A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where there's a logical contradiction with my own account.

Well, that's odd because you claimed to be able to see it before when I explained it to you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you kidding? I'd be here another 1000 pages and there would be no progress. I really am tired of haggling over this. The only way out of this is to do more empirical studies on the brain and the eyes.

No, the other way out of this is for you to follow through the implications of your own claims to see why they don't work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see a contradiction or inconsistency with my belief...

It's right here:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have said that:

1. The color of the image is determined by the wavelength of light at the camera.

2. That light has previously travelled to the camera from the object.

3. The wavelength of that light will be determined by the absorptive properties of the object at the time that light struck and bounced off it.

4. The wavelength of that light will also match the absorptive properties of the object at the time that light reaches the camera.

But these claims are inconsistent for any case where the object has different absorptive properties for the earlier time when the light bounced off the object compared to the present time when the photograph is actually taken. Points (3) and (4) are not consistent, and this is a big fat contradiction right in the middle of your account of real-time photography.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You see an inconsistency because you believe that the first photon has to arrive at the lens before the second and so on. But you're missing the whole meaning of "efferent."...

We're talking about cameras, and you told me they are not efferent.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, here are your current answers:

Do you agree that real-time photography is impossible given these answers?

If so, then which of these above answers do you think can be plausibly changed?

If not, then please answer the following: You've agreed that the color of the photograph is determined by the wavelength of the light at the camera, which has previously travelled from the object to get there. So if the object is blue at the time that light is arriving at the camera, and was not blue at any moment before that, then...

Why is the arriving light of blue wavelength?

What color wavelength was that light just before it arrived at the camera?

Bump.

[LadyShea]

peacegirl and I did discuss Dave from Canada. Apparently he somethingerothered and then went away.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Dragar

'Picture' is just another word for 'image'. I don't want synonyms, I want to know what it is in terms of other things. What is an image?

She won't understand what you're asking. For her, such things as images, reflections, and even vision itself are irreducible. She really doesn't have any grasp at all of how reductive explanation works.

[LadyShea]

Here is our discussion about Dave

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He then mentions a guy that he was able to convince at a science expo in Canada that the eyes are not a sensory organ, and claims this man became very involved in his work (and that the man was also ridiculed by learned persons). Does this man still live and is he still involved, peacegirl? If so, where can we read his thoughts? What was the scope of his involvement? He further goes into the idea that most criticism of his ideas are basically ad homs.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, this guy isn't around anymore. His name was Dave.

LOL, thats it. we know his name.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

She won't understand what you're asking. For her, such things as images, reflections, and even vision itself are irreducible. She really doesn't have any grasp at all of how reductive explanation works.

Perhaps, but I think it is more basic than that. Her brain can't do much when it comes to learning new concepts and forming new connections. It is frozen in time. What she has managed to learn, when her brain was capable of such things, is Lessans nonsense. So if you are to have any chance of communicating anything at all, it will have to be in terms of Lessans conceptual framework. This will be difficult since that framework is mostly a muddled mess. And thus we have peacegirl, yet another basket case on the internet.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are once again retreating behind your histrionic persecution complex.

Nobody is a wolf out for blood. You are aware this is a defense mechanism for you, aren't you?

I think this is peacegirls way of recognizing that if anybody's mind is gonna change here, it will have to be her's. And she can't change her mind. Her brain is not in good enough working order for that to happen.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are once again retreating behind your histrionic persecution complex.

Nobody is a wolf out for blood. You are aware this is a defense mechanism for you, aren't you?

In her mind she believes it is true, just like Lessans believed that academics looked down on him for his lack of education, when really it was his arrogance that put him in a bad light.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that we can't take a picture of light. What do you think a rainbow is?

Actually, you have repeatedly claimed that we can't take pictures of light. Lady Shea introduced the example of the rainbow, and other optical phenomena, as a way of demonstrating, contra your claims, that we can indeed take pictures of light.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm saying that light is a condition of sight. This means that we see the object in real time using light as a medium.

Just keep repeating this mantra like it actually means something.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In other words, if efferent vision is true then there is an instant lightwave from the Source to the lens. There is no travel time, no arriving, no going from point A to point B. I am not saying that light doesn't travel at a finite speed, but when it comes to the relationship between the object and the lens, there is no time delay since the lightwave is at the film the instant the lens focuses on the object.

