#11976  
Old 10-08-2011, 11:15 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This reference clearly indicates he knew that light strikes the retina.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 116
But this is a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

Lessans said that did he? So when exactly did he add "other than light", peacegirl?

That was not present in the sentence back in 2006
Quote:
But this is a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because nothing from the external world impinges on the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.
Sure looks like you did more editing to correct what Lessans very clearly was wrong about (like with molecules).
I did not edit that. I might have found "other than light" in another one of his books. I have gone through 7 books and he changed the sentences to clarify them, not me. I improved on the sentence structure, or changed a few words. I also added some examples. But I swear I did not add "other than light."
Which version were you working from when you were discussing this 5 years ago? Quite frankly I don't believe you didn't add it. In fact, I think you added it specifically because everyone on that forum told you that light hits the eyes.
Reply With Quote
  #11977  
Old 10-08-2011, 11:17 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
What is most important is finding out how the brain works. If it turns out that we see the world in real time, a camera would take a photograph of the world in real time. I want to leave it at that because this discussion is getting all convoluted.
Does Lessans claim light at the object is a necessary condition of sight or not? Why can't you admit that this is your claim and not his?

Cameras cannot take real-time images because, as you have now agreed, the image is formed on the basis of the properties of light present at the camera which has taken time to arrive.

I know you'd like to "leave it at that". You always try to weasel out of discussion when the cognitive dissonance becomes too strong. Tough. Deal with the points and follow through the implications of your own claims instead of running away from them.
Reply With Quote
  #11978  
Old 10-08-2011, 11:20 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

I'm trying to establish whether there is an alternate explanation as to what we're seeing.

...

It would be interesting to observe. I understand that there seems to be no other explanation for the difference in the time it takes for the moon to come out from behind Jupiter, but please explain why my experiment could not be performed accurately? Why would the speed of light cause the experiment to fail? You said I would need to know a lot about optics, science and mathematics before I begin. Why is that? And what kind of money are you talking about? All I would need is a professional photographer to help me set it up. I feel more secure doing an experiment close to home where I could control the variables.
I don't really see how repeating the experiment would help you discern an alternative explanation. You have the facts: the results of the experiment. You don't seem to dispute these. So how will getting the same facts again help you find an alternative explanation?

As for your experiment, I don't understand it at all. I read your description, and I don't see how it would test any hypothesis at all. Perhaps you can explain it better, but without knowing what your experiment is attempting to test, I can't possibly comment on whether it would work. I do not understand it, as you have described it, at all.

As for optics, science and so on, I think for basic experiments you would need to learn some mathematics (such as how to work out how far away Jupiter would get from the Earth during the time of an eclipse), how to correctly construct an experiment (for example do you know what a hypothesis is, in the scientific sense?). These aren't always necessary, but can't hurt. For more complicated experiments you may need to know about interferometry or calculus, because that is just how some of the more complicated experiments work. This can be a lot more difficult.

As for money, that depends on what sort of experiment you have in mind. Again, I can't comment on the specifics because your described experiment makes zero sense to me.
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #11979  
Old 10-08-2011, 11:26 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

She thinks if light travels we should be able to take a picture, with a regular camera, of someone standing too far away to be seen through the viewfinder or with the eyes, just by collecting the traveling photons.

We had explained how Hubble was able to create the Deep Field Image without those galaxies being "in view", so assumes we should able to do something similar on Earth.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (10-08-2011)
  #11980  
Old 10-08-2011, 11:35 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Oh dear. Though I still don't really understand what her experiment attempts to test. The process by which we collected Deep Field data, is that the confused idea?

I'm not quite sure who thought bringing the Hubble Deep Field up to a person who struggles to comprehend the basics of light was a good idea, but I hope you've learned your lesson 475 pages later.
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #11981  
Old 10-08-2011, 11:37 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Seems to me that in peacegirls experiment that other light here on Earth would overwhelm the light being reflected off the distant person, and the image would be overexposed (all white) with any normal camera.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (10-09-2011)
  #11982  
Old 10-08-2011, 11:37 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
As for money, that depends on what sort of experiment you have in mind. Again, I can't comment on the specifics because your described experiment makes zero sense to me.

