#14401  
Old 02-10-2012, 09:07 PM
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
Cameras don't have brains to look out. So what is doing the instant seeing in photography?
LadyShea, you do not understand this concept. I have said over and over again that the same light that the eyes use to see the object is the same exact light that is at the film (instantly) when the lens of a camera is focused on the object. The only difference is that the brain, looking through the eyes, uses that light to see the actual object in real time, and the film takes a photograph of the actual object in real time.
Then why do you keep mentioning the importance of the brain and that efferent vision is all about the brain, when no brain is required at all to detect objects in real time, only a lens?

Lessans thought the eyes were merely windows, you've made lenses where all the magic happens.

So, it seems to me, you need to stop talking about the brain completely, or start explaining why a brainless manmade machine can do the same thing a brain does.
It's not that a brainless manmade machine can do the same thing. It's that if the eyes are efferent, then we would know that the lens has to be focused on the object (the material substance); whether it's the eye's lens or a camera's lens.
Reply With Quote
  #14402  
Old 02-10-2012, 09:14 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:
It's that if the eyes are efferent, then we would know that the lens has to be focused on the object (the material substance); whether it's the eye's lens or a camera's lens.
No, that doesn't follow at all.

If vision is efferent all we know is that there needs to be a brain looking out through the eyes. Lessans statements said nothing at all about cameras or lenses, only the brain. The word efferent means "from the brain outward".

Cameras cannot be efferent or work efferently, eyes can't be efferent in the absence of a brain, therefore you really are stretching things when you try to extend efferent vision to cameras.
Reply With Quote
  #14403  
Old 02-10-2012, 09:29 PM
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:
It's that if the eyes are efferent, then we would know that the lens has to be focused on the object (the material substance); whether it's the eye's lens or a camera's lens.
No, that doesn't follow at all.

If vision is efferent all we know is that there needs to be a brain looking out through the eyes. Lessans statements said nothing at all about cameras or lenses, only the brain. The word efferent means "from the brain outward".

Cameras cannot be efferent or work efferently, eyes can't be efferent in the absence of a brain, therefore you really are stretching things when you try to extend efferent vision to cameras.
But you're not following me. If efferent vision is true, then the only difference between a lens of a camera and a lens of an eye is that with the eye, the brain is looking directly at the object USING LIGHT AS A CONDITION. With a camera, instead of the image being instantly at the retina; it lands on the film. But it's the same (P) light.
Reply With Quote
  #14404  
Old 02-10-2012, 09:41 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
If you give me one question at a time, I will answer...

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]
No, I already told you this.
Good. Next question:

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor

Last edited by Spacemonkey; 02-10-2012 at 10:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14405  
Old 02-10-2012, 09:45 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 Spacemonkey View Post
You haven't answered what I asked. Simply calling it "efferent vision" doesn't distinguish what you are describing from teleportation. Saying there is no travel time does not distinguish it from teleportation - there is also no travel time for teleportation. Saying there is an instant image at the retina does not rule out teleportation either. So what is the difference, in your mind, between photons instantaneously teleporting from the object to the camera film, and photons instantaneously (P)reflecting from the object to the camera film?

As far as I can tell, they are the same. In both cases, at one moment the very same blue-wavelength photons are at the ball striking its surface at one moment, and then at the very next moment (i.e. instantaneously, with no time or travel involved) those same photons are at the surface of the camera film and interacting with it. Where is the difference?

Spell it out for me. Like this:-

With (P)reflection, this is occurring ...[insert something here]... which does not occur with teleportation.

And with teleportation, this is occurring ...[insert something here]... which does not occur with (P)reflection. And that is the difference between the two.
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (02-10-2012)
  #14406  
Old 02-10-2012, 10:48 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 Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You haven't answered what I asked. Simply calling it "efferent vision" doesn't distinguish what you are describing from teleportation. Saying there is no travel time does not distinguish it from teleportation - there is also no travel time for teleportation. Saying there is an instant image at the retina does not rule out teleportation either. So what is the difference, in your mind, between photons instantaneously teleporting from the object to the camera film, and photons instantaneously (P)reflecting from the object to the camera film?