What, exactly, is an "instant lightwave"? Is it anything like an "instant reflection"? Now you have two terms you need to define.

[LadyShea]

there is no time delay since the lightwave is at the film the instant the lens focuses on the object.

How did "the lightwave" get there? How long does "the lightwave" stay there?

When you're showering is any specific water at your elbow the instant you think about the water at your elbow, or has it already gone down the drain and there is new water at your elbow?

Seriously, the light at the camera when you start to push the button to take a picture is not the same light at the camera when you finish depressing the button. It moves too fast for there to be any kind "the" lightwave

[Vivisectus]

LOL lightwaves that un-travel instantaneously without anything going from A to B, and yet transfer the correct information at infinite speed? Excellent! Please demonstrate this device you have just invented for sending messages into the past as soon as possible. We should be able to detect the microseconds of time difference over quite short distances. Think of the implications for computing alone!

Oh wait - we already use fibreoptics to get us the fastest possible connection speed between nodes in computing and it doesn't work that way. Ah well!

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course we can tell where the light is coming from depending on where it lands on the film.

Great, we can tell where light is coming from by where it lands on the film.

So peacegirl, given we can tell where the light is coming from, we can use special film that also reacts to the colour of light and work out what colour of light comes from where too, right?

In other words, we have all the information we need from the light landing on the film to build an image; there is no information in our vision beyond these two things. So why can't we use just light to construct images afterall?

By the way, how do we tell if something is 'out of the field of view' of a camera?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where there's a logical contradiction with my own account.

Well, that's odd because you claimed to be able to see it before when I explained it to you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you kidding? I'd be here another 1000 pages and there would be no progress. I really am tired of haggling over this. The only way out of this is to do more empirical studies on the brain and the eyes.

No, the other way out of this is for you to follow through the implications of your own claims to see why they don't work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see a contradiction or inconsistency with my belief...

It's right here:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have said that:

1. The color of the image is determined by the wavelength of light at the camera.

2. That light has previously travelled to the camera from the object.

3. The wavelength of that light will be determined by the absorptive properties of the object at the time that light struck and bounced off it.

4. The wavelength of that light will also match the absorptive properties of the object at the time that light reaches the camera.

But these claims are inconsistent for any case where the object has different absorptive properties for the earlier time when the light bounced off the object compared to the present time when the photograph is actually taken. Points (3) and (4) are not consistent, and this is a big fat contradiction right in the middle of your account of real-time photography.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You see an inconsistency because you believe that the first photon has to arrive at the lens before the second and so on. But you're missing the whole meaning of "efferent."...

We're talking about cameras, and you told me they are not efferent.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, here are your current answers:

Do you agree that real-time photography is impossible given these answers?

If so, then which of these above answers do you think can be plausibly changed?

If not, then please answer the following: You've agreed that the color of the photograph is determined by the wavelength of the light at the camera, which has previously travelled from the object to get there. So if the object is blue at the time that light is arriving at the camera, and was not blue at any moment before that, then...

Why is the arriving light of blue wavelength?

What color wavelength was that light just before it arrived at the camera?

I can only reconcile this by saying that the lens acts efferently, just like the lens of the eye. If the object seen is within the field of view of the camera when a picture is taken, the distance as far as the lens is concerned is within that small space of visibility. And even if light travels at a finite speed and we can only see the first photon before the last which would indicate that red would come before blue, the light is traveling so fast that when it strikes the camera it would be the color of blue, not red. You have to remember that the distance from the object to the lens, according to the camera, is just as close as the lens is to a flickering candle in a dark room. Does that help?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, you were given the explanation. Here it is again.

You cannot photograph an object when the apparent size (due to distance) is too small for the camera to resolve. You can correct for the apparent size due to distance using a telephoto lens and or adjusting exposure time.

I'm not even referring to size. It could be the moon (that's not small, is it?) just out of view of the visual range, and you can't see it unless it comes into the visual range in order to be resolved.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no reason whatsoever for the condition of "Earthly" experiment to be put on this question except so you can deflect and distract. That's YOUR your red herring, not ours.

Yes there is, but you're the one in denial. And you have everyone to agree with you so it becomes a popularity contest. The majority is always right? I don't think so.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can only reconcile this by saying that the lens acts efferently.

