A revolution in thought

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will talk about the eyes because that's where the information comes from. You can replace eyes for film, if you choose. This has nothing to do with teleportation because of the fact that the first premise in efferent vision is that the eyes are seeing the real object in real time. If this is true, then the image shows up on the film/retina instantly as a mirror image because the light is not bringing the image to the eyes (which would require travel time). You continue to come from the afferent position, without considering the first premise in efferent vision, which is causing major confusion.

You have big problems with the simplest logic. Never mind that not even your implication works at all, there is no reason to assume the eyes see anything in real time, or the film sees things in mirror images because the hole is focused on the object, which are meaningless statements.
There's nothing wrong with hypotheticals. But you say "if", which gets you into this alternate reality, and then you stay there. You just consider what it would be like if your dad's ideas made any sense, and then you cement it into place and leave it at that.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The afferent model only has to explain what is believed to be going on, but it doesn't make it correct.

The afferent model can only explain what has been observed, tested, and verified by experimentation, and it does so perfectly, and is therefore correct. Unlike the 'efferent' model that was invented without any shread of evidence, the 'afferent' model was developed from the evidence of observations, tests, and experiments. The 'afferent' model is based on the real world, the 'efferent' model is based on wild imagination with no basis in reality.

[LadyShea]

1. This has nothing to do with teleportation

2. because of the fact that the first premise in efferent vision is that the eyes are seeing the real object in real time.

That "because" does not belong there as the statement that follows that word does not in any way, shape, or form address the issue of teleportation of photons.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That "because" does not belong there as the statement that follows that word does not in any way, shape, or form address the issue of teleportation of photons.

And this is just the kind of "Logic?" that is presented throughout Peasegirl's posts and Lessans book, many, if not all, of the statements do not follow from what preceded them. It makes it very difficult to follow what is supposed to be a train of thought.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That "because" does not belong there as the statement that follows that word does not in any way, shape, or form address the issue of teleportation of photons.

1: The "cheese" theory of gravity has nothing to do with magically impartin gravity for no apparent reason.

2: The first premise of the "cheese" theory of gravity states that bacteria that ferment lactose cause gravity.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

You have big problems with the simplest logic. Never mind that not even your implication works at all, there is no reason to assume the eyes see anything in real time, or the film sees things in mirror images because the hole is focused on the object, which are meaningless statements.

Why is that a meaningless statement? That's a condition of this model.

Originally Posted by But

There's nothing wrong with hypotheticals. But you say "if", which gets you into this alternate reality, and then you stay there. You just consider what it would be like if your dad's ideas made any sense, and then you cement it into place and leave it at that.

I'm not sure what you mean by the word "if" gets me into an alternate reality. I believe this model makes sense. I'm also not sure what you mean by "cement it into place and leave it at that." I'm explaining the model. What else am I suppose to do?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That "because" does not belong there as the statement that follows that word does not in any way, shape, or form address the issue of teleportation of photons.

Yes it does LadyShea. If the requirements of efferent vision are met, then that automatically means the light is present at the retina. That's why Lessans said that when the photons got to Earth we would see each other, but this is not necessary for distant objects, as long as these objects are bright enough to be seen. I know you believe afferent vision is a fact, and that's okay. This knowledge really doesn't change anything as far as any of the technologies that are in use. That's why there really is no point talking about this over and over again. We can agree to disagree.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So he says. We have no reason to believe that this is true.

On the first page of this thread you were asked to provide a reason for why we should read Lessans' book and take him seriously. You have still not managed to accomplish that seemingly simple task. You have, however, provided hours of amusement. For that I thank you.

Actually, I prefer the word 'reflect' but I have been using 'bounce' because reflect seems to give you the heebie-jeebies.

Light begins to disperse from the moment it is emitted or reflected and it continues to travel along the path of dispersion until it is either absorbed or redirected. There is no "only goes so far".