I believe that she was saying that if a person was 'out of the line of sight' we would not be able to take a picture of them, but if they then moved 'into the line of sight', we would be able to take a picture of them. Doesn't really prove anything we didn't already know, just serves to confuse the issue, as usual.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (10-09-2011)
  #11983  
Old 10-08-2011, 11:39 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Seems to me that in peacegirls experiment that other light here on Earth would overwhelm the light being reflected off the distant person, and the image would be overexposed (all white) with any normal camera.
Yes. You could try to do it at night or in a very dark lab. But long exposure photography is well understood and uncontroversial, and again I'm not sure what she thinks it would test (if this is even her goal).
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (10-08-2011)
  #11984  
Old 10-08-2011, 11:40 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
As for money, that depends on what sort of experiment you have in mind. Again, I can't comment on the specifics because your described experiment makes zero sense to me.

I believe that she was saying that if a person was 'out of the line of sight' we would not be able to take a picture of them, but if they then moved 'into the line of sight', we would be able to take a picture of them. Doesn't really prove anything we didn't already know, just serves to confuse the issue, as usual.
That's how I read it, hence my confusion.
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #11985  
Old 10-08-2011, 11:42 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Oh dear. Though I still don't really understand what her experiment attempts to test. The process by which we collected Deep Field data, is that the confused idea?

I'm not quite sure who thought bringing the Hubble Deep Field up to a person who struggles to comprehend the basics of light was a good idea, but I hope you've learned your lesson 475 pages later.
Guilty

The Hubble Deep Field was in response to her previous claims that we can only see/photograph objects that are "in view" and only in real time, and that photons are somehow dependent on their emitting source for their continued existence.

She basically said we couldn't get an image of something as it was in the past, or an image of something that has ceased to exist since the light was emitted.

So, now she thinks the local photographer can collect enough photons off objects too distant to be "in view" to create an image/photograph without any special equipment or conditions.

Last edited by LadyShea; 10-09-2011 at 12:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (10-09-2011)
  #11986  
Old 10-08-2011, 11:51 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Oh dear. Though I still don't really understand what her experiment attempts to test. The process by which we collected Deep Field data, is that the confused idea?

I'm not quite sure who thought bringing the Hubble Deep Field up to a person who struggles to comprehend the basics of light was a good idea, but I hope you've learned your lesson 475 pages later.
Guilty

The Hubble Deep Field was in response to her previous claims that we can only see/photograph objects that are "in view" and only in real time, and that photons are somehow dependent on their emitting source for their continued existence.

She basically said we couldn't get an image of something as it was in the past, or an image of something that has ceased to exist since the light was emitted.

So, now she thinks the local photographer can collect enough photons off objects too distant to be "in view" and create an image/photograph without any special equipment or conditions.
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #11987  
Old 10-09-2011, 12:13 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Flyover Hillbilly
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: MXDXXVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
On the other hand, many experiments have been done to test how fast last travels.

....................

Srsly.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (10-09-2011)
  #11988  
Old 10-09-2011, 12:15 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This reference clearly indicates he knew that light strikes the retina.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 116
But this is a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

Lessans said that did he? So when exactly did he add "other than light", peacegirl?

That was not present in the sentence back in 2006
Quote:
But this is a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because nothing from the external world impinges on the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.
Sure looks like you did more editing to correct what Lessans very clearly was wrong about (like with molecules).
I did not edit that. I might have found "other than light" in another one of his books. I have gone through 7 books and he changed the sentences to clarify them, not me. I improved on the sentence structure, or changed a few words. I also added some examples. But I swear I did not add "other than light."
Which version were you working from when you were discussing this 5 years ago? Quite frankly I don't believe you didn't add it. In fact, I think you added it specifically because everyone on that forum told you that light hits the eyes.
That's not true. That was his sentence whether you believe it or not.
Reply With Quote
  #11989  
Old 10-09-2011, 12:17 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
What properties? ... Wavelength

Properties of what? ... Light

Where is the 'what' with these properties? ... At the camera

I don't disagree with you. But those questions don't change the fact that the properties of light may still support efferent vision. In other words, if it turns out that light is a condition of sight (which has to do with the brain, not light) then those properties don't automatically negate efferent vision? And if efferent vision turns out to be true, then it would seem to me that a camera, being similar to the eye, would work the same way.
Your answers are inconsistent with your claims that cameras can form real-time images of photographed objects.

