A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is not a physical mechanism by which the light comes to be located at the surface of camera film. You are stating only that it is located there, not how it comes to be located there.

All I have to do is explain the observation. Think about this again. Imagine you're in a shoe box and you're looking up at the Sun that was just turned on. You see the Sun although the photons haven't yet arrived on Earth so you cannot see anything on Earth because there's no light from which to see anything. If you are able to see the Sun that means it is within your field of view (one of the requirements of efferent vision), and it's bright enough which means that the light from the Sun must be interacting with your retina (or film). Although photons are traveling, you are getting a mirror image, which I still don't think you understand.

You keep thinking that because light travels (which I'm not disputing), it must be taking the pattern of the object with it, but that is not what is happening.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, I am thinking that if light is in a location, it had to come to be located there by a physical mechanism, which you are not providing.

If I see an object in real time, this means that the light (the condition that allows efferent sight to be possible) has to be at my retina. Everything about efferent vision is the complete opposite of the afferent account, therefore you have to think in these terms if you're ever going to get it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I have to do is explain the observation. Think about this again. Imagine you're in a shoe box and you're looking up at the Sun that was just turned on. You see the Sun although the photons haven't yet arrived on Earth so you cannot see anything on Earth because there's just darkness. If you are able to see the Sun that means it is within your field of view (one of the requirements of efferent vision), which means that the light from the Sun must be interacting with your retina, or film, if you're using a camera. Although photons are traveling, you are getting a mirror image, which I don't think you understand.

That's not an observation. It is a hypothetical scenario, and one that you have not shown to be possible. The only light that can interact with a film or retina is light that is in physical contact with it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I see an object in real time, this means that the light (the condition that allows efferent sight to be possible) has to necessarily be my retina. Everything about efferent vision is the complete opposite of the afferent account, and you have to think in these terms or you're going to get confused.

Yes, the light would have to be at the film or retina. So how did it get there?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

There are no red photons if the object is not red. We cannot see red photons Spacemonkey; we see the object through the red photons. You're still stuck in the afferent account.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no red photons if the object is not red. We cannot see red photons Spacemonkey; we see the object through the red photons. You're still stuck in the afferent account.

What does this non-response have to do with my post? Did you even read what you were replying to?

The object is red when the photograph is taken, so there are red photons at the film. The object is not seen through the red photons, because there are no eyes and therefore no seeing going on in this scenario. There were no red photons at the previous moment when the object was still blue. So you need to explain where these red photons came from and how they got to the film. Your previous answer, which I quoted, required them to teleport instantaneously from the object to the film.

I am asking you about the specific red photons which are at the film when the photograph is taken. How do they get to the film? Where did they come from? Where were they at the immediately previous moment (when the object was still blue)?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I know I have suggested this before, but I am going to try again. Go into a darkened room. Take a mirror and flashlight with you. Position the mirror so that it is facing a blank wall a foot or so distant from the mirror. Shine the flashlight at the mirror. Observe the spot of light that appears on the wall opposite the mirror. Then come back here and tell us that the light which was not absorbed by the mirror did not bounce off the surface of the mirror, travel across the room and strike the wall.

Have you tried this yet, peacegirl? If you have, what were the results?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The physical mechanism that allows the light to interact is exactly what I said: the light is surrounding the object and the lens is within the object's field of view, which places the light, or mirror image, at the film.

Is that really what you meant to write?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's not an observation. It is a hypothetical scenario, and one that you have not shown to be possible. The only light that can interact with a film or retina is light that is in physical contact with it.

But it is in physical contact if we're in the object's field of view because we couldn't see the object otherwise.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I see an object in real time, this means that the light (the condition that allows efferent sight to be possible) has to necessarily be my retina. Everything about efferent vision is the complete opposite of the afferent account, and you have to think in these terms or you're going to get confused.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, the light would have to be at the film or retina. So how did it get there?

If we can see the object, the light is already there. It doesn't mean the photons aren't traveling but you have to work this backwards. If I see a blue object, it's because the blue photons are striking my eye.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Is that really what you meant to write?

Yes. I am trying to describe what allows us to see an object in real time. The mechanism goes back to how the brain works.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it is in physical contact if we're in the object's field of view because we couldn't see the object otherwise.

Since you just did it again I guess that was what you meant to write.

Is the object, whatever it might be, now looking back at us? What do you suppose it is seeing?

