A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

LOL, we are the judge and jury here.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you keep bringing up optics? There is no mistake with optics. The only thing that changes is that the eyes are not a sense organ. The reason all fields of science have the model of sight wrong is because it's been accepted as fact that the brain interprets the images from light. It was an easy mistake to make.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Optics defines the the eyes as light sensors and explains vision in terms of that sensory detection of light. So if afferent sight is wrong, optics is wrong.

That's the only part that is being contested. Everything else in optics is consistent with efferent vision.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no (p) reflection in optics.[There is just reflection that follows laws. There is no "focusing on" an object in optics, there is only focusing incoming light.

I realize that LadyShea. This is the elephant in the room because all people are doing is denying that there's any problem.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no "mirror image" in optics allowing photons to be in two places at once...there is only traveling light.

I get that there are no mirror image in the afferent vision model, but that's where the efferent and the afferent model part ways. Photons are not in two places at once, so stop misrepresenting what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no "back to white light" on Earth in optics- there is light being absorbed, transmitted, refracted, and reflected by matter all over the place so some wavelengths are missing. There is no fading light in optics, there is traveling light that diverges from the starting point. In optics, light behaves the same whether there are any lenses or retinas focused on it...it doesn't do one thing when it is being looked at and different things when not.

You are missing the entire efferent explanation when you say that there is no "back to white light". There is only white light except when we're looking at the object which reveals itself through the blue wavelength light. I also agreed with you that fading light relates to distance as the traveling (white) light diverges from the starting point. Light behaves in a consistent manner. But due to the belief that the eyes were afferent, it was assumed that all that is necessary to get an image is to detect light, which IS the big fallacy. We need camera lenses and eye lenses to be aimed at the object in order to get a focused image of the object or a photograph.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Optics can predict and determine where a photon would be just before it is absorbed by camera film, and just after it has encountered a leaf but was not absorbed.

Right, in their theoretical model they can predict whatever they want. That doesn't make it true.

Just because the object has absorbed the non-blue wavelength light does not mean that the white light that bounces off of the object and (N) travels through space and time is leaving behind the absorbed wavelengths.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This mess is not found anywhere in optics. Absorbed light no longer exists as light. It has been absorbed and transformed to some other energy. Wavelengths of light that have been absorbed cannot also be reflected

I beg to differ. That's like saying because the lens of my eye is bending the light in order to focus, your eye can't bend the same light because it's already being used.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't just claim the legitimacy of optics for your own, then proceed to shred it apart. Nothing you have said is consistent at all with optics...one of the best studied and well supported branches of science.

Everything in optics is supportive of efferent vision except the idea that we can detect images from light alone.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's dishonorable of you to have a judgment before verdict. The verdict is not in.

Not at all: I have carefully explained why I think what I think, and why I believe you are wrong. You maintain that you are right despite not being able to do the same, which is why you are dishonest.

The facts clearly show that Lessans got it dead wrong. You may dismiss these facts on grounds of being in space, or in the case of dog and infant sight on the fact that you dislike the study, even though you are unable to point out how or why the studies are flawed, but that does not change the facts that wherever Lessans statements are tested, the tests show he was wrong.

This is why you cannot answer Shea's questions, or Spacemonkeys, or anyone else's. It is because Lessans' ideas conflict with reality. Things are not the way he thinks.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no "mirror image" in optics allowing photons to be in two places at once...there is only traveling light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get that there is no mirror image in optics, but that's where the efferent model and the afferent model part ways. Photons are not in two places at once, so stop misrepresenting what I'm saying.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. You claimed a photon on the newly ignited sun at noon can also be absorbed by camera film at noon when there are no photons on Earth. That is a photon being in two locations at the same time.

Optics is not a theoretical model, it's a descriptive physics model. It works 100% of the time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because the object has absorbed the non-blue wavelength light does not mean that the white light that bounces off of the object and (N) travels through space and time is leaving behind the absorbed wavelengths.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This mess is not found anywhere in optics. Absorbed light no longer exists as light. It has been absorbed and transformed to some other energy. Wavelengths of light that have been absorbed cannot also be reflected

I beg to differ. That's like saying because the lens of my eye is bending the light in order to focus, your eye can't bend the same light because it's already being used.

What? A photon that has been absorbed, it isn't light anymore, it's been removed from the equation. It can't also be reflected, it can't also be transmitted. It can't also keep traveling. It doesn't change its properties based on nearby lenses. It is a physically existing thing that can only have one location. That goes for one photon or a million. If they have been absorbed, they are no longer available to be seen as visible light.

There can be other photons, but not those photons, they are gone.