When the object is RED, RED light is arriving at the camera. When the object first changes from RED to BLUE, the BLUE light is only just beginning to leave the object to travel towards the camera. And the light presently AT the camera is still RED, having left the object when it was still a RED object. So your answers entail that the formed image will be RED when the real-time object is BLUE.

Hence by your own answers, real-time photography is impossible.

How can blue light from an object only just now turned blue be instantaneously present at the camera to form a real-time blue image? What color was that already present light just before it arrived at the camera?
Peacegirl?
Reply With Quote
  #11990  
Old 10-09-2011, 12:26 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
What is most important is finding out how the brain works. If it turns out that we see the world in real time, a camera would take a photograph of the world in real time. I want to leave it at that because this discussion is getting all convoluted.
Does Lessans claim light at the object is a necessary condition of sight or not? Why can't you admit that this is your claim and not his?

Cameras cannot take real-time images because, as you have now agreed, the image is formed on the basis of the properties of light present at the camera which has taken time to arrive.
It appears that this is the only logical answer. The light travels to the lens from the object, therefore the light is dated. That's why I want to do the experiment. If the image of the person is not detected by the lens when the photons are being reflected in a straight line, why would the image not show up? And why would the image show up when the person moves a foot forward and the lens is able to form an image because the object [the person] is in the field of view of the lens. Wouldn't that tell you something? Wouldn't that indicate that the object or light source has to be present? And if that's the case, we wouldn't be able to see an event (such as Columbus discovering America) when the event is in the past, although we could see remnants of something that occurred in the past.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I know you'd like to "leave it at that". You always try to weasel out of discussion when the cognitive dissonance becomes too strong. Tough. Deal with the points and follow through the implications of your own claims instead of running away from them.
This is not going to work because every time you give this explanation, it will seem that this is the only explanation possible.
Reply With Quote
  #11991  
Old 10-09-2011, 12:33 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It appears that this is the only logical answer. The light travels to the lens from the object, therefore the light is dated. That's why I want to do the experiment. If the image of the person is not detected by the lens when the photons are being reflected in a straight line, why would the image not show up? And why would the image show up when the person moves a foot forward and the lens is able to form an image. Wouldn't that tell you something?

This is not going to work because every time you give this explanation, it will seem that this is the only explanation possible.
If there is no other logically possible answer, no experiment is going to help you either. If you can't even conceive of an experimental outcome that would resolve the problem, then experiments are beside the point.

You have claimed that the wavelength of the light present at the camera, at the very moment the object changes color, is what determines the color of the real-time photographic image.

So how does light matching the real-time color of the just-changed object get from the object to the camera instantaneously?

Your claim that cameras can match the real-time imaging of efferent vision is incoherent and impossible. You can see this for yourself, but you just keep on resorting to faith instead of accepting your own conclusions.
Reply With Quote
  #11992  
Old 10-09-2011, 12:34 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
On the other hand, many experiments have been done to test how fast last travels.

....................

Srsly.
:yup:
Reply With Quote
  #11993  
Old 10-09-2011, 12:40 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
On the other hand, many experiments have been done to test how fast last travels.

....................

Srsly.
:yup:
If the speed of light remains constant, then how does newly emitted BLUE light from a now-BLUE object get from the object to the camera instantaneously to interact with the film? Or how can the already present light be BLUE when it was RED just before it arrived (when the object was still RED)?
Reply With Quote
  #11994  
Old 10-09-2011, 12:45 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It appears that this is the only logical answer. The light travels to the lens from the object, therefore the light is dated. That's why I want to do the experiment. If the image of the person is not detected by the lens when the photons are being reflected in a straight line, why would the image not show up? And why would the image show up when the person moves a foot forward and the lens is able to form an image. Wouldn't that tell you something?