Looking Back To See

ETA

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes. I am trying to describe what allows us to see an object in real time. The mechanism goes back to how the brain works.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we can see the object, the light is already there.

You have located the light "there" and stated the light is "already there". By what physical mechanism did light come to be "there"?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it is in physical contact if we're in the object's field of view because we couldn't see the object otherwise.

Of course the photons have to be in physical contact with the film. The question is how they got to be there. And you just said that we could see the Sun when no photons have arrived on Earth. That means there would be no photons at the retina, so the physical contact that you agree to be necessary would not exist.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we can see the object, the light is already there. It doesn't mean the photons aren't traveling but you have to work this backwards. If I see a blue object, it's because the blue photons are striking my eye.

Yes, the light is already there. But how did it get there? Working backwards is exactly what I am asking you to do, and exactly what you are refusing to do. When the photograph is taken, we have a red object and we have red photons in contact with the film. Now let's work backwards from that. At the immediately preceding moment, we have a blue object, and we have blue photons at the film. At this earlier moment, where are those specific red photons which at the very next moment are at the film?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes. I am trying to describe what allows us to see an object in real time. The mechanism goes back to how the brain works.

You didn't even read the post, did you? Are you saying that you deliberately wrote that the lens is within the object's field of view, rather than that the object is within the lens's field of view?

And the mechanism for how cameras allegedly take photographs in real-time cannot go back to how the brain works.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we can see the object, the light is already there.

This is one of the most bizarre parts of your mental dysfunction. You seem to believe that having light already there at the film somehow excludes you from having to explain how that light got there.

If I go to the bank to see the bank manager, and I find that he is already there when I arrive, does that mean there is no need to explain how he got there? Obviously he still had some means of getting to his place of work earlier in the day. He presumably drove there, took public transportation, or rode a bicycle. Maybe he even teleported there. In any case, the mere fact that he is already there when I arrive still leaves explanation of his own means of getting to the bank wide open.

So how did the red photons at the film get there? Where were they just before the photograph was taken?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We cannot see red photons Spacemonkey; we see the object through the red photons.

Totally wrong, the eye reacts to photons striking and being absorbed by the retina, the retina then send signals to the brain that are intrepreted as images. The eye does not, and cannot directly contact the object but must wait for the photons that have been reflected from the object to arrive at the eye. Therefore we see a delayed image of the object.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I have to do is explain the observation. Think about this again. Imagine you're in a shoe box and you're looking up at the Sun that was just turned on. You see the Sun although the photons haven't yet arrived on Earth so you cannot see anything on Earth because there's no light from which to see anything. If you are able to see the Sun that means it is within your field of view (one of the requirements of efferent vision), and it's bright enough which means that the light from the Sun must be interacting with your retina (or film). Although photons are traveling, you are getting a mirror image, which I still don't think you understand.

That's it! peacegirls brain is in a shoe box.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

That's it! peacegirls brain is in a shoe box.

Must have been very small shoes. Maybe sneakies? Or loafers?

[LadyShea]

Imagine you're in a shoe box and you're looking up at the Sun that was just turned on.

The shoe box analogy is very odd. What does the shoe box represent? How am I looking up at the sun from inside a shoe box? Is the lid off? Is the sun in the shoe box with me?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Imagine you're in a shoe box and you're looking up at the Sun that was just turned on.

No, lets just imagine we are all sitting around a table haveing a nice glass of wine or beer or whatever you like, talking about how "Isin't interesting how light travels, and is reflected from objects to our eyes, and the speed of light is so fast that it seems to be instantaneous", "Wouldn't it be sad that some poor fool mistakes that speed for instant vision"? Isn't imagination wonderful that so many people can invent so many wonderful fantasys and dupe unsuspecting suckers into believing it, and isn't it good that some ideas are so outrageous that no-one believes them because they are so wrong as to be compleatly unbelievable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What does this non-response have to do with my post? Did you even read what you were replying to?

The object is red when the photograph is taken, so there are red photons at the film. The object is not seen through the red photons, because there are no eyes and therefore no seeing going on in this scenario. There were no red photons at the previous moment when the object was still blue. So you need to explain where these red photons came from and how they got to the film. Your previous answer, which I quoted, required them to teleport instantaneously from the object to the film.

I am asking you about the specific red photons which are at the film when the photograph is taken. How do they get to the film? Where did they come from? Where were they at the immediately previous moment (when the object was still blue)?

