#27176  
Old 06-14-2013, 12:37 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 peacegirl View Post
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
Why is it that they only publish the results and not allow people to see the actual experiment as it's progressing
What? Are you sniffing glue? You think all scientists everywhere should publish their experiments publicly in real time? Like a live camera feed of thousands of labs worldwide, or what exactly?
You are really ignorant sometimes, you know that? No I'm not sniffing glue. How disgusting can you get? What do scientists have to hide if their experiments are interesting to the public? Is there some kind of gag order, or is there some kind of hidden agenda that has to do with funding? So all we ever see are descriptions of the test, and the results, but we never can actually see the experiment for ourselves?
You are a total moron most of the time. This is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.

Scientists work needs to be done without a peanut gallery from the public. The tests are meaningless until the data from the test is gathered and analyzed.
That's not even what I was implying; that scientists should give us a preview before the test is done. I was just saying why can't they show the actual test that helped them reach their conclusions instead of just giving a written report?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Why did Lessans wait until he had drawn a bunch of conclusions before writing his book? Why didn't he record his actual observations as he made them and offer them to all his friends and family to read as he went?
Again, I didn't mean that they should share their observations before they're done, but it seems to me that they would have videotaped the experiment and once they come to their conclusions, they could share it just like they share the results in writing. A lot of people do better when seeing something visually then just reading about it, plus seeing something on video gives further proof as to how the experiment was conducted. Actually seeing an experiment with your own eyes is so much better than just reading about it, at least for me.

Again, Peacegirl is making demands for proof outside the normal procedures that have been tried and tested and shown to work. Anything she can think of to discredit existing scientific procedures will be demanded in a loosing effort to show that science is in error. If Peacegirl would just educate herself in scientific methods, she would understand how it promotes accuracy and precision in the experiments, tests, observations, and conclusions that it derives from the date it gathers.
Reply With Quote
  #27177  
Old 06-14-2013, 12:48 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:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
It is known, and can be measured and demonstrated 100% of the time, that light that encounters matter, but is not absorbed, is either reflected or transmitted. This is not a belief, it is a fact. You can prove it yourself with some different types of materials (transparent, reflective, etc) and a small flashlight....such as what comes with a simple optics kit for kids
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I never said light does not get transmitted through space/time, but we're talking about non-absorbed photons. These do not get reflected; they reveal said object due to the object's absorptive properties and because the object is within optical range.
One more time.

- It is known, and can be measured and demonstrated 100% of the time
- light that encounters matter, but is not absorbed (ie: non-absorbed)
- is either reflected (from) or transmitted (through) the matter it has encountered

So if it is not absorbed by the matter and not passed through the matter (such as through transparent glass) it is reflected by the matter as per the Law of Reflection.

Your statement is demonstrably wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #27178  
Old 06-14-2013, 12:56 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:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
So in one situation a dog will know the difference between the real thing and something not real, and in another situation a dog will not know the difference. You are a real hypocrate.
No, you are because you are making stuff up that I never intended.

When discussing socks you said

Quote:
dogs know the difference between an inanimate object, and the real thing --- YOU.
When discussing photographs you said
Quote:
Because a dog wouldn't know the difference

Those are contradictory statements, so thedoc didn't make it up at all. What did you "intend" to say if not what you plainly and clearly actually said? Why did you say what you actually said instead of what you intended to say?
Reply With Quote
  #27179  
Old 06-14-2013, 01:58 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Never has a dead horse been so thouroughly flogged. There is no dead horse left. They are flogging thin air.
Reply With Quote
  #27180  
Old 06-14-2013, 02:39 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:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You think it keeps traveling ad infinitum which anybody who is not invested in the conclusions would question.
Nobody would question it who even remotely understands the laws of thermodynamics and the basics of light physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Light travels unless it comes into contact with matter that absorbs it.
Reply With Quote
  #27181  
Old 06-14-2013, 03:06 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:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
All he said was that the image of the object does not get reflected.
Nobody thinks images get reflected. That is his very erroneous understanding of the standard model of sight. That is a strawman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lessans
But objects do not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge on the optic nerve
Agreed 100%! Nobody thinks objects send out pictures. Why did he feel any need to make this point, seeing as how nobody anywhere thinks objects send out pictures and nobody anywhere thinks images get reflected?