As far as I can tell, they are the same. In both cases, at one moment the very same blue-wavelength photons are at the ball striking its surface at one moment, and then at the very next moment (i.e. instantaneously, with no time or travel involved) those same photons are at the surface of the camera film and interacting with it. Where is the difference?

Spell it out for me. Like this:-

With (P)reflection, this is occurring ...[insert something here]... which does not occur with teleportation.

And with teleportation, this is occurring ...[insert something here]... which does not occur with (P)reflection. And that is the difference between the two.
Bump.

Pummelling a Deceased Equine?
Reply With Quote
  #14407  
Old 02-10-2012, 11:05 PM
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
If you give me one question at a time, I will answer...

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]
No, I already told you this.
Good. Next question:

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]
No, it's not absorbed by the blue object. White light bounces off the object; the blue wavelength does not bounce off the object. This is where efferent vision comes into play. The blue wavelength is the (P) light that allows the eyes to see the object when the lens is focused on it. Again, this does not mean that the photons are stationary. White light continues to replace the old photons as it strikes the object, therefore photons continue to be absorbed and (P) reflected. There is also no teleporting of photons in the efferent model of sight.
Reply With Quote
  #14408  
Old 02-10-2012, 11:32 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Good. Next question:

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]
No, it's not absorbed by the blue object.
Good. Next question:

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
White light bounces off the object; the blue wavelength does not bounce off the object. This is where efferent vision comes into play.
I'm afraid that is where a direct contradiction comes into play. White light consists of all the wavelengths of visible light. If the blue-wavelength light is not bouncing off the object, then it is false that all the wavelengths of light are bouncing off. Therefore what is bouncing off the object is no longer white light. If you disagree, then please clarify:-

1) White light consists of all the wavelengths of visible light.
[True or false?]

2) If the blue-wavelength light is not bouncing off the object, then it is false that all the wavelengths of light are bouncing off.
[True or false?]

3) If the blue-wavelength light is not bouncing off the object, then what is bouncing off the object is no longer white light.
[True or false?]
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor

Last edited by Spacemonkey; 02-10-2012 at 11:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (02-11-2012)
  #14409  
Old 02-11-2012, 12:03 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
And why do you persist in talking of the "blue-wavelength" rather than the "blue-wavelength photons/light"? 'Blue-wavelength' is an adjective, not a noun. It is a property, not a thing. Why can't you get this simple point right?
This also seems to need repeating once again.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #14410  
Old 02-11-2012, 02:57 AM
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 thedoc View Post
Pummelling a Deceased Equine?
Bumpity, bump bump?
Reply With Quote
  #14411  
Old 02-11-2012, 08:16 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 Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Good. Next question:

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]
No, it's not absorbed by the blue object.
Good. Next question:

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #14412  
Old 02-11-2012, 08:37 PM
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=Spacemonkey;1036025]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You haven't answered what I asked. Simply calling it "efferent vision" doesn't distinguish what you are describing from teleportation. Saying there is no travel time does not distinguish it from teleportation - there is also no travel time for teleportation. Saying there is an instant image at the retina does not rule out teleportation either. So what is the difference, in your mind, between photons instantaneously teleporting from the object to the camera film, and photons instantaneously (P)reflecting from the object to the camera film?

As far as I can tell, they are the same. In both cases, at one moment the very same blue-wavelength photons are at the ball striking its surface at one moment, and then at the very next moment (i.e. instantaneously, with no time or travel involved) those same photons are at the surface of the camera film and interacting with it. Where is the difference?

Spell it out for me. Like this:-

With (P)reflection, this is occurring ...the same photons are at the film/retina instantly... which does not occur with teleportation.