It only goes so far in the sense of being able to provide an image on a sensor. It doesn't travel with that pattern until it is absorbed or redirected. It joins with the other light in the visual spectrum. I do understand the dilemma especially because of the Deep Hubble Field which everyone believes is absolute proof that we see images from light only. It seems to me that people are up in arms because if efferent vision was true, they believe it would somehow take away from the mystery of the distant past. I had no intention to take away anyone's worldview if it was going to cause such an upheaval.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes it does LadyShea. If the requirements of efferent vision are met, then that automatically means the light is present at the retina.

You still have to explain how light photons come to be at the location of the retina or camera film.

Light doesn't stop being light when we see it. Light doesn't change it's properties because of lenses. The laws of physics don't see to exist in the "visual range", correct?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes it does LadyShea. If the requirements of efferent vision are met, then that automatically means the light is present at the retina.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You still have to explain how light photons come to be at the location of the retina or camera film.

This is due to the way the eyes work in this model. The light becomes a condition of sight that allows this type of vision to occur by producing a mirror image on the retina (which takes no time) when the brain is looking out, through the eyes, as a window. This is the whole concept and somehow you still think photons have to travel or teleport to be instantly at the retina. We could not see without light, but as I said many times, it doesn't have to travel or teleport anywhere if this version of sight is correct because we're not interpreting the light; we're seeing the object as it is in real time, which makes a world of difference.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light doesn't stop being light when we see it. Light doesn't change it's properties because of lenses. The laws of physics don't see to exist in the "visual range", correct?

Light is not changing its properties. It's just that if this model is correct the non-absorbed light, or pattern, doesn't disperse and travel forever. It joins the other light in the spectrum.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

travel with that pattern

How many times do you need to be corrected on this point? Nobody thinks light "travels with a pattern". That is a strawman version of optics, not what optics actually states.

Light travels. full stop.

[LadyShea]

It seems to me that people are up in arms because if efferent vision was true, they believe it would somehow take away from the mystery of the distant past. I had to intention to take away anyone's worldview if it was going to cause such an upheaval.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes it does LadyShea. If the requirements of efferent vision are met, then that automatically means the light is present at the retina.

HOW?

How is it present at the retina? By what mechanism, means and method?

Your entire "model" amounts to the viciously circular: "if the conditions for seeing in real time are met, we see in real time." It means NOTHING.

And I know that you know this. That's what makes you dishonest and disgusting.

That's why Lessans said that when the photons got to Earth we would see each other, but this is not necessary for distant objects, as long as these objects are bright enough to be seen. I know you believe afferent vision is a fact, and that's okay. This knowledge really doesn't change anything as far as any of the technologies that are in use.

We've already given you hundreds of different examples of how everything we know breaks down if this were true, you dissembling little shit. In fact, if real-time seeing were possible, we've already shown you that there would be no eyes to see since life in such a universe could not exist. Yet like an empty-headed wind-up doll with a cheap tape recording inside of it you keep endlessly repeating your dishonest and vacuous nonsense.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why is that a meaningless statement? That's a condition of this model.

Because you haven't explained or defined what these things are supposed to be in any way that makes sense. Worse, you keep contradicting yourself.

I'm not sure what you mean by the word "if" gets me into an alternate reality. I believe this model makes sense. I'm also not sure what you mean by cement it into place and leave it at that." What am I suppose to do?

It's possible for you to believe it makes sense because you don't have the faintest idea how physics, light, vision work.

You said before that the way you approach these writings is that you assume they are correct, start from there (that's the hypothetical, as it turns out alternate reality because it doesn't match up with the real one) and then rummage around in there, constructing all sorts of mechanisms that don't have anything to do with reality.