Again, that is a strawman based on his very erroneous understanding of the standard model of sight. He argued against something he made up in his own head.
Reply With Quote
  #27182  
Old 06-14-2013, 06:49 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You're the one that said that the reason we can't see an object that is out of our optical range but in a straight line is because it's traveling too fast.
No one here ever said that.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
  #27183  
Old 06-14-2013, 07:47 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Let us recap. The eye, not being a sense organ, only projects images (onto a screen of undeniable essence) outwards, being efferent.
That is "undeniable substance", not "essence". And you claim to have read the book :doh:
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
  #27184  
Old 06-14-2013, 09:45 AM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Let us recap. The eye, not being a sense organ, only projects images (onto a screen of undeniable essence) outwards, being efferent.
That is "undeniable substance", not "essence". And you claim to have read the book :doh:
D'oh! You are correct, of course. I should have known the term would be even more nonsensical.
Reply With Quote
  #27185  
Old 06-14-2013, 12:09 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 Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Why is it that they only publish the results and not allow people to see the actual experiment as it's progressing
Ah yes. The conspiracy theory. Mainstay for people with highly implausible ideas all over the world. If your world-view and reality conflict, blame it on some sort of conspiracy. I like my scapegoats old-fashioned, so I am going to blame this one on the Elders of Zion.
I am not claiming that there is any kind of conspiracy going on, so why are you trying to put me in the category of a flat earther? That dogs cannot recognize their master from sight ALONE is not an implausible idea. It is an observation that supports the claim that the eyes work differently than the other sense organs.
Reply With Quote
  #27186  
Old 06-14-2013, 12:21 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 Vivisectus View Post
Let us recap. The eye, not being a sense organ, only projects images (onto a screen of undeniable essence) outwards, being efferent. And yet somehow the brain is able to take a photograph (light-writing) of a relation (significant association) between a name and a person. It is then also capable of detecting said person, and projecting the right significant association on to it, which results in sight as we know it.

The fact that the eye must first detect the person (somehow) and also then trigger the brain to project the right image (somehow) which for some reason immediately incorporates any changes that may have occurred to that person in the meantime in the photograph (a new haircut, scar or aging can be seen) in no way implies that the only way efferent sight can work is by having the eye work afferently as well.
What the hell are you talking about Vivisectus? The brain takes a photograph of the person and the name that distinguishes him from others. When the person sees that image, he is then able to recognize him because the relation has been stored in his brain which he is able to recall and project. A new haircut and aging (for the most part) doesn't cause the photograph that was originally taken to be so different as to no be able to recognize this person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Just because new visual information continually appears in the brain totally does not mean that the eye needs to function like a sense organ in order for the wonderful explanation taht the eye is not a sense organ to be able to work, even if it was 100% correct, which it must be, because Peacegirls father said so, and she clearly stated that her father worked and thought hard about this book, so if there was a mistake in it he would have corrected it so there can't be one in it. If you think this is irrational then you are a meanie, and also scientists are out to disprove this idea desperately, or else why would they be doing tests that involve eyes?
Would you please stop this already? It's getting very old. You don't understand why his explanation makes sense because you're too busy trying to discredit him. You're not a meanie, your posts just show that you have very little understanding of what he's even trying to express.
Reply With Quote
  #27187  
Old 06-14-2013, 12:28 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
What the hell are you talking about Vivisectus? The brain takes a photograph of the person and the name that distinguishes him from others.
Yeah, what are you talking about Vivisectus? Isn't it obvious? The brain takes a photograph of a person! Duh!

