A revolution in thought - Page 938

LadyShea · #**23426** 12-19-2012, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl in 2011

In the case of the sun being ignited, the camera would have no way of taking a picture because the wavelengths have not arrived for the camera to do so. But a human eye is different in that it is seeing the object or image directly, so in that sense a camera cannot be compared to a human eye. In a human eye, the brain is using the retina to see the object or image, whereas a camera is actually able to develop a picture as a direct result of the light's wavelength.

Directly contradicted by

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl this week

No, the only difference is that the eyes use light to see the object directly, whereas a camera uses that same light to form a picture. I know you don't understand how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Earth first.

If the Sun was turned on at noon, could we take a photo of the Sun at noon, or would we have to wait until 12:08?

LadyShea · #**23427** 12-19-2012, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the only difference is that the eyes use light to see the object directly, whereas a camera uses that same light to form a picture. I know you don't understand how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Earth first.

That's alright though, you don't understand it either.

I do understand how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Eart first and I explained why the image would be the same. Why are you mocking me?

You have light physically located on camera film on Earth without any physically possible mechanism for it to get there...leaving magic as the only explanation.

That is highly mockable.

LadyShea · #**23428** 12-19-2012, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And how are you defining "true" freedom of the will? I've already explained why the compatibilist notion of freedom is the only kind relevant to blameworthiness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a made-up definition, constructed for the purpose of giving blame and punishment legitimacy.

So what is the non made up definition of true free will? When you say "true freedom of the will" what exactly do you mean? What would "true freedom of the will" look like if it were to exist?

I told you many times that free will would mean we could hurt people under any antecedent condition (that is the very definition of free will), but this is not true which proves conclusively that we are controlled by a higher law of man's nature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But people hurt others all the time.

Because we're not in the new world LadyShea. We are living in a world of blame and punishment, so how can you use the fact that people hurt others all the time as a reason to discredit a no blame society when the basic principle has not become a permanent condition of the environment?

Because you are using the new world we aren't in to support your premises. How can you claim conclusive proof when the new world isn't here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are, once again, trying to support your entire premise with evidence that does not exist and can only possibly come to exist if everyone presupposes your premise to be true without evidence.

That's irrational and unreasonable. It is far from conclusive proof because it doesn't exist except in your imagination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whatever you say LadyShea. I'm not even going to defend myself. You will continue to say it's an assertion and let it go at that. That's why I said you will have to wait until science confirms that this discovery is valid for you to take it seriously.

LOL, "science" isn't going to even look at it.

peacegirl · #**23429** 12-19-2012, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the only difference is that the eyes use light to see the object directly, whereas a camera uses that same light to form a picture. I know you don't understand how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Earth first.

That's alright though, you don't understand it either.

I do understand how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Eart first and I explained why the image would be the same. Why are you mocking me?

You have light physically located on camera film on Earth without any physically possible mechanism for it to get there...leaving magic as the only explanation.

That is highly mockable.

Have you ever heard this cliche? It describes you to a t.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and little learning is a dangerous thing.

If you only know a little about something, you may feel you are qualified to make judgments when, in fact, you are not.

peacegirl · #**23430** 12-19-2012, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And how are you defining "true" freedom of the will? I've already explained why the compatibilist notion of freedom is the only kind relevant to blameworthiness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a made-up definition, constructed for the purpose of giving blame and punishment legitimacy.

So what is the non made up definition of true free will? When you say "true freedom of the will" what exactly do you mean? What would "true freedom of the will" look like if it were to exist?

I told you many times that free will would mean we could hurt people under any antecedent condition (that is the very definition of free will), but this is not true which proves conclusively that we are controlled by a higher law of man's nature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But people hurt others all the time.

Because we're not in the new world LadyShea. We are living in a world of blame and punishment, so how can you use the fact that people hurt others all the time as a reason to discredit a no blame society when the basic principle has not become a permanent condition of the environment?