At some point, it would be the reasonable thing to return to the starting point and remember that you simply assumed the truth of what you're trying to prove at the beginning. If it could be made to work, there still would be no rational reason to believe it. The other problem is that it can't be made to work. Every single part of it is almost certainly false, and if your Dad (I don't know why you keep calling him Lessans) is wrong, then you're trying to do something that's impossible. Why don't you pick up a good physics book instead and start learning? You may learn that your Dad was wrong about most of those scientists after all. He never bothered trying to learn about the things he was pontificating about, that doesn't mean you have to do the same.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is due to the eyes being able to see in real time, therefore the light is the bridge, or condition, that allows this type of vision to occur by producing a mirror image on the retina (which takes no time) when the brain is looking out, through the eyes, at the world. This is the whole concept and somehow you still think photons have to teleport. We could not see without light, but as I said many times, it doesn't bring the image to us to be interpreted.

Light photons must be present on the surface of camera film to chemically react with the coating and produce a photographic image.

You know this is a flaw in your reasoning, so you weasel around talking about eyes and brains.

How do photons get to be at the location of the surface of camera film in your model?

Do not mention eyes or brains if you are truly not guilty of dishonesty and weaseling on purpose.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you have guts to write to my sister and ask her to come on this forum, telling her you're worried about my mental health. I told you she's not interested, but what do you do? You go behind my back? What nerve you have.

Don't be ridiculous. You did not tell me she's not interested. You did not tell me not to contact her, and I did not go behind your back. Here is our exchange on this:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Not what I asked, but as you haven't raised any objection I'll invite her too.

Also, here is the text of the email I sent to her:

Hello <name>,

You don't know me, but I know your sister <Peacegirl's name>. You may or may not be aware of this, but she has spent a significant amount of her time over the last 8 years promoting and discussing the writings of your father Seymour Lessans on various internet discussion boards under the username 'peacegirl'. Discussion is presently continuing at freethought-forum.com (links below), and we'd welcome your perspective and comments on this topic should you be able to spare the time. To be honest, many of us are concerned for her mental health and well-being, as she has been doing this for a very long time and yet still doesn't seem to be making much sense. We are hoping you might be able to shed some light on all of this by sharing your perspective on the material. <Peacegirl> says you are as convinced of the validity of Lessans' writings as she is. Is this the case? If so, perhaps you might be able to explain things a little more clearly than she has so far managed to do. We will certainly value your input in either case. (You will need to register at the forum before being able to post comments.) <Peacegirl> has also allowed me to contact your daughter with the same invitation. We will look forward to hearing from either of you.

It would have been deceptive and dishonest not to have mentioned my reasons for inviting her.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Here's what she emailed me. This is crazy! They are crazy! I have no intention of interacting with these ego maniacs. Love you!

Like I'm going to take your word for what she says. She should be as concerned for your mental health as we are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How many times do you need to be corrected on this point? Nobody thinks light "travels with a pattern". That is a strawman version of optics, not what optics actually states.

Light travels. full stop.

Now you're changing things. That's the term Spacemonkey used, so I'm using it as well.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you I could replace the word "eyes" for camera. It doesn't matter because they work the same way.

STILL not an answer to what I asked. Why are you so pathologically incapable of answering a question? Do you now agree that the non-absorbed light hitting an object does bounce off, and that you were wrong to previously claim otherwise?

And if you think you can replace the word "eyes" and still have an explanation that works for cameras, then do it. Explain how real time photography works without speaking of eyes, brains, or vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to talk about photons traveling because it will always turn out in favor of the afferent position, but has nothing to do with how the eyes work in actuality.

But there are traveling photons in your model. And I'm not asking you about eyes. You can't just refuse to talk about those parts of your model that don't work. That is not intellectually honest. It is not the behaviour of someone interested in the truth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They do add up.

You are arguing with yourself again. If you are going to reply to my posts, you could at least show me the common courtesy of properly reading what you are replying to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The afferent model only has to explain what is believed to be going on, but it doesn't make it correct.