:picture: :shakebrain:
__________________
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:
Adam (06-14-2013), Vivisectus (06-14-2013)
  #27188  
Old 06-14-2013, 12:37 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:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Nothing happens to it. It is revealed until the non-absorbed light diminishes. You think it keeps traveling ad infinitum which anybody who is not invested in the conclusions would question. And you say I'm a fundie?
As we've had to repeatedly explain to you every time you return to this point, 'nothing happens to it' is not an answer. Unless it ceases to exist after not being absorbed, this non-absorbed light has to have a location and direction of travel at every moment after it hits the object, and that means you need to describe what happens to it. 'Nothing' is not an answer. And disputing how far it travels is not to dispute that it gets reflected by bouncing off and traveling away from the object.
The light disperses. It no longer reflects an image as the the distance between the object and the viewer widens. There is no traveling such that once the distance is beyond one's visual range, the object can be seen because light is not traveling through space/time and bringing the image (or pattern) to the eye.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Nothing happens to it. It is revealed, but it doesn't bounce. Why do you care what I think if you think this discovery is worthless?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
'Nothing' is not an answer. If it doesn't bounce off, then where is it when it is being 'revealed' after hitting the object? Does this non-absorbed light cease to exist? Or does it just sit there at the surface of the object as it is revealed?
You are not going to make me look stupid Spacemonkey. Sit at the surface? :eek:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I have but I may have been guilty of confusing the situation based on your questions. Lessans stated that images are not reflected. You argued this point, so I argued back. The bottom line is the light that is revealed when certain frequency/wavelenths are absorbed does not bounce and travel, as scientists believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Yes, you're always guilty of being confused, That' hardly news. The afferent account doesn't claim that images get reflected either - it is only the light that gets reflected by bouncing off objects. Lessans never denied that the light gets reflected - only YOU did. So if you are going to maintain - against all evidence and reason - that the non-absorbed light doesn't bounce off and travel away from the object, then you need to explain what you think happens to it, i.e. where is it and where is it going immediately after hitting the object?
He said the image does not get reflected, which means that the image does not travel through space/time without the object being present. Science claims that the object doesn't have to be present and that the light containing that image (I know light doesn't contain an image, but for lack of a better word, I will use it, so please don't correct me) will go on forever unless it strikes another object. That's where there is a misconception.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I didn't say that. The relationship between the object in the efferent account is not a long distance, which you are presupposing. That's why you are confused as to how photons that travel to Earth can be the same photons that are required to see said object. This is understandably confusing but it doesn't change the fact that, given the new conditions of efferent vision, we can very easily use that light to see the real object, which you can't seem to wrap your head around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I never said that so I don't have to defend it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
But you did. You did say that the light instantly at the retina at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited came from the Sun, and you haven't been able to name any possible time at which that light could have been located at the Sun. This has nothing to do with the long distance (90 million miles) between the Sun and the retina which your account cannot change. And the light instantly at the retina cannot be light which has traveled from the Sun to the retina unless you can tell me when this light was first located at the Sun to begin this journey. It can hardly have been 8 minutes before 12:00 (which is when it would have to have left the Sun to arrive at 12:00 if it traveled at light speed) as the Sun was not ignited before 12:00 to be able to emit any photons. This is a big fat contradiction which you still refuse to even address.
Okay, let's assume that Lessans didn't mean it literally that at 12:00 when the Sun was first turned on that we could instantly see it. Let's assume that it took time for it to be bright enough for it to be seen, which may have occurred at 12:02. So what? He was making a distinction between light having to travel 8 minutes (the afferent account) to be on Earth to see the Sun, in contrast to being able to see the Sun as long as it meets the requirements of efferent vision, which is different than afferent vision because the object (the Sun) must be in view. Distance in the efferent account is not a factor because light is not bringing us the image through space/time.
Reply With Quote
  #27189  
Old 06-14-2013, 12:39 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 ceptimus View Post
If you hover your mouse over the smilies, you get to see their names. That one is the 'Awesome' smiley, so Vivisectus was indicating that he thought your post was awesome!
No, he meant the exact opposite. The sarcasm isn't appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #27190  
Old 06-14-2013, 12:42 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 ceptimus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only problem with this is that his sense of smell could contaminate the test making it look like a slam dunk when his master's smell was leading him in the right direction.
You'd just have to make sure that the dog was upwind of all the people - that way the wind would be carrying the scent of the people away from the dog. Providing the people also kept quiet, then the dog wouldn't be able to smell or hear them - and the people should also keep still, so that the dog gets no clues from their gestures or gait. Then you've pretty much isolated the test down to (static) vision.
As long as there is no possibility that the dog could smell his master (which he probably could as he gets closer regardless of wind direction), I would be okay with the experiment. I just don't know if he could still pick up a scent. That would have to be carefully determined.
Reply With Quote
  #27191  
Old 06-14-2013, 12:45 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 peacegirl View Post
The light disperses. It no longer reflects an image as the the distance between the object and the viewer widens. There is no traveling such that once the distance is beyond one's visual range, the object can be seen because light is not traveling through space/time and bringing the image (or pattern) to the eye.