Because you are using the new world we aren't in to support your premises. How can you claim conclusive proof when the new world isn't here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are, once again, trying to support your entire premise with evidence that does not exist and can only possibly come to exist if everyone presupposes your premise to be true without evidence.

That's irrational and unreasonable. It is far from conclusive proof because it doesn't exist except in your imagination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whatever you say LadyShea. I'm not even going to defend myself. You will continue to say it's an assertion and let it go at that. That's why I said you will have to wait until science confirms that this discovery is valid for you to take it seriously.

LOL, "science" isn't going to even look at it.

As I said before, when and how this knowledge gets brought to light is not up to me. It's in God's hands.

peacegirl · #**23431** 12-19-2012, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl in 2011

In the case of the sun being ignited, the camera would have no way of taking a picture because the wavelengths have not arrived for the camera to do so. But a human eye is different in that it is seeing the object or image directly, so in that sense a camera cannot be compared to a human eye. In a human eye, the brain is using the retina to see the object or image, whereas a camera is actually able to develop a picture as a direct result of the light's wavelength.

Directly contradicted by

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl this week

No, the only difference is that the eyes use light to see the object directly, whereas a camera uses that same light to form a picture. I know you don't understand how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Earth first.

If the Sun was turned on at noon, could we take a photo of the Sun at noon, or would we have to wait until 12:08?

My answer was not thoroughly thought through, that's all. I was differentiating a camera from the eye, but I was incorrect when I said the that a photograph taken would be any different from real time seeing. It would not.

thedoc · #**23432** 12-19-2012, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Have you ever heard this cliche? It describes you to a t.

A llittle knowledge is a dangerous thing and little learning is a dangerous thing.

If you only know a little about something, you may feel you are qualified to make judgments when, in fact, you are not.

It also perfectly describes Lessans and his knowledge of Optics, Psychology, Economics, Astronomy, Personal relationships, plus a few more subjects. All of which he commented on with much less knowledge than almost anyone else. And you, Peacegirl, are following in his footsteps, he would be proud.

thedoc · #**23433** 12-19-2012, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I said before, when and how this knowledge gets brought to light is not up to me. It's in God's hands.

I have always believed that God has a sense of Humor, and this would prove it.

thedoc · #**23434** 12-19-2012, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My answer was not thoroughly thought through, that's all. I was differentiating a camera from the eye, but I was incorrect when I said the that a photograph taken would be any different from real time seeing. It would not.

I can see the need for a new edition of the dictionary, with this entry.

Peacegril, - Backpedal, Flip-Flop.

LadyShea · #**23435** 12-19-2012, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl in 2011

In the case of the sun being ignited, the camera would have no way of taking a picture because the wavelengths have not arrived for the camera to do so. But a human eye is different in that it is seeing the object or image directly, so in that sense a camera cannot be compared to a human eye. In a human eye, the brain is using the retina to see the object or image, whereas a camera is actually able to develop a picture as a direct result of the light's wavelength.

Directly contradicted by

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl this week

No, the only difference is that the eyes use light to see the object directly, whereas a camera uses that same light to form a picture. I know you don't understand how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Earth first.

If the Sun was turned on at noon, could we take a photo of the Sun at noon, or would we have to wait until 12:08?

My answer was not thoroughly thought through, that's all. I was differentiating a camera from the eye, but I was incorrect when I said the that a photograph taken would be any different from real time seeing. It would not.

Answer the question please. If the Sun was turned on at noon, could we take a photo of the Sun at noon, or would we have to wait until 12:08?

LadyShea · #**23436** 12-19-2012, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And how are you defining "true" freedom of the will? I've already explained why the compatibilist notion of freedom is the only kind relevant to blameworthiness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a made-up definition, constructed for the purpose of giving blame and punishment legitimacy.

So what is the non made up definition of true free will? When you say "true freedom of the will" what exactly do you mean? What would "true freedom of the will" look like if it were to exist?

I told you many times that free will would mean we could hurt people under any antecedent condition (that is the very definition of free will), but this is not true which proves conclusively that we are controlled by a higher law of man's nature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But people hurt others all the time.