What do you mean "not true"? How do you know what's true or not? You're just using the theory that the eyes are a sense organ to fit the premise. Does this mean that just because it's the accepted model, and gives the appearance of being foolproof, that it's factual? No.

The afferent model does not explain what is believed to be going on. The afferent model states what is believed to be going on. What it explains is our direct observations of reality. You can posit whatever you want within your model, but you don't get to criticize the afferent model for not explaining things which are only true if your account is correct. The afferent model does not have to explain why we allegedly cannot see or photograph an object unless the object itself still exists and is in range at the time the photograph is taken. We don't have to explain that. It is not an established fact, so it is not part of what an adequate account of vision or photography needs to explain.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will talk about the eyes because that's where the information comes from. You can replace eyes for film, if you choose.

No, that's what YOU need to do, in order to explain real time photography. YOU need to explain what is happening with an object, light, and a camera to produce a real time image, and you have to be able to do it without talking about eyes, brains, or vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with teleportation because of the fact that the first premise in efferent vision is that the eyes are seeing the real object in real time. If this is true, then the image shows up on the film/retina instantly as a mirror image because the light is not bringing the image to the eyes (which would require travel time).

That's exactly why it would be teleportation. If efferent vision requires images consisting of light to show up instantly at the film/retina without any travel time, then efferent vision requires teleporting light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You continue to come from the afferent position, without considering the first premise in efferent vision, which is causing major confusion.

I am not coming from a position of afferent vision. That is just your constant dishonest weasel-response. I am considering your first premise, and I am asking you to follow through the implications this premise has for the behavior of light in your model. You refuse to do so, and keep refusing to even discuss those parts of your model which you know do not work.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now you're changing things. That's the term Spacemonkey used, so I'm using it as well.

Where did he use "with a pattern"?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now you're changing things. That's the term Spacemonkey used, so I'm using it as well.

Please quote me saying that. Don't attribute your own mistakes to me.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

They are Yes or No questions, Peacegirl. The photons have to either be where I said or not be where I said. And think about what you just said: Even though there are traveling photons, I am allegedly losing the concept by asking about traveling photons. That's pretty stupid, even for you. If they are there then I get to ask about them. Try again (minus the weasel).

BUMP.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light photons must be present on the surface of camera film to chemically react with the coating and produce a photographic image.

You know this is a flaw in your reasoning, so you weasel around talking about eyes and brains.

How do photons get to be at the location of the surface of camera film in your model?

Do not mention eyes or brains if you are truly not guilty of dishonesty and weaseling on purpose.

It works the same way. If the object (the real substance) is large enough and bright enough to be seen, then that light is at the film when the lens is aimed AT THE OBJECT. A mirror image will be present at the film, which does not travel. It isn't necessary for the light to travel to Earth for this interaction to occur. We just wouldn't be able to take a photograph of each other because the photons have not reached Earth for another 8.3 minutes.

[LadyShea]

A mirror image will be present at the film, which does not travel. Again, this mirror image occurs because it isn't necessary for the light to travel to Earth for this interaction to occur. We just wouldn't be able to take a photograph of each other because the photons have not reached Earth for another 8.3 minutes.

Photons must be present on the surface of camera film to chemically react with the coating and produce a photographic image.

You know this is a flaw in your reasoning, so you weasel around talking about eyes and brains.

How do photons get to be at the location of the surface of camera film in your model?

Right now, in the explanation above, you have them teleporting...that's what this sentence describes "A mirror image will be present at the film, which does not travel". Is that your model, that they teleport?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please quote me saying that. Don't attribute your own mistakes to me.

Maybe it was Davidm who used the word pattern. I am trying not to cause a strawman by saying the image travels in the light.

[LadyShea]

Maybe it was Davidm who used the word pattern. I am trying not to cause a strawman by saying the image travels in the light.

Saying anything travels with or in or on the light is a strawman.

Light travels. That is a complete sentence and a complete thought. There is nothing in, on, or with the light, there is only light.

Get it?