You are not going to make me look stupid Spacemonkey. Sit at the surface? :eek:

He said the image does not get reflected, which means that the image does not travel through space/time without the object being present. Science claims that the object doesn't have to be present and that the light containing that image (I know light doesn't contain an image, but for lack of a better word, I will use it, so please don't correct me) will go on forever unless it strikes another object. That's where there is a misconception.
At no point here have you actually answered the question. Are you back to agreeing that the non-absorbed light hitting an object bounces off it and travels away? Or are you going to explain what happens to it instead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Okay, let's assume that Lessans didn't mean it literally that at 12:00 when the Sun was first turned on that we could instantly see it. Let's assume that it took time for it to be bright enough for it to be seen, which may have occurred at 12:02. So what? He was making a distinction between light having to travel 8 minutes (the afferent account) to be on Earth to see the Sun, in contrast to being able to see the Sun as long as it meets the requirements of efferent vision, which is different than afferent vision because the object (the Sun) must be in view. Distance in the efferent account is not a factor because light is not bringing us the image through space/time.
The problem I described has nothing to do with waiting for the Sun to be bright enough to be seen, for Lessans said the Sun is bright enough to be seen straight away at 12:00, and you face exactly the same problem anyway if the Sun is seen at 12:02. And the problem has nothing at all to do with traveling images. The problem is that you are putting light at the retina and saying it came from somewhere where you are unable to have it located at any previous time. Suppose the light is at the retina at 12:02. And suppose that there are no traveling images. Fine. Now tell me when was this light located at the Sun which you say it came from?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #27192  
Old 06-14-2013, 12:50 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:
He said the image does not get reflected, which means that the image does not travel through space/time
Nobody is saying an image gets reflected. Nobody is saying an image travels through spacetime. Not a single person anywhere. So we agree with this statement.

What is absolutely known, for a fact, to happen is that light that is not absorbed gets reflected and that light travels through spacetime unless or until is absorbed.

Light and image are not synonyms, nor are they interchangeable.
Reply With Quote
  #27193  
Old 06-14-2013, 12:56 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:
He was making a distinction between light having to travel 8 minutes (the afferent account) to be on Earth to see the Sun, in contrast to being able to see the Sun as long as it meets the requirements of efferent vision
Yes, Lessans clearly thought that light physically touching the retina was not necessary for vision to occur. He thought we could see the Sun at 12:00 with our brain through our window eyes without light photons being located in our eyes.

YOU, however, have made claims that light is physically touching the retina when we see. You have claimed that light photons would be physically located on the retina in the eye at 12:00 when the Sun was turned on.