Then what travels outwards from the lens?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the object seen is within the field of view of the camera when a picture is taken, the distance as far as the lens is concerned is within that small space of visibility.

Field of view is not limited by distance. You are still misusing the term.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And even if light travels at a finite speed and we can only see the first photon before the last which would indicate that red would come before blue, the light is traveling so fast that when it strikes the camera it would be the color of blue, not red.

So long as the light is traveling at a finite speed it will remain possible for the object to change color while the light is in transit, so this doesn't help. Afferent vision/photography agrees that the time delay will usually be very small. But very small is not the same as non-existent, so this doesn't help you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to remember that the distance from the object to the lens, according to the camera, is just as close as the lens is to a flickering candle in a dark room. Does that help?

Not at all. And you didn't answer my questions:

You've agreed that the color of the photograph is determined by the wavelength of the light at the camera, which has previously travelled from the object to get there. So if the object is blue at the time that light is arriving at the camera, and was not blue at any moment before that, then...

Why is the arriving light of blue wavelength?

What color wavelength was that light just before it arrived at the camera?

(Why don't you explore the possibilities for yourself? Can you think of what the problem will be if the light WAS blue just before it arrived? Can you think of what the problem will be if it was NOT blue just before it arrived? Which option, if either, seems more plausible to you? If neither is plausible to you, then what does that tell you about real-time photography?)

[Vivisectus]

I can only reconcile this by saying that the lens acts efferently.

Huzzah! We are back at efferent cameras - only now it is the lens that acts efferently through the magical action of "focusing"! You just latched onto the nearest thing you do not understand, and claim that it is the reason it works, because of magic.

If the object seen is within the field of view of the camera when a picture is taken, the distance as far as the lens is concerned is within that small space of visibility.

Waffle snibbly gipwip? Field of view is "in the area where things can be seen". That means that you just said the following: "If the object seen is in the area where things can be seen, then as far as the lens is concerned they are in the area where things can be seen!"

I see the apple does not fall far from the tree.

And even if light travels at a finite speed and we can only see the first photon before the last which would indicate that red would come before blue, the light is traveling so fast that when it strikes the camera it would be the color of blue, not red.

Lol? So even if Lessans is wrong he is still right because it would happen so fast we would not notice?

You have to remember that the distance from the object to the lens, according to the camera, is just as close as the lens is to a flickering candle in a dark room. Does that help?

According to you, lenses are magic and if you have one, distance (and physics) are magically suspended.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes they are overlooking it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey"

Nope. You're overlooking the evidence and explanations you've been given.

I'm doing the best I can because I believe Lessans was right. I just can't work out the snags to your satisfaction, but that doesn't cancel it out.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one has been able to give me an explanation as to why objects out of the field of view won't show up on film.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Field of view concerns simply the angle, not distance, so you are still misusing the term. That things can be in the field of view and yet still too small or far away to show up on film is due to the dispersion of light and the resolution of the camera.

It's not just angular Spacemonkey; it's the entire span of the observable world.

The field of view (also field of vision, abbreviated FOV) is the (angular or linear or areal) extent of the observable world that is seen at any given moment.

Field of view - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hubble pictures are not part of an Earthly experiment.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And the experiment has to be an "Earthly" one because...?

Because there's too much confusion. After doing an Earthly experiment, we can then use that information to understand what we're seeing beyond the earth.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The Hubble pics show you exactly what you claim cannot happen. An image can be formed from distant light arriving from objects too far away to be seen.

That's not true. I'm saying that the light that is seen has reached the field of view of the telescope with the help of magnification.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The Hubble pictures have now become a red herring.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And they are a red herring because...? What? Because they disprove your claims, so you don't want to have to talk about them any more?

Not at all. It's just that we're confusing the issue. I'm discussing real time vision which includes a lens. Light still travels and can be detected, but whether that light holds the image of the past is another story.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not just angular Spacemonkey; it's the entire span of the observable world.

The field of view (also field of vision, abbreviated FOV) is the (angular or linear or areal) extent of the observable world that is seen at any given moment.

Field of view - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your link supports my point and not your own. FoV is the angle, not distance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because there's too much confusion. After doing an Earthly experiment, we can then use that information to understand what we're seeing beyond the earth.