Because we're not in the new world LadyShea. We are living in a world of blame and punishment, so how can you use the fact that people hurt others all the time as a reason to discredit a no blame society when the basic principle has not become a permanent condition of the environment?

Because you are using the new world we aren't in to support your premises. How can you claim conclusive proof when the new world isn't here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are, once again, trying to support your entire premise with evidence that does not exist and can only possibly come to exist if everyone presupposes your premise to be true without evidence.

That's irrational and unreasonable. It is far from conclusive proof because it doesn't exist except in your imagination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whatever you say LadyShea. I'm not even going to defend myself. You will continue to say it's an assertion and let it go at that. That's why I said you will have to wait until science confirms that this discovery is valid for you to take it seriously.

LOL, "science" isn't going to even look at it.

As I said before, when and how this knowledge gets brought to light is not up to me. It's in God's hands.

God is as imaginary as your "conclusive proof" from the improbable, hoped for, future.

LadyShea · #**23437** 12-19-2012, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the only difference is that the eyes use light to see the object directly, whereas a camera uses that same light to form a picture. I know you don't understand how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Earth first.

That's alright though, you don't understand it either.

I do understand how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Eart first and I explained why the image would be the same. Why are you mocking me?

You have light physically located on camera film on Earth without any physically possible mechanism for it to get there...leaving magic as the only explanation.

That is highly mockable.

Have you ever heard this cliche? It describes you to a t.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and little learning is a dangerous thing.

If you only know a little about something, you may feel you are qualified to make judgments when, in fact, you are not.

I know that film cannot have a chemical reaction with light unless they are in the same physical location, and I know that light cannot teleport, nor come to be at a location without traveling there. That's straight physical possibilities. I can absolutely make a judgment about your proposition that light suddenly and instantaneously appears on the surface of camera film with no physical mechanism for getting there.

What's dangerous?

thedoc · #**23438** 12-19-2012, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

God is as imaginary as your "conclusive proof" from the improbable, hoped for, future.

Surely you still believe in Harvey?

LadyShea · #**23439** 12-19-2012, 08:18 PM

I certainly don't believe in peacegirl's impersonal laws of the universe that also have intent and purpose and offer guidance.

thedoc · #**23440** 12-19-2012, 08:22 PM

That is not who I was refering to.

Spacemonkey · #**23441** 12-19-2012, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and little learning is a dangerous thing.

Don't worry Peacegirl. That leaves you perfectly safe.

peacegirl · #**23442** 12-19-2012, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My answer was not thoroughly thought through, that's all. I was differentiating a camera from the eye, but I was incorrect when I said the that a photograph taken would be any different from real time seeing. It would not.

I can see the need for a new edition of the dictionary, with this entry.

Peacegril, - Backpedal, Flip-Flop.

I never had thought this through because this was not something I ever thought about, so for you to judge me for making a mistake in the way I analyzed it, is wrong and has nothing to do the validity

LadyShea · #**23443** 12-19-2012, 10:23 PM

Your mistake was changing your analysis. Originally it didn't violate the laws of physics and now it does

peacegirl · #**23444** 12-19-2012, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I certainly don't believe in peacegirl's impersonal laws of the universe that also have intent and purpose and offer guidance.

Because you don't understand the law of "greater satisfaction."

peacegirl · #**23445** 12-19-2012, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your mistake was changing your analysis. Originally it didn't violate the laws of physics and now it does

But it also meets the requirements of real time photography (i.e., the object being in the field of view and the object's brightness)

LadyShea · #**23446** 12-19-2012, 10:34 PM

LOL, your confused and contradictory definition of God requires understanding Lessans tautology?

Spacemonkey · #**23447** 12-19-2012, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My answer was not thoroughly thought through, that's all. I was differentiating a camera from the eye, but I was incorrect when I said the that a photograph taken would be any different from real time seeing. It would not.

I can see the need for a new edition of the dictionary, with this entry.

Peacegril, - Backpedal, Flip-Flop.