And with teleportation, this is occurring ...the photons are relocating from one position to another... which does not occur with (P)reflection. And that is the difference between the two.
Reply With Quote
  #14413  
Old 02-11-2012, 08:38 PM
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=Spacemonkey;1036181]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Good. Next question:

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]
No, it's not absorbed by the blue object.
Good. Next question:

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]
I answered this. NO, it does not cease to exist.
Reply With Quote
  #14414  
Old 02-11-2012, 08:42 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Good. Next question:

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]
No, it's not absorbed by the blue object.
Good. Next question:

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]
I answered this. NO, it does not cease to exist.
Good. Next question:

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #14415  
Old 02-11-2012, 08:49 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 + Spacemonkey
Spell it out for me. Like this:-

With (P)reflection, this is occurring ...the same photons are at the film/retina instantly... which does not occur with teleportation.

And with teleportation, this is occurring ...the photons are relocating from one position to another... which does not occur with (P)reflection. And that is the difference between the two.
Huh? What is the difference between the same photons which were just at the object being at the film/retina instantly, and those photons instantaneously relocating from one position to another? Aren't they exactly the same thing?

If the (P)reflected photons are hitting the object at one moment, and are then present at the distant film instantaneously at the very next moment, haven't they just relocated from one position to another?

If the photons hitting the object were to teleport by relocating instantaneously from the object's surface to the surface of the film, wouldn't that mean that they are at the film instantly just like you describe for (P)reflection?

How can the photons get from the object to the film instantly without relocating? How could they relocate via teleportation from the object to the film without thereby being at the film instantly?

Where's the difference?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #14416  
Old 02-11-2012, 08:53 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

Also, this:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
I'm afraid that is where a direct contradiction comes into play. White light consists of all the wavelengths of visible light. If the blue-wavelength light is not bouncing off the object, then it is false that all the wavelengths of light are bouncing off. Therefore what is bouncing off the object is no longer white light. If you disagree, then please clarify:-

1) White light consists of all the wavelengths of visible light.
[True or false?]

2) If the blue-wavelength light is not bouncing off the object, then it is false that all the wavelengths of light are bouncing off.
[True or false?]

3) If the blue-wavelength light is not bouncing off the object, then what is bouncing off the object is no longer white light.
[True or false?]
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #14417  
Old 02-11-2012, 10:21 PM
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Good. Next question:

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]
No, it's not absorbed by the blue object.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Good. Next question:

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
White light bounces off the object; the blue wavelength does not bounce off the object. This is where efferent vision comes into play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I'm afraid that is where a direct contradiction comes into play. White light consists of all the wavelengths of visible light. If the blue-wavelength light is not bouncing off the object, then it is false that all the wavelengths of light are bouncing off. Therefore what is bouncing off the object is no longer white light. If you disagree, then please clarify:-

1) White light consists of all the wavelengths of visible light.
[True or false?]
True

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
2) If the blue-wavelength light is not bouncing off the object, then it is false that all the wavelengths of light are bouncing off.
[True or false?]
False. Only when we look at the object directly can we see the color blue because of the object's absorption properties, but that doesn't mean that blue is not part of the white light that is bouncing off of the object.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
3) If the blue-wavelength light is not bouncing off the object, then what is bouncing off the object is no longer white light.
[True or false?]
False. The blue-wavelength light is in the white light that bounces off the object. The only reason we see blue is due to the fact that when we look at the object efferently, the (P) reflection is instantly at the film/retina. But this has nothing to do with the fact that all of the wavelengths of visible light are intact when they bounce off the object.
Reply With Quote
  #14418  
Old 02-11-2012, 10:37 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
2) If the blue-wavelength light is not bouncing off the object, then it is false that all the wavelengths of light are bouncing off.
[True or false?]
False.
Really? How can ALL the wavelengths of light be bouncing off, if the blue-wavelength light is NOT bouncing off?
(How can all Ps F, when some Ps do not F?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Only when we look at the object directly can we see the color blue because of the object's absorption properties, but that doesn't mean that blue is not part of the white light that is bouncing off of the object.
I didn't say that the blue part is not bouncing off, YOU did: "the blue wavelength does not bounce off the object". So how can all of them bounce off when some do not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
False. The blue-wavelength light is in the white light that bounces off the object. [...] all of the wavelengths of visible light are intact when they bounce off the object.
Then you were wrong to say that "the blue wavelength does not bounce off the object", and you have incorectly answered the very first of my earlier questions. You answered:-

Quote:
When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is traveling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]
No, I already told you this.
But now you are saying this answer is wrong, because the blue-wavelength does bounce off the object and travel away from it, as a part of the full spectrum sunlight that bounces off the object.