You need to support your claims, which are not claims that Lessans made at all.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (06-14-2013)
  #27194  
Old 06-14-2013, 01:00 PM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: VCXLVII
Images: 8
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That dogs cannot recognize their master from sight ALONE is not an implausible idea. It is an observation that supports the claim that the eyes work differently than the other sense organs.
It's not an implausible idea that dogs cannot recognize their masters from sight alone.

It's also most likely false. So, it's a likely false claim that tenuously supports the also false claim that the eyes are not a sense organ.

I noticed that Lessans' "proof" in the book were thought experiments where dogs and babies were denied other sensory input.... What sort of sick individual would disable a dog's nose or put a baby into sensory deprivation and feed it through an IV?
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (06-14-2013)
  #27195  
Old 06-14-2013, 01:12 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I disagree that it supports the claim, even tenuously. Rather, it is compatible with it, but in order to provide any support it would also have to give some reason, however small, to believe that sight would have to be efferent and langauge-driven in order for dogs to not be able to recognize their master. It does no such thing: dogs could potentially see normally, and still not recognize faces.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
specious_reasons (06-14-2013)
  #27196  
Old 06-14-2013, 01:14 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:
That dogs cannot recognize their master from sight ALONE is not an implausible idea.
Agreed, it is not implausaible
Quote:
It is an observation that supports the claim that the eyes work differently than the other sense organs.
It also would support many other hypotheses; off the top of my head if it would support the idea that visual recognition of individual humans has not been important to species survival, so this cognitive ability did not develop. Visually recognizing broad categories of species has been demonstrated (and even you claimed to have observed this), so the eyes are a sense organ in that dogs can see and process what they see, and dogs have survived and thrived as a species, so this less specific recognition ability is obviously enough.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-14-2013)
  #27197  
Old 06-14-2013, 01:23 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
What the hell are you talking about Vivisectus? The brain takes a photograph of the person and the name that distinguishes him from others.
We can be darn sure that it does not photograph anything according to you. That is just the extremely poor choice of words of the book, however. A Photograph is something written with light, something you say does not happen.

How does the brain take this "photograph" of an invisible thing and a person, efferently?

Quote:
When the person sees that image,
Ok, so first the person sees the other person: the eyes detect that person, and the information that a person is seen arrives in the brain

Quote:
he is then able to recognize him because the relation has been stored in his brain
Then the brain recognizes the person based on what is seen afferently

Quote:
which he is able to recall and project.
and only THEN is a different image projected over the one that the person has already seen and recognized!

So we can see: we need normal sight to work first, in order to be able to project efferent sight afterwards.

Quote:
A new haircut and aging (for the most part) doesn't cause the photograph that was originally taken to be so different as to no be able to recognize this person.
But your version of sight projects what is already stored int he brain. So the amount of difference should not matter: we should not be able to detect it at all, really

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Just because new visual information continually appears in the brain totally does not mean that the eye needs to function like a sense organ in order for the wonderful explanation taht the eye is not a sense organ to be able to work, even if it was 100% correct, which it must be, because Peacegirls father said so, and she clearly stated that her father worked and thought hard about this book, so if there was a mistake in it he would have corrected it so there can't be one in it. If you think this is irrational then you are a meanie, and also scientists are out to disprove this idea desperately, or else why would they be doing tests that involve eyes?
Would you please stop this already? It's getting very old. You don't understand why his explanation makes sense because you're too busy trying to discredit him. You're not a meanie, your posts just show that you have very little understanding of what he's even trying to express.
Then it should be easily refuted, and should not require this response you just wrote, which basically asks me to shut up about somethign you do not like to think about.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-14-2013)
  #27198  
Old 06-14-2013, 02:17 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 LadyShea
It is known, and can be measured and demonstrated 100% of the time, that light that encounters matter, but is not absorbed, is either reflected or transmitted. This is not a belief, it is a fact. You can prove it yourself with some different types of materials (transparent, reflective, etc) and a small flashlight....such as what comes with a simple optics kit for kids
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I never said light does not get transmitted through space/time, but we're talking about non-absorbed photons. These do not get reflected; they reveal said object due to the object's absorptive properties and because the object is within optical range.
One more time.

