[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are trying to prove that we can't be seeing the actual star because it is too many light years away to be seen. But is it? This goes back to the basic question: Are we seeing a past image of a star as the light reaches our eyes, or are we seeing the actual image.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

What do you mean by "image of a star"? How are you defining "actual image"? This sounds like nonsense so you really need to define your terms.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is confusing because people view images as old light and therefore the past. An image, according to Lessans, is the actual light source, so if I see an image of a star with a telescope, I am seeing the actual star. Obviously, the light that is being emitted is what the telescope uses to take a picture, but the image of the star has to be in view for a photograph to turn out. I am getting the feeling that the more I talk, the angrier people are getting, so maybe it's time to call this discussion quits.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

Science says we are seeing/detecting the light only, and not an "image of a star" whatever that even means. Since the light had to travel here, and it travels at a finite speed, it is necessarily aged during the trip so we are detecting light that was emitted in the past.

This is really quite simple, what part are you not understanding?

I think the part that is missing is that a lens is required to form an image. The eye has a lens and so do all cameras (except the pin hole camera, camera obscura, or holographic methods).

There is more than simply detecting photons needed in order to detect an image but it has nothing to do with efferent vision.

I never said it did, although in all cases where a photograph is taken, the object or image of that photograph is present (the photograph is not taken from detecting light alone),

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are trying to say here. What is an "image of that photograph"? It sounds like a photo of a photo?

And if a "photograph is not taken from detecting light alone", then other than a lens forming an image, what else is involved?

We see an image because the photons are being reflected back to us.

When a smooth flat pane of glass is coated with a shining metal like mercury or silver, then the mirror is formed.
The light follows the laws of reflection in that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of refection. Thus an image is formed, which can be seen by the observer.

This reflected light comes from an object or light source. If there is no light source or object, there can be no image in the mirror. That's why it's difficult to accept that we would be seeing Columbus discovering America when the event is no longer there.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

This especially doesn't make any sense. We don't actually see an image in the mirror. We form an image with the lens in our eye that happens to include reflected light from a mirror if a mirror is present. But mirror or no, if our eye is not capable of forming an image, then we don't see one. Thus a reflected image of a featureless, no contrast area will not form an image whether we look at it directly or in a mirror. Not only do you not not see anything but you might actually think you are tilting or upside down. Pilots experience this whenever they fly in fogged or whiteout conditions and must be trained to ignore their senses and use instruments alone.

I believe that's what happened to John F. Kennedy Jr. When you say we form an image, you are speaking in terms of afferent vision. Efferent vision would say we see an image. There has to be contrast which is why there is reflection and absorption. Positioning has a lot to do with visual orientation and contrast as well. Without a point of reference to establish your position, it's very easy to get disoriented.