[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What else do you imagine a lens can do, beyond receiving incoming light? You claimed the lens acts efferently, but if nothing comes outwards from the lens then this is simply false.

Unless the lens can change the actual physical distance between the object and the camera, or the actual speed at which light travels between them, then I'm afraid your suggestion changes absolutely nothing.

It changes everything Spacemonkey. The lens doesn't have to change the physical distance in order to take a snapshot in real time, not delayed time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

When an object first changes color to begin absorbing non-blue light and reflecting only blue light, any blue light just beginning to be reflected from the surface of the object will still take time to get from that surface to the camera and its lens.

Reflection is a misnomer because there is nothing being reflected from the surface of the object to the camera. The object reveals itself by absorbing all the non-blue wavelengths and we're able to see the object in real time because of how the brain and eyes operate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing I can come up with right now is that the apparent distance between the camera and the object is not the actual distance. I've already explained this and I still believe there is something to it. When the lens focuses on the object the wavelength is instantly at the film, just as we see the object instantly. How this occurs seems like a mystery but it's not if you're thinking in terms of efferent vision. It wouldn't make sense coming from afferent vision because, according to this [theory], light travels at a finite rate of speed and therefore it would necessarily follow that there is a time delay between the light leaving the object and the light arriving at the camera. Do you see the problem here?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, and I can see you trying to move it. The problem is not that anyone is assuming afferent vision, or looking at it only from that perspective. The problem here is coming purely from your account of efferent vision and nowhere else. Your account still makes no sense even on your own terms. Afferent vision has nothing to do with it. You still have absolutely no explanation for how blue light can be instantaneously at the camera at the very moment a distant object begins to absorb non-blue light to bounce only the blue light towards the camera.

Afferent vision and efferent vision are complete opposites. It makes all the difference in the world which one is true, just as it makes all the difference in the world whether or not our will is free or determined. There is no bouncing towards the camera. That would involve time. We see the object because the object exposes itself due to its absorption properties. I hope you get this eventually.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I am not relying upon afferent vision to set up this problem. It follows purely from your own statements about what is happening on your account of photography. The only assumptions involved are your own.

And my account works due to efferent vision. If our brains did not look through the eyes, as a window, this version of reality would be fantasy. But it's an accurate version.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why is that arriving light of blue wavelength?

I wish you wouldn't use the word "arrive" because that denotes travel time, which originates from the afferent model of sight.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, that the light at the film has arrived and previously took time to travel there is what you have already agreed to. This is not originating from the afferent model. It is coming from your own answers.

I must have been confused as to what you were asking. How can there be an "arrival time" when there is no "departure time"? You can't arrive at point B unless you leave point A.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Answer: Because the object is absorbing all non-blue wavelengths.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But when was it doing this? Not at the time this light left the surface of the object, because then the object was absorbing blue light and reflecting only red light. That the light now at the camera is blue can only be explained by the absorptive properties of the object at the time it reflected the light in question.

That's because you think the wavelength is traveling toward the camera. In that case you would be right. The red would show up first.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How can the fact that the object is just now begining to absorb non-blue light and send only blue light towards the camera explain the color of the light which is already at the camera? This light is blue, and yet left the surface of the object back when the object was red. So you haven't explained why the light now at the camera is blue.

Send is another word for "transmit", and there is no transmission. I don't know of another way to explain this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Answer: Blue.

Can you think of what the problem will be if the light WAS blue just before it arrived?

Answer: No.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The problem is that you are now claiming that just before the picture was taken, there was blue light in transit between the red ball and the camera. Why on Earth would that light be blue? Does the light somehow know in advance that the object is about to change color?

Do you see the confusion with words? I will say once again that there is no transit time, which is the only reason the light at the camera would be blue, not red.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can you think of what the problem will be if it was NOT blue just before it arrived?

Answer: Yes.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then what specifically would that problem be? (And don't just say because then efferent vision would be impossible. That would be wrong.)

It's understanding what the lens is doing instead of what light is doing. That's why I think it's better to focus on the brain and the eyes in order to understand this concept rather than light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know you are trying to get me to see the inconsistency in my reasoning, but I believe that's only because you are using the afferent model to judge my answers.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But I'm not. I'm using only your own answers and your own reasoning. The problem here in your own account has nothing to do with the afferent model. The problem is that you are making inconsistent and nonsensical claims, and this is being demonstrated without any reliance upon the afferent model. Why can't you own up to your own inconsistency without trying to shift the blame elsewhere?

I'm not shifting the blame. I take responsibility where I am not being clear, although I'm not sure how to make the concept easier to understand. But efferent vision has everything to do with understanding why we see the object in real time. Light automatically becomes a condition of sight. It does not bounce off, travel, transmit, arrive, or depart, in order to bring us the image. It's there to be seen.