- It is known, and can be measured and demonstrated 100% of the time
- light that encounters matter, but is not absorbed (ie: non-absorbed)
- is either reflected (from) or transmitted (through) the matter it has encountered

So if it is not absorbed by the matter and not passed through the matter (such as through transparent glass) it is reflected by the matter as per the Law of Reflection.

Your statement is demonstrably wrong.
Of course it is demonstrably wrong, just like it is demonstrably wrong that man's will is not free because he is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. :doh:
Reply With Quote
  #27199  
Old 06-14-2013, 02:24 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
I never said light does not get transmitted through space/time, but we're talking about non-absorbed photons. These do not get reflected; they reveal said object due to the object's absorptive properties and because the object is within optical range.
Where do the non-absorbed photons go, if they don't get absorbed and they don't bounce off and travel away?
They get dispersed or they diminish as they get farther and farther from their source. I've said this so many times, I don't know why you're not hearing me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The law of reflection does not mean that an image of myself is traveling through space time after I walk away from the mirror. Yes, light is always being reflected, but not the non-absorbed photons which eventually dissipate according to how far the non-absorbed light is from its source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
No-one has ever claimed that images bounce off things and travel away through space and time. We are talking about light, not images. And how can the non-absorbed light dissipate over time and space, if it hasn't bounced off the object to travel through time and space?
Reflection means that the image is embedded in the light, correct? Lessans saw that the reflection of light over space/time does not have the image embedded at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's true, but remove the object and see what you get? You will not get an image of said object. You will get only light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
As long as the same light hits the retina, the same things will be seen, whether the object is then present or not. Because all the retina does is detect the light that hits it, and then send this information to the brain.
Sorry, but that is what is an assumption. You don't just get to announce this as if it's fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He knew what he was talking about. All he said was that the image of the object does not get reflected. I am just using different ways to help explain what he meant. He did not actually think that images travel on the wings of light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Mr. Molecules of Light, and Images on the Wings of Light knew what he was talking about? Who are you kidding here? And he never said that non-absorbed light is not reflected. He never said half the ridiculous shit you've made up while trying hopelessly to defend him.
If you are sincerely interested in the reasons for why he came to these conclusions, why are you trying to make fun of him? It isn't going to endear you to me, nor will I want to explain anything to you. If that's what your goal is you're doing a good job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You're missing the entire point. An object can be revealed through non-absorbed photons without those photons being reflected through space/time, even while the full spectrum of light is reflected. His observation does not violate physics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
How can the FULL spectrum be reflected when PART of that spectrum has been absorbed? You're violating basic semantics and language, never mind physics.
I didn't say that. I only said that the object that is reflecting this light must be present in order for photons to show up on the retina. Are you that closed minded that you can't even understand what I'm saying? :glare:

Last edited by peacegirl; 06-14-2013 at 02:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27200  
Old 06-14-2013, 02:35 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
So in one situation a dog will know the difference between the real thing and something not real, and in another situation a dog will not know the difference. You are a real hypocrate.
No, you are because you are making stuff up that I never intended.

When discussing socks you said

Quote:
dogs know the difference between an inanimate object, and the real thing --- YOU.
When discussing photographs you said
Quote:
Because a dog wouldn't know the difference

Those are contradictory statements, so thedoc didn't make it up at all. What did you "intend" to say if not what you plainly and clearly actually said? Why did you say what you actually said instead of what you intended to say?
You are trying to hard to make what I say appear contradictory. Dogs know the difference between a sock that has the smell of someone and the person whose smell has become familiar to him. a (something is wrong with my captial a on my keyboard) dog would not know the difference between a representation of a person on a video and the real thing until he confirmed it with his sense of smell. There's no contradiction.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 6 (0 members and 6 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 07:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.51147 seconds with 14 queries