You're the only one confused. Everyone else can understand the information provided by the experiments already performed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true. I'm saying that the light that is seen has reached the field of view of the telescope with the help of magnification.

Field of view is not limited by distance. And the Hubble pictures show that an image can be formed from distant light arriving from objects too far away to be seen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. It's just that we're confusing the issue. I'm discussing real time vision which includes a lens. Light still travels and can be detected, but whether that light holds the image of the past is another story.

So you're back to the strawman of light holding images, and thinking lenses have magical powers. Do you think this will work out better for you this time around than the last 999 times you've tried making such claims?

[peacegirl]

I can only reconcile this by saying that the lens acts efferently.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Huzzah! We are back at efferent cameras - only now it is the lens that acts efferently through the magical action of "focusing"! You just latched onto the nearest thing you do not understand, and claim that it is the reason it works, because of magic.

No Vivisectus. There is no magic. I am trying to figure out how light works because I know there is a way to reconcile this. I'm not trying to latch onto the nearest thing; I'm trying to show that there is a way to make this model work. How would you feel if it was disregarded only because people didn't look deep enough?

If the object seen is within the field of view of the camera when a picture is taken, the distance as far as the lens is concerned is within that small space of visibility.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Waffle snibbly gipwip? Field of view is "in the area where things can be seen". That means that you just said the following: "If the object seen is in the area where things can be seen, then as far as the lens is concerned they are in the area where things can be seen!"

Wrong... then as far as the lens is concerned they are in the field of view where a picture can be taken or the visual range where things can be seen..

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I see the apple does not fall far from the tree.

Why do you have to match the nastiness level of everyone else? Why can't you stay nice and still get your questions answered? Because the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

And even if light travels at a finite speed and we can only see the first photon before the last which would indicate that red would come before blue, the light is traveling so fast that when it strikes the camera it would be the color of blue, not red.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Lol? So even if Lessans is wrong he is still right because it would happen so fast we would not notice?

As far as the lens is concerned, yes. The blue would be the emitted or reflected light which would be at the lens because the distance would not be the lightyears away that you're imagining.

You have to remember that the distance from the object to the lens, according to the camera, is just as close as the lens is to a flickering candle in a dark room. Does that help?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

According to you, lenses are magic and if you have one, distance (and physics) are magically suspended.

It's not that the lenses are suspended, it's how the lens works in relation to space.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not even referring to size. It could be the moon (that's not small, is it?) just out of view of the visual range, and you can't see it unless it comes into the visual range in order to be resolved.

Apparent size means the size something appears to be. Objects appear smaller as they get further away, correct? When the apparent size is too small for a particular camera to resolve an image, that camera cannot create an image.

Just like when the apparent size is too small for our eyes to resolve we can't see (resolve) it.

In order to create an image, either with our eyes or a camera, we have to make it so that the apparent size is large enough to resolve. We can make the apparent size bigger, allowing us to resolve an image, with lenses (which are not efferent. We know what lenses do, we build them. You can experiment with lenses yourself).

This is why we can't see bacteria without lenses. We don't change the actual size when we look through a microscope, we change the apparent size. This is why we can't photograph microbes with a regular snapshot camera, it must be attached to a lens that allows us to make the apparent size bigger so we can resolve it on film or at our eyes.
.

No, there is not. I have nothing to be in denial about. I am not 15 so don't care about "popularity". I am an atheist, and a progressive, so certainly don't think the majority is always right.

I have taken it upon myself to learn how stuff works. There is no mystery here, everything I have said is well explained and can be predicted by optics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl and I did discuss Dave from Canada. Apparently he somethingerothered and then went away.

He was a friend of mine, but we lost touch after college.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm saying that light is a condition of sight. This means that we see the object in real time using light as a medium. What's with you doc?

So we see in real time using light as a medium! Unfortunately light does not travel instaneously! So if light is the "medium" by which we see we don't see in real time! Derp!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes they are overlooking it. No one has been able to give me an explanation as to why objects out of the field of view won't show up on film. Hubble pictures are not part of an Earthly experiment. The Hubble pictures have now become a red herring.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, you were given the explanation. Here it is again.

