive, reproduce and continue the species. Ask me about Jelly fish, or fruit flies.

Flounders lay on the bottom, an eye on the underside would serve no purpose so it migrates to the top side in the maturing of the fish.

In humans the larynx migrates to a point below the crossing of the trachea and esophagus, this allows for a wider range of sounds to be made (language) but means that one could choke while swallowing food. Other animals do not have this feature and can eat and breath at the same time, infant humans can also eat and breath at the same time, it is not untill later that the possibility of choaking is realized.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

"Poor Design" in nature is only a result of human misunderstanding of nature

That's why I had design in quotes. There are examples of things that, had they actually been designed by an intelligent being, would be much more efficient and less stupid.

Basically the argument from poor design is used to show that if there is really a designer, it is crazy and incompetent.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's why I had design in quotes. There are examples of things that, had they [I]actually [/I]been designed by an intelligent being, would be much more efficient and less stupid.
Basically the argument from poor design is used to show that if there is really a designer, it is crazy and incompetent.

Sorry but this is wrong, every organism is fitted to the niche it inhabits. Jellyfish were first analysed as very poor swimmers based on the observed motion through the water. It was later realized that the motion was primarily a means of feeding and in that light was very efficient.

The design of the fruit fly is critized because it does not have a 'tooth' that can break the skin of fruit to access the meat of the fruit. But the fruit fly seems to be doing quite well without it, and growing a 'tooth' necessary to cut through the skin of the fruit would require dietary resources that were not needed.

Nature designs each organism to a purpose, and if humans do not understand that purpose, that is not the fault or inefficiency of the organism, any stupidity is strictly in human understanding of the organism.

The Camel was thought to be a poorly designed horse, till scientists were able to examine one more closely and determine that the Camel was well designed to survive in the environment it was inhabiting.

The criticizm that any creature could be designed more effeciently, is only from ignorance of the real purpose and environment the organism is inhabeting. Organisms are designed to be adequate to survive where they are, any improvment would upset the balance and require other organisms to evolve to restore the balance of nature. One example of the upset of nature is the elimination of large predators from the eastern part of the US. Now human hunting of prey animals is necessary to keep the herd in check, otherwise the animal population would increase to the detriment of all living creatures in the area.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The criticizm that any creature could be designed more effeciently, is only from ignorance of the real purpose and environment the organism is inhabeting.

The giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve says otherwise.

[Vivisectus]

I have to agree. Designing humans with a small piece of intestine that does nothing but sit there until it gets inflamed and kills you is not efficient in any way, unless you stretch the definition of "efficient" to breaking point.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lone Ranger, you are using the word "lie" in a very deceitful way. So who is the liar here? The fact that you are focusing on this word to such a degree makes me wonder what your motive is.

He actually cares about science, and not just about the prestige that the word brings along. Which leads to much more interesting questions about you, your father, the book, and why all of you do not engage in science, but nevertheless like to pretend you do in order to claim prestige and authority you do not deserve... and continue to do so even when this has been made clear!

If you keep saying something that is untrue after you have been clearly shown that this is what you are doing, then yes, you are lying.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They don't have to have a direct relationship with the brain.

Same difference: in actual optics, the area covered on the retina is caused by the fact that reflected light travels.

In your idea, light just has to be at the object and is not required to travel... so if it works the same way, what is it that takes up more or less space on the retina? It cannot be light, as it is at the object, and in any case the light does not have a relationship to what is seen: that is not determined by what light is received, and how.

No, I said optics works the same way in either model.

That is what optics is: light travels, hits the retina, and a signal goes down the nerve. Based on it we design telescopes, cameras, basically anything to do with sight and imaging.

We know what causes perspective in optics. So what causes it in your idea? It cannot be the same thing, or work the same way, unless you want to say that sight is efferent AND afferent.