So your eye and my eye would not be using the same exact light, meaning there would be different photons in your eye than in mine. Because photons can't be two places at once.

Just like we can be in the same pool, they same body of water, but 20 feet apart. The water molecules touching you are not the same water molecules touching me. If you swallow some, that water you swallowed is no longer pool water and no longer able to be swum in or interacted with by anyone or anything else.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't just claim the legitimacy of optics for your own, then proceed to shred it apart. Nothing you have said is consistent at all with optics...one of the best studied and well supported branches of science.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everything in optics is supportive of efferent vision except the idea that we can detect images from light alone.

Name a single principle, found in optics, that supports efferent vision. Any law, tenet, diagram. Anything at all that is remotely consistent with what you are claiming.

[LadyShea]

Can you or can you not answer a simple question related to your "model"? It's really obvious to anyone reading this that you can't answer the question without contradicting yourself or Lessans, and so you are weaseling.

Where were the photons, that have now been absorbed by the camera film (and are therefore converted to some other type of energy), half a second before that absorption occurred? And half a second before that?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, in their theoretical model they can predict whatever they want. That doesn't make it true.

The existing theory of afferent vision does predict how light acts, and what makes it true is that the predictions always match the observed results. Efferent vision has made no predictions that correspond to observed reality, and thus is false.

[LadyShea]

Turn on your kitchen sink faucet, peacegirl, and let some water go down the drain.

Can you drink the water that is now gone because it went down the drain? Where is that water, that went down the drain now? Where was it 1 second before it went down the drain? Where was it one second before that?

Now fill a glass with water from the faucet and drink it. Can I also drink the water you just drank?

Can you see the water that is now gone, down the drain? Touch it? Interact with it all? Did it cease to exist because it's down the drain?

Now stop up the drain and fill the sink with water and put blue food color in it. Now let the blue water out. Is the water in the drain still blue? Turn on the faucet to run clear water now. Is the blue water already in the pipes still blue throughout it's journey through the pipes to the wastewater treatment, or does it return to clear?

Light works very similarly. When it is absorbed, it's no longer available to be interacted with. When it has traveled away it is still traveling.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, we are the judge and jury here.

That's just it, you're not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Turn on your kitchen sink faucet, peacegirl, and let some water go down the drain.

Can you drink the water that is now gone because it went down the drain? Where is that water, that went down the drain now? Where was it 1 second before it went down the drain? Where was it one second before that?

Now fill a glass with water from the faucet and drink it. Can I also drink the water you just drank?

Can you see the water that is now gone, down the drain? Touch it? Interact with it all? Did it cease to exist because it's down the drain?

Now stop up the drain and fill the sink with water and put blue food color in it. Now let the blue water out. Is the water in the drain still blue? Turn on the faucet to run clear water now. Is the blue water already in the pipes still blue throughout it's journey through the pipes to the wastewater treatment, or does it return to clear?

Light works very similarly. When it is absorbed, it's no longer available to be interacted with. When it has traveled away it is still traveling.

An object that reveals itself due to light's presence is not the same analogy as drinking water from a faucet. The blue-wavelength light (Spacemonkey's example) reveals the object as we're looking directly at it. The blue-wavelength light is (P) reflected (inverse square law) as white light is continually being emitted by the Sun and being absorbed by different objects in the external world. The remaining non-absorbed light allows the object to be seen in real time. Only white light travels through space and time. This is getting redundant. I think it's time to take a break from this thread.

[LadyShea]

Only white light travels through space and time.

That is demonstrably false. We can show this is false using spectral analysis devices. Optics shows this is false due to the laws of reflection. This is also wrong according to the laws of thermodynamics.

Light of a green wavelength that has been reflected from a leaf, because it was not absorbed, does not somehow become white light (change its properties), nor does it stop traveling just because it has a green wavelength.

You still have no idea what wavelength even is do you?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just it, you're not.

Sure we are, as are all readers of the book and all people you discuss with.

Everyone is their own judge and jury regarding information that is presented to them. It's what we call thinking, and it leads to individual conclusions and opinions. You're your own judge and jury as to what others say to you as well.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

White light bounces off the surface (please don't tell me that it can't be white light because there's only the blue-wavelength light), but when we're looking directly at the object the (P) blue wavelength light appears at the film/retina due to the object's absorptive properties.

White light (i.e. the full spectrum) cannot be bouncing off the object if part of the spectrum (i.e. the non-blue light) is being absorbed by the object. "Absorbed" means sucked in and used up by the object. The absorbed photons are no longer photons. The absorbed part of the spectrum is gone and no longer there. Something that is no longer there cannot bounce off anything. If the full spectrum has bounced off the object, then no part of that spectrum has been absorbed. This isn't even science. It's just what the words mean.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure we are, as are all readers of the book and all people you discuss with.