This is not going to work because every time you give this explanation, it will seem that this is the only explanation possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If there is no other logically possible answer, no experiment is going to help you either. If you can't even conceive of an experimental outcome that would resolve the problem, then experiments are beside the point.
It is not beside the point. If an experiment contradicts what is supposed to happen according to a particular theory, then that theory has to be reconstructed or at least questioned. Even David says that. The mechanism as to how this occurs comes later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You have claimed that the wavelength of the light present at the camera, at the very moment the object changes color, is what determines the color of the real-time photographic image.
It isn't just the wavelength that is arriving at the lens. I'm going back to using the phrase "mirror image". It is the fact that the object has to be present that changes the entire perspective of what is occurring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So how does light matching the real-time color of the just-changed object get from the object to the camera instantaneously?

Your claim that cameras can match the real-time imaging of efferent vision is incoherent and impossible. You can see this for yourself, but you just keep on resorting to faith instead of accepting your own conclusions.
It's impossible if this is your logic. It's not impossible if there is an alternate logic. The lens focuses on THE OBJECT and the light is the flip side, so to speak. Why do we see an exact mirror image of a nature scene in a lake. We're not getting a dated image. This is the same phenomenon.
Reply With Quote
  #11995  
Old 10-09-2011, 12:50 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
On the other hand, many experiments have been done to test how fast last travels.

....................

Srsly.
:yup:
If the speed of light remains constant, then how does newly emitted BLUE light from a now-BLUE object get from the object to the camera instantaneously to interact with the film? Or how can the already present light be BLUE when it was RED just before it arrived (when the object was still RED)?
You keep saying that but you keep forgetting the most important thing. The object HAS TO BE PRESENT. If you can show me someone that is not in view of the camera and the lens collects the photons and forms an image of that person, I will concede that my father was completely wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #11996  
Old 10-09-2011, 01:02 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It isn't just the wavelength that is arriving at the lens. I'm going back to using the phrase "mirror image".
Then you are flip-flopping again, and need to go back and revise your answers to my previous questions.

No experiment can validate Lessan's claims if they require something logically impossible by your own reasoning.

What properties of what, and where, determine the color of a photographic image by interacting with the film?

I said it was the wavelengths of the light present at the camera. You agreed (without explaining how that would make real-time images possible), but now you are withdrawing that agreement and need to answer the same questions again.
Reply With Quote
  #11997  
Old 10-09-2011, 01:07 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You keep saying that but you keep forgetting the most important thing. The object HAS TO BE PRESENT. If you can show me someone that is not in view of the camera and the lens collects the photons and forms an image of that person, I will concede that my father was completely wrong.
I'm not forgetting that. It's flat out wrong. (And it has repeatedly been explained to you that doing this with a person would require that person to be further away from the camera than is practically feasible.) If you can coherently explain to me how a camera can possibly form real-time images with respect to color, then I'll publish his book for you myself.
Reply With Quote
  #11998  
Old 10-09-2011, 01:44 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
On the other hand, many experiments have been done to test how fast last travels.

....................

Srsly.
:yup:
If the speed of light remains constant, then how does newly emitted BLUE light from a now-BLUE object get from the object to the camera instantaneously to interact with the film? Or how can the already present light be BLUE when it was RED just before it arrived (when the object was still RED)?
You keep saying that but you keep forgetting the most important thing. The object HAS TO BE PRESENT. If you can show me someone that is not in view of the camera and the lens collects the photons and forms an image of that person, I will concede that my father was completely wrong.
So what exactly is a rainbow object?
Reply With Quote
  #11999  
Old 10-09-2011, 01:46 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
If the image of the person is not detected by the lens when the photons are being reflected in a straight line, why would the image not show up?
Science of photography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote
  #12000  
Old 10-09-2011, 01:51 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't disagree with you. But those questions don't change the fact that the properties of light may still support efferent vision. In other words, if it turns out that light is a condition of sight (which has to do with the brain, not light) then those properties don't automatically negate efferent vision? And if efferent vision turns out to be true, then it would seem to me that a camera, being similar to the eye, would work the same way.
Light is a condition of sight. The reason why that negates "efferent vision" is because light is not a condition of "efferent vision". Yet nobody sees without light. And they only see the image from the light that has just arrived. They do not see objects instantaneously. This is not a conjecture. This is a cold hard fact.

This is what negates "efferent vision". So "efferent vision" is not a conjecture, it is just wrong.

Tell me again why "efferent vision" is so important? Is it just because you can't bear the thought that Lessans might have been wrong about it?
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.14990 seconds with 14 queries