[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was asked to explain how a camera and the eye can be the same when a camera doesn't have a brain. That cameras develop photographs of real time images, and the eyes see those images (or objects) in real time, does not change the mechanism that allows this to occur. This was a reasonable explanation.

No, appealing to a comparison with something else that you can't explain is NOT a reasonable explanation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Having to get there is not necessary if it's a mirror image. The only way a mirror image can show up is if the requirement that the object is within the field of view, is met.

Satisfying your requirements DOES NOT explain how the light gets to be there at the film. Anything that is somewhere has to get there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But not the full light spectrum, therefore it is believed that the pattern of light will produce an image of the object that it bounced off of.

Of course not the full spectrum. So long as objects have absorptive properties, it will not be the full spectrum that bounces off objects. But the light is still distinct from the object and travels without bringing anything but itself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a matter of opinion. If the eyes are efferent light reveals (or reflects) the world, not the other way around.

No, it is not a matter of opinion. It is a simple matter of understanding what the word 'reflect' means.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light does not have to get anywhere if the eyes are efferent, that's just the point. The light reveals the object which means it has to be a mirror image which does not require travel time.

Photons that get from the object to the distant camera to form a mirror image there with zero travel time are TELEPORTING photons. Getting from one physical location to another physical location without traveling through the intervening distance and without taking any time to get there is teleportation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You haven't understood a thing I've tried to explain, which is why there can be no resolution in either of these debates.

You haven't tried to EXPLAIN anything. You don't even seem to understand what an explanation actually is.