I never had thought this through because this was not something I ever thought about, so for you to judge me for making a mistake in the way I analyzed it, is wrong and has nothing to do the validity

But that's not true either. You were walked through this in detail back at IIDB well before you came here and repeated the same mistake all over again.

LadyShea · #**23448** 12-19-2012, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your mistake was changing your analysis. Originally it didn't violate the laws of physics and now it does

But it also meets the requirements of real time photography (i.e., the object being in the field of view and the object's brightness)

What does that even mean? There is no such thing as real time photography. There is no way to make the physics work for it.

peacegirl · #**23449** 12-19-2012, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the only difference is that the eyes use light to see the object directly, whereas a camera uses that same light to form a picture. I know you don't understand how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Earth first.

That's alright though, you don't understand it either.

I do understand how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Eart first and I explained why the image would be the same. Why are you mocking me?

You have light physically located on camera film on Earth without any physically possible mechanism for it to get there...leaving magic as the only explanation.

That is highly mockable.

Have you ever heard this cliche? It describes you to a t.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and little learning is a dangerous thing.

If you only know a little about something, you may feel you are qualified to make judgments when, in fact, you are not.

I know that film cannot have a chemical reaction with light unless they are in the same physical location, and I know that light cannot teleport, nor come to be at a location without traveling there. That's straight physical possibilities. I can absolutely make a judgment about your proposition that light suddenly and instantaneously appears on the surface of camera film with no physical mechanism for getting there.

You are failing to understand efferent vision and why light does not have to reach Earth for an object to be seen if it meets the requirements. Cameras work in the same way which is why you would get a photo of the Sun as it exploded, not 8 minutes later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What's dangerous?

Thinking you know more than you do. I know you will turn this around and say the same thing about me, so I'm sparing you the time.

Spacemonkey · #**23450** 12-19-2012, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the only difference is that the eyes use light to see the object directly, whereas a camera uses that same light to form a picture. I know you don't understand how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Earth first.

That's alright though, you don't understand it either.

I do understand how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Eart first and I explained why the image would be the same. Why are you mocking me?

More lies. You don't have any idea how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Earth to be present at the camera, and you ran away from this problem last time after deciding to change the topic:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Efferent sight cannot be analyzed in terms of traveling photons, as if these photons contain the image alone. This is where you are having problems. I don't want to continue this conversation at this time (maybe at a later date) because I have more important things to talk about right now (i.e., how to achieve world peace).

Your weaseling avoidance is noted. I will bring it up again next time you steer the discussion away from conscience and free will back to vision. Until then efferent vision will continue to be rejected due to your contradictory claims about the behavior of light on your account.

Therefore...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

White light is just the collection of light of differing wavelengths. When this light hits an object, some of it is absorbed and used up, while the rest bounces off and travels away. The light that bounces off and travels away is the non-absorbed light.

You're just repeating the exact thing Lessans is disputing.

Yes. They are also the known measurable properties of light - which you and Lessans are disputing. What happens to these non-absorbed photons after they hit an object, if they don't bounce off and travel away from it? Don't just say that they "reveal the object". You need to explain where they are and where they are going immediately after hitting the object that allows them to do this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand your interpretation, and I believe it's wrong. It is true that part of the spectrum that got absorbed is no longer there. The question is what is happening with the non-absorbed light. Is it bouncing and being reflected, or is it revealing the external world to those who are looking in that direction?

The non-absorbed light can't affect the retina or a film without coming into contact with it. It can't come into contact with it without traveling there at the speed of light. If it gets there any faster then it is violating physics by either teleporting or traveling faster than light. If you think otherwise, then please go ahead and explain where these non-absorbed photons are immediately after hitting the object, and how they can interact with the film or retina to 'reveal the external world' without first getting to the film or retina, and taking time to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why we only get on the retina the non-absorbed photons which allow us to see the object. But the question remains...

The question that remains is this: How do the non-absorbed photons allow us to see the object on your account, given that they start at the object and can't affect the retina in any way without first getting from the object to the retina?

Bump.