I even clarified this for you, saying:
Quote:
Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]
(Answering 'Yes' to this question will not mean that the light bouncing off the object will be only blue-wavelength light.)
But you still went ahead and gave me the opposite answer to what you really mean.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor

Last edited by Spacemonkey; 02-11-2012 at 11:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14419  
Old 02-11-2012, 11:09 PM
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 Spacemonkey
2) If the blue-wavelength light is not bouncing off the object, then it is false that all the wavelengths of light are bouncing off.
[True or false?]
False.
Really? How can ALL the wavelengths of light be bouncing off, if the blue-wavelength light is NOT bouncing off?
(How can all Ps F, when some Ps do not F?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Only when we look at the object directly can we see the color blue because of the object's absorption properties, but that doesn't mean that blue is not part of the white light that is bouncing off of the object.
I didn't say that the blue part is not bouncing off, YOU did: "the blue wavelength does not bounce off the object". So how can all of them bounce off when some do not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
False. The blue-wavelength light is in the white light that bounces off the object. [...] all of the wavelengths of visible light are intact when they bounce off the object.
Then you were wrong to say that "the blue wavelength does not bounce off the object", and you have incorectly answered the very first of my earlier questions. You answered:-

Quote:
When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is traveling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]
No, I already told you this.
But now you are saying this answer is wrong, because the blue-wavelength does bounce off the object and travel away from it, as a part of the full spectrum sunlight that bounces off the object.

I even clarified this for you, saying:
Quote:
Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]
(Answering 'Yes' to this question will not mean that the light bouncing off the object will be only blue-wavelength light.)
But you still went ahead and gave me the opposite answer to what you really mean.
The blue wavelength light is part of white light that (N) bounces off the object. The only reason we see the blue object is due to (P) light which only appears when the lens is focused on the object. That is how the object reveals itself due to light's presence; the blue light does not (N) bounce off the object and travel far and wide bringing the image of the object to the film/retina. In this model, new white light from the Sun is in a continuous stream, so there are no stationary photons. But, to repeat, the only reason we see blue is because we're looking directly at the object that has absorbed the non-blue wavelength light and therefore the (P) reflection is instantly at the film/retina.

This is getting very difficult for me. You can either accept it, or reject it, or something in between. It's up to you. This is not nearly as important as his first discovery.
Reply With Quote
  #14420  
Old 02-11-2012, 11:14 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
The blue wavelength light is part of white light that (N) bounces off the object. The only reason we see the blue object is due to (P) light which only appears when the lens is focused on the object. That is how the object reveals itself through light; light does not (N) and bring the image to our eyes. In this model, new white light from the Sun is in a continuous stream, so there are no stationary photons. But, to repeat, the only reason we see blue is because we're looking directly at the object that has absorbed the non-blue wavelength light and therefore the (P) reflection is instantly at the film/retina.
Right, so we need go go all the way back to the first question in my list:

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is traveling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Your previous answer was 'No'. Is your answer now 'Yes'?


You also now have two further problems:

(i) If all of the wavelengths of light hitting the object are bouncing off, then none of them are being absorbed (i.e. sucked in and used up by the object such that they do not bounce off). Objects therefore have no light-absorptive properties on your account, by the standard definition of "absorption". Any 'absorption' of light you think is occurring must involve some alternate (and as yet unspecified) meaning of the word.

(ii) If the blue-wavelength photons hitting the object bounce off and continue travelling away from the object at a finite speed within the bounced-off sunlight, then those same photons cannot also be instantly at any nearby films or retinas without thereby being in two places at once.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #14421  
Old 02-11-2012, 11:33 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
,
The blue wavelength light is part of white light that (N) bounces off the object.
It bounces off the object.