I see the problem here and we're never going to come to a mutual understanding. I understand the dilemma perfectly. You cannot grasp how we can see an object, whether or not it is in our field of view due to its size and brightness, without the light between the object and the retina or film, to actually travel to the eye or film in order to make contact. All I can tell you is that light does not have to travel for it to be the connecting link to seeing the object in real time. This mechanism, which to you sounds ridiculous, is the very thing that allows a mirror image to be at the retina or film instantly when the object is in view, without the non-absorbed light having to travel to Earth first. I think this conversation needs to come to an end because there is no way I can convince you that this phenomenon does not violate the laws of physics. Until more empirical testing is done to support this claim, the conflict in here is not going to get any better. Lessans will continue to be disrespected and no one will be interested in his first discovery which is the only thing left that I am interested in discussing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The shoe box analogy is very odd. What does the shoe box represent? How am I looking up at the sun from inside a shoe box? Is the lid off? Is the sun in the shoe box with me?

I was just trying to show that within the space between the Sun and the eye (yes, the Sun is in the shoebox), light does not have to travel to earth in order for that light to be impinging on the eye or film. Anyway, I'm really tired of discussing this subject. Only time and more testing will reveal what is true and what isn't. I'm really at the point where I would like to move on to another topic. I'm sure you all must be as tired as I am.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I see the problem here and we're never going to come to a mutual understanding. I understand the dilemma perfectly. You cannot grasp how we can see an object, whether or not it is in our field of view due to its size and brightness, without the light between the object and the retina or film, to actually travel to the eye or film in order to make contact. All I can tell you is that light does not have to travel for it to be the connecting link to seeing the object in real time. This mechanism, which to you sounds ridiculous, is the very thing that allows a mirror image to be at the retina or film instantly when the object is in view, without the non-absorbed light having to travel to Earth first. I think this conversation needs to come to an end because there is no way I can convince you that this phenomenon does not violate the laws of physics. Until more empirical testing is done to support this claim, the conflict in here is not going to get any better. Lessans will continue to be disrespected and no one will be interested in his first discovery which is the only thing left that I am interested in discussing.

You are still weaseling. You have yet to specify any mechanism at all. You have yet to answer any of my questions. You have yet to explain where the red photons came from and how they got to the film. And now you're desperately trying to switch back to the first non-discovery which you had said you would no longer discuss. But you'll just continue weaseling and avoiding my questions on that topic too. It's all you have left to do.

[LadyShea]

I see the problem here and we're never going to come to a mutual understanding. I understand the dilemma perfectly.

I don't think you do, because you keep avoiding the direct questions and mentioning unrelated or irrelevant points.

1. Photons must be on the surface of the camera film for a photographic image to be created.

2. If the photograph is of a red object, the photons absorbed by the camera film must be red.
If the photograph is of a blue object, the photons absorbed by the camera film must be blue.

In efferent vision, what is the source of the photons that are located at the surface of the camera film, and how is the wavelength determined at the location of the camera film, and how did those photons of that wavelength come to be located at the surface of the camera film?

"Travel to Earth" is not a factor in this scenario that I can see, why did you mention it?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was just trying to show that within the space between the Sun and the eye (yes, the Sun is in the shoebox), light does not have to travel to earth in order for that light to be impinging on the eye or film.

There is still distance and many millions of specific locations a photon can be inside a shoe box. If the Sun and camera film were inside a shoe box, the light would still need to get from the sun to the surface of the camera film by some physical mechanism.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was just trying to show that within the space between the Sun and the eye (yes, the Sun is in the shoebox)...

How big is this shoebox, and why on Earth are you trying to fit so much inside it? What exactly was the point? What did the shoebox add to the scenario?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...light does not have to travel to earth in order for that light to be impinging on the eye or film.

Light cannot impinge upon anything it hasn't traveled to. Not without contradicting physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anyway, I'm really tired of discussing this subject. Only time and more testing will reveal what is true and what isn't. I'm really at the point where I would like to move on to another topic.

That's how you felt about the last topic when you switched to this one. And you were evading questions then just as you are now.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is still distance and many millions of specific locations a photon can be inside a shoe box. If the Sun and camera film were inside a shoes box, the light would still need to get from the sun to the surface of the camera film by some physical mechanism.

Only when scientists on Earth have fit the Sun inside a shoebox to perform the necessary empirical testing will we be in a position to know whether you or Lessans are right.