Everyone is their own judge and jury regarding information that is presented to them. It's what we call thinking, and it leads to individual conclusions and opinions. You're your own judge and jury as to what others say to you as well.

It is moments like these that I wonder if democracy is really as good an idea as most people think it is

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did say "his premise". Regardless, I will not tolerate you using the term "non-discovery" if you want me to answer your posts. The ball is in your court.

Um, no you didn't. You never suggested I use the phrase "his premise" to refer to his (xxx-)discoveries. And would that really be acceptable to you? A premise is something that is not argued for, but is rather assumed as a beginning point for some piece of reasoning. Are his first and second (xxx-)"discoveries" assumed and not argued for?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Efferent vision. How many times do I have to say there is no travel time when the brain is looking outward, using the eyes as a window to see the external world. When the lens is focused on the object, we get an instant image on the film/retina, so how can this be teleportation?

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.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a fallacy. Just because the object has absorbed the non-blue wavelength light does not mean that the white light that bounces off of the object and (N) travels through space and time is leaving behind the absorbed wavelengths. In efferent vision, the non-absorbed blue wavelength light is there only when we're looking the object. It's not there if the lens of the eye or camera is not focused on the object. Therefore, optics had that part wrong. We cannot detect an image of a material substance from light alone.

No, it is not a fallacy. It is not something that even could be wrong. It is purely a matter of what the words mean. What is absorbed is no longer there and cannot bounce off. White light must contain all the wavelengths of light. Any wavelengths of light that get absorbed cannot also bounce off and travel away. That's what 'absorbed' means. So if there are wavelengths of light getting absorbed, what bounces off cannot be full spectrum white light. By definition.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is moments like these that I wonder if democracy is really as good an idea as most people think it is

Was climbing down out of the trees a good idea?

One time I actually had someone try to tell me that we evolved from Dolphins not Apes, based on what our skin looks like. Though I've never seen a Dolphin get all wrinkly from being in the water too long.

Was crawling out of the oceans a good idea, the Dolphins seem to be having a good time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I beg to differ.

Then you don't understand what "absorb" and "reflect" mean. This is not an empirical matter of scientific fact. It is a simple semantic point about the meanings of words. It is like disagreeing with the statement that bachelors cannot be married.

[Spacemonkey]

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?

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Bump.

I hope you intend to answer more than just one single Y/N question per day, Peacegirl.


Edit: If not then I'm just going to return to posting the full list of questions, because this is ridiculous.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is moments like these that I wonder if democracy is really as good an idea as most people think it is

Sometime around WWII the US became a democracy. Prior to that everyone called it a republic, as in rule of law as opposed to rule of the majority.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How Punctuation Sets Apart Dialogue From Prose

Punctuation and Prose

Thanks for the link. It doesn't seem to me that it explains why dialogue should not be considered a form of prose.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Just like we can be in the same pool, they same body of water, but 20 feet apart. The water molecules touching you are not the same water molecules touching me. If you swallow some, that water you swallowed is no longer pool water and no longer able to be swum in or interacted with by anyone or anything else.

There is a very good chance that the water being swallowed is (P) water. In a public pool the probability that this is the case approaches 100%.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

There is a very good chance that the water being swallowed is (P) water. In a public pool the probability that this is the case approaches 100%.

Yes but with the level of chlorine and other chemicals in the water, it becomes more like a present, "Its the thought that counts".

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

I hope you intend to answer more than just one single Y/N question per day, Peacegirl.


Edit: If not then I'm just going to return to posting the full list of questions, because this is ridiculous.

Bump...?

What happened to this, Peacegirl:-

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you give me one question at a time, I will answer...

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is getting redundant. I think it's time to take a break from this thread.

Of course it is, peacegirl, since everything you have said in this thread has been laid bare as incoherent, self-contradictory, impossible-to-defend bullshit. Your father was crazy, and so are you. But in addition, you are dishonest -- dishonorable, as Vivisectus so memorably put it.

Run away, peacegirl, knowing you can't defend this bullshit but too dishonorable to admit it. Try to defend your free will/determinism nonsense instead -- which has already been exposed as nonsense, too.

Everything Lessans said was wrong.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump...?

What happened to this, Peacegirl:-

?

If you can't answer my questions then you still don't have a working model, and efferent vision cannot even be considered a coherent possibility.

[Spacemonkey]

Bump.