[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am describing how efferent vision works. Even though I can't tell you exactly what's going on in the brain doesn't mean I don't have an understanding as to how we are able to see in real time.

You don't know how it works yet. You're still trying to work that out. I'm not asking you about what's going on in the brain. I'm asking you simple questions about where the light is and how it behaves at different times and places within your explanations. Any viable model has to have some set of consistent answers to such questions. So far, you don't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In order to understand efferent vision, you need to know how the premises are different from afferent vision. One such premise is that objects do not reflect light which only means that the light striking the object does not bounce off of the object taking the wavelength of the object with it through space and time. Can you temporarily accept this premise so I can explain what does happen to the non-absorbed light?

You have reverted to speaking of 'reflection' without distinguishing which meaning you are using, and are speaking yet again of the 'wavelength of objects'. So no, this is not even remotely acceptable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to explain how the ability to see in real time is plausible and does not go against the laws of physics. Whether one believes Lessans' observations are correct will ultimately depend on the results of empirical testing, which I believe will support his claim.

Exactly my point. You have faith in Lessans' conclusions, and are still trying to develop a model which will at least show them to be coherently possible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The minute you talk about objects reflecting light and landing on the film (which involves travel), you're coming from the premise of afferent vision.

Not at all. You told us that all of the sunlight is (N)reflected from the object (i.e. bounces off the object and continues travelling). That makes questions about this travelling light (and what happens when it gets to the film) entirely legitimate on your efferent model. Such questions are not coming from the afferent position.