Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you can see the object, the light is already at the retina.
|
You keep saying this, and this is the impossible part. Without an explanation- that doesn't violate physics- for how light gets to be located at the retina, it will remain impossible. Not just implausible....flat out can't happen.
Light can't just be somewhere because you need it to be there. |
Again, you are thinking in terms of afferent vision, which would make this model totally implausible. But if Lessans is right, everything makes sense. Light does not have to reach Earth in order to see the object, but you are not looking at it from the efferent position so, of course, it makes no sense to you. |
Quote:
|
We are not talking about whether light has to reach Earth to merely see the Sun, we are talking about your claim that light is located at the retina when we see the Sun.
|
Of course that's the claim. Are you confused about this?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You are moving the goalposts. Seeing something is Lessans claim. Light being located at the retina is your claim.
|
That is not moving the goalposts at all. You are making stuff up to make it appear as if these observations go to hell. This gives you free rein to tell me that these observations are just mine, which gives you the opportunity to dismiss them. How sneaky you are LadyShea (and I'm not sure why, nor do I care to the degree that I have to psychoanalyze you), but unfortunately your refutation does not prove him wrong. I hope you can accept this, but if you can't, it tells me there's something else going on. |
I am confused because Lessans never said that light must be located
at the retina to see things. He thought we could see the Sun at 12 noon when it was ignited despite no light photons having reached our eyes....he clearly stated it. In other examples he was vague and confusing about the role of light, and never defined what light being "present" meant, but never once did he say anything about light needing to be in physical contact with the retina.
You made that up. You didn't get it from Lessans.