Quote:
the blue light does not (N) bounce off the object
It doesn't bounce off the object.

What is it? You're not making sense.

Quote:
The only reason we see the blue object is due to (P) light which only appears when the lens is focused on the object.
Oh, so when that P light appears, can we measure it?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (02-12-2012)
  #14422  
Old 02-12-2012, 09:25 PM
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:
It's that if the eyes are efferent, then we would know that the lens has to be focused on the object (the material substance); whether it's the eye's lens or a camera's lens.
No, that doesn't follow at all.

If vision is efferent all we know is that there needs to be a brain looking out through the eyes. Lessans statements said nothing at all about cameras or lenses, only the brain. The word efferent means "from the brain outward".

Cameras cannot be efferent or work efferently, eyes can't be efferent in the absence of a brain, therefore you really are stretching things when you try to extend efferent vision to cameras.
I explained why a camera would get an instantaneous photograph because the lens of a camera and eye work similarly. A camera cannot see an object because it doesn't have a brain, but the light that is at the film is the same light that is at the retina, because both work in the same way.
Reply With Quote
  #14423  
Old 02-12-2012, 09:44 PM
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
The blue wavelength light is part of white light that (N) bounces off the object. The only reason we see the blue object is due to (P) light which only appears when the lens is focused on the object. That is how the object reveals itself through light; light does not (N) and bring the image to our eyes. In this model, new white light from the Sun is in a continuous stream, so there are no stationary photons. But, to repeat, the only reason we see blue is because we're looking directly at the object that has absorbed the non-blue wavelength light and therefore the (P) reflection is instantly at the film/retina.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Right, so we need go go all the way back to the first question in my list:

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is traveling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?
The blue light is (P) reflected which means that we can only utilize that blue wavelength light when we're looking directly at the object in real time (which makes light a condition of sight in the efferent model, not a cause), or when the lens of a camera is focused on the object, for then the blue light is instantly at the film. The white light is constantly bouncing off of the object with the blue light in it. When the blue object can no longer be resolved due to the inverse square law, we don't get the blue light anymore on the film/retina (the image that is embedded in the light as it travels far and wide to reach the film/retina, according to the afferent model); all we get is white light.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Your previous answer was 'No'. Is your answer now 'Yes'?
White (N) light bounces off of the surface, not (P) blue light.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You also now have two further problems:

(i) If all of the wavelengths of light hitting the object are bouncing off, then none of them are being absorbed (i.e. sucked in and used up by the object such that they do not bounce off). Objects therefore have no light-absorptive properties on your account, by the standard definition of "absorption". Any 'absorption' of light you think is occurring must involve some alternate (and as yet unspecified) meaning of the word.
It's not true that if all of the wavelengths of light are hitting the object and bouncing off, then none of them are being absorbed. I told you that white light is in continual motion, and at the same time the object is sucking in and using up the non-blue wavelengths. But these wavelengths can only be seen efferently. We have to be looking at the object in order to see it. Absorption of light does not involve some alternate meaning. The (P) wavelength light is blue which means that the object has absorbed the non-blue wavelength light, but it doesn't bounce off and (N) travel through space and time such that we would get a photograph of the past (e.g., Columbus discovering America if we were on the star Rigel). We would get a photograph of what is happening now, in real time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
(ii) If the blue-wavelength photons hitting the object bounce off and continue travelling away from the object at a finite speed within the bounced-off sunlight, then those same photons cannot also be instantly at any nearby films or retinas without thereby being in two places at once.
You're getting confused because you're not understanding the efferent vision model. The blue wavelength light is not bouncing off of anything; it is there because the object absorbed the other wavelength light, but if the object is not in the field of view, we will only get white light. We will never get an image of the object as it travels through space and time. Therefore, when the lens of the eye sees the object because it's there to be seen, according to efferent vision, the light is at the retina instantly as a mirror image. There is no travel time; and there is no teleportation.
Reply With Quote
  #14424  
Old 02-12-2012, 09:51 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 peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
It's that if the eyes are efferent, then we would know that the lens has to be focused on the object (the material substance); whether it's the eye's lens or a camera's lens.
No, that doesn't follow at all.