You cannot photograph an object when the apparent size (due to distance) is too small for the camera to resolve. You can correct for the apparent size due to distance using a telephoto lens and or adjusting exposure time.

This doesn't change anything. The lens magnifies the size so it can be seen. Lessans said that the object has to be large enough to be seen, and this meets the requirements. If the object is small but gets close enough, it can also be resolved (as you put it) by a camera.

I'm not even referring to size. It could be the moon (that's not small, is it?) just out of view of the visual range, and you can't see it unless it comes into the visual range in order to be resolved.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Apparent size means the size something appears to be. Objects appear smaller as they get further away, correct? When the apparent size is too small for a particular camera to resolve an image, that camera cannot create an image.

Just like when the apparent size is too small for our eyes to resolve we can't see (resolve) it.

Hello? What have I been saying all along. Lessans stated that the object has to be large enough (which means that a small object can be magnified to make it large enough), or bright enough.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In order to create an image, either with our eyes or a camera, we have to make it so that the apparent size is large enough to resolve. We can make the apparent size bigger, allowing us to resolve an image, with lenses (which are not efferent. We know what lenses do, we build them. You can experiment with lenses yourself).

I'm not disputing what telescopes do. They are an amazing technology that works.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is why we can't see bacteria without lenses. We don't change the actual size when we look through a microscope, we change the apparent size. This is why we can't photograph microbes with a regular snapshot camera, it must be attached to a lens that allows us to make the apparent size bigger so we can resolve it on film or at our eyes.

But this is in keeping with what Lessans states. Once again, the apparent size of the bacteria is made larger by a microscope. We know that bacteria are too small to be seen with the naked eye even if they were right in front of us, so we need this magnification. But we don't need magnification to see an airplane because it's large enough to be seen as long as it's within our visual range. If it's not, the camera is unable to focus just the light (which it should if afferent vision is correct) being reflected from the airplane so that an image can be resolved on film.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no reason whatsoever for the condition of "Earthly" experiment to be put on this question except so you can deflect and distract. That's YOUR your red herring, not ours.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes there is, but you're the one in denial. And you have everyone to agree with you so it becomes a popularity contest. The majority is always right? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, there is not. I have nothing to be in denial about. I am not 15 so don't care about "popularity". I am an atheist, and a progressive, so certainly don't think the majority is always right.

That's good to know.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have taken it upon myself to learn how stuff works. There is no mystery here, everything I have said is well explained and can be predicted by optics.

There is nothing you said that I am disagreement with, so why are you trying to use this as a way to discredit what Lessans is saying?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hello?

Isn't the little fool cute when she adopts her patronizing tone?

What have I been saying all along. Lessans stated that the object has to be large enough (which means that a small object can be magnified to make it large enough), or bright enough.

So the lens magnifies the object itself? Is that what you are saying? It makes distant objects grow big enough to be seen??

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Vivisectus. There is no magic. I am trying to figure out how light works because I know there is a way to reconcile this. I'm not trying to latch onto the nearest thing; I'm trying to show that there is a way to make this model work. How would you feel if it was disregarded only because people didn't look deep enough?

There is though. Lenses just redirect light - it is all they do. They do not have a magical power called "focusing" that is completely unexplained, but somehow works outward.

Wrong... then as far as the lens is concerned they are in the field of view where a picture can be taken or the visual range where things can be seen..

That still means "If an object can be seen, it is in the area where things can be seen, so as far as the lens is concerned it is in the area where things can be seen"

As I said, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. That is almost as good as "People are compelled to select that which leads to the maximum satisfaction.", where "That which leads to the maximum satisfaction" is only defined as "That which people end up selecting".

Why do you have to match the nastiness level of everyone else? Why can't you stay nice and still get your questions answered? Because the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

It really doesn't, right down to using imaginary persecution as an excuse to avoid admitting you are plain old wrong. Which you dishonestly continue to do.

As far as the lens is concerned, yes. The blue would be the emitted or reflected light which would be at the lens because the distance would not be the lightyears away that you're imagining.

I cannot believe you actually admitted to that. As far as the lens is concerned, distance is imaginary?

It's not that the lenses are suspended, it's how the lens works in relation to space.

Exactly. Distance and physics are suspended because of the magic in lenses.

Well at least you just come out and admit it is insane.