If vision is efferent all we know is that there needs to be a brain looking out through the eyes. Lessans statements said nothing at all about cameras or lenses, only the brain. The word efferent means "from the brain outward".

Cameras cannot be efferent or work efferently, eyes can't be efferent in the absence of a brain, therefore you really are stretching things when you try to extend efferent vision to cameras.
I explained why a camera would get an instantaneous photograph because the lens of a camera and eye work similarly. A camera cannot see an object because it doesn't have a brain, but the light that is at the film is the same light that is at the retina, because both work in the same way.

So the photons that are at the object and allow us to see the object are the same photons that are at a persons eye and the same photons that interact with the film in a camera. Presumably if there were several people looking at an object and several taking pictures of that object, the photons at the object allowing everyone to see and photograph the object, would also instantly be at everyones eye and the film in several cameras at once?

PS. could someone bump this just incase Peacegirl really uses 'ignore'.
Reply With Quote
  #14425  
Old 02-12-2012, 10:20 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
The blue light is (P) reflected which means that we can only utilize that blue wavelength light when we're looking directly at the object in real time (which makes light a condition of sight in the efferent model, not a cause), or when the lens of a camera is focused on the object, for then the blue light is instantly at the film. The white light is constantly bouncing off of the object with the blue light in it.
You've just told me the blue-wavelength light/photons are in two places at once. You just said they are both instantly at the film and that they are in the light bouncing off the object and travelling away from it.

The same light/photons cannot be in two places at once. So where are they? If they are instantly at the film, then they are not also contained in the white light bouncing off the object. And if they are in the white light bouncing off the object, then they cannot also be instantly at the film.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Your previous answer was 'No'. Is your answer now 'Yes'?
White (N) light bounces off of the surface, not (P) blue light.
That's not what I asked. You haven't answered my question.

There are blue-wavelength photons in the collection of photons (white light) hitting the ball. Either they bounce off the ball or they don't. If they do, then there are two ways this might happen. They may be the only photons bouncing off, in which case the light bouncing off the ball will be blue light only. Or they may be bouncing off along with all of the other photons which were hitting the ball. In that case the totality of light bouncing off will not be blue light, but it will still contain this blue light (just as it did before hitting the ball). On both of these options the blue-wavelength light is bouncing off the ball. So here's the question again for you to answer:

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is traveling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It's not true that if all of the wavelengths of light are hitting the object and bouncing off, then none of them are being absorbed.
It is true by definition. If something is sucked in and used up, it can't still be there bouncing off the object. If it is absorbed it is gone. If it bounces off then it is still there. Nothing can be both absorbed and bouncing off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I told you that white light is in continual motion, and at the same time the object is sucking in and using up the non-blue wavelengths.
If these non-blue wavelength photons are being sucked in and used up, then they cannot also be still there in the light bouncing off the ball.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Absorption of light does not involve some alternate meaning.
It must do, because what you are saying about it is simply contradictory according to its normal meaning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The blue wavelength light is not bouncing off of anything...
Then it can't be contained within the white light bouncing off the object, because all of that light is bouncing off something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
...the light is at the retina instantly as a mirror image. There is no travel time; and there is no teleportation.
Any light that is anywhere has either travelled there, teleported there, or come into existence there. There are no other options. If the light which is instantly at the film consists of the same blue-wavelength photons which were immediately previously hitting the ball, then (i) they have teleported; and (ii) they can't still be in the white light bouncing off the object.

You have yet to explain the difference between (P)reflection and teleportation (as there is no difference between getting somewhere instantly and instantly relocating there), and you still haven't told me where my blue-wavelength photons will be immediately after hitting the ball or told me whether or not they are bouncing off it.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (0 members and 5 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 09:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.40117 seconds with 14 queries