A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think it's important to define what is true vision. If someone is being helped because he can see these impulses that are sent from the tongue to the visual cortex and consequently avoid obstacles in his path, then this would be considered a limited type of vision. But this does not prove that the eyes are afferent.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the eyes are not afferent, and vision is an efferent process, how do you suppose the visual cortex can suddenly start processing incoming afferent impulses?

We know that the visual cortex plays a part in sight. So far people can see patterns and vague outlines (sort of like a negative of a photograph), but it's far fetched to think that science is going to figure out a way for blind people to see normally using these impulses.

[Angakuk]

Not nearly as far-fetched as claiming that sight is efferent.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It traveled to get there...

FINALLY!

So then you were wrong in your initial answer:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just answered that. No, it didn't travel...

So now we're back to that initial question. Given that the light did travel to get to the camera, where did it travel from?

4. Did the light present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken previously travel from the object to get there?

[Spacemonkey]

With respect to these points...

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

...do you agree or disagree that:

(i) These things have to be true for the conclusions of his book to be true?

(ii) He did not argue for or support these things anywhere within his book?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that the word "reflect" is a misnomer because it implies that something is bouncing off of an object and traveling to a destination. Light exposes or reveals the external world by the wavelengths that are absorbed which allows us to see the object, not by what is reflected.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And yet you were the one who again (mis-)used the word "reflect" above in response to my question for which I still have no answer:

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

Saying it was reflected doesn't answer the question if reflection doesn't involve the travelling of light. How could that particular light not have travelled to get there if light is always in motion?

The only possible answers are that either that particular light was always there, or that it materialized there when the photograph was taken. Yet you refuse to accept either of these, to provide another alternative, or to correct your obviously incorrect claim that this light never travelled to get to the camera.

You are being dishonest with me.

I'm not purposely being dishonest, so you can't call it that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why Lessans said the following:

Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Which shows him again to be an ignorant boob. Afferent vision does not require electric images flying through space.

No, but afferent vision does require the light to be received by the brain through signals. You're an ignorant boob.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking,
and the object seen, has no relation to time because the images
are not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light, therefore
it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant stars.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

More ignorance. Refuting his absurd strawman (electric images flying through space on the wings of light to strike our optic nerves) doesn't prove real-time vision at all. And when you correct his nonsense to represent what the afferent model does say is happening (light travelling at a finite speed, and striking the retina in patterns of distribution of light of different frequencies which presents all the information required for a dated image) it is not at all clear that this never happens. All we have as his 'proof' here is his assertion that this doesn't happen.

Yes, it has all of the frequencies which presents all the information required for a dated image, but it also has all the frequencies which presents all the information required for an instant image such that when we take a picture of something, it is within range and therefore resolvable.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But I don't need your response to any of this, other than an answer to this question:

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

It traveled, but by the time the camera snaps a photograph, the light is already at the film. So travel time has nothing to do with it. The light at the film is a necessary condition, but we're not focusing the light apart from the object. That's why we would see the object turn red instantly. Never mind. I want to end this part of the discussion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Traveled from where?

The photons from the sun reach the object that is reflecting the light, but remember that the light is already present at the film otherwise a photograph could not be taken. Also remember that the object must be in view. We can't get a photograph of the moon if it's not in the camera's field of view.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The photons from the sun reach the object that is reflecting the light, but remember that the light is already present at the film otherwise a photograph could not be taken. Also remember that the object must be in view. We can't get a photograph of the moon if it's not in the camera's field of view.

What about pictures taken at night?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but afferent vision does require the light to be received by the brain through signals.

And that happens. Light hits the retina resulting in signals being sent to the brain. This is established fact.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it has all of the frequencies which presents all the information required for a dated image, but it also has all the frequencies which presents all the information required for an instant image such that when we take a picture of something, it is within range and therefore resolvable.

If that were true then vision could be both real-time and afferent, as all the information required is already there at the eye such that no further 'looking out' would be required.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It traveled, but by the time the camera snaps a photograph, the light is already at the film. So travel time has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't follow yet that travel time has nothing to do with it. Now that you've admitted your previous error, the next question is whether or not that light at the camera travelled there from the object being photographed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Never mind. I want to end this part of the discussion.

Of course you do. You have no interest in investigating efferent vision properly to find out if it is really a coherent possibility. You're terrified that you might find out that it isn't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but afferent vision does require the light to be received by the brain through signals.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And that happens. Light hits the retina resulting in signals being sent to the brain. This is established fact.

I believe that is true because blind people can see patterns from impulses being relayed by the optic nerve, but this doesn't mean we're dealing with true vision; the kind of vision that allows us to actually see normally.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it has all of the frequencies which presents all the information required for a dated image, but it also has all the frequencies which presents all the information required for an instant image such that when we take a picture of something, it is within range and therefore resolvable.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If that were true then vision could be both real-time and afferent, as all the information required is already there at the eye such that no further 'looking out' would be required.

All the information is there at the eye, that is true, but the eye can't see itself. It must use the light's wavelengths by means of the cones and rods to see the real world --- that's out there --- not in the brain.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It traveled, but by the time the camera snaps a photograph, the light is already at the film. So travel time has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It doesn't follow yet that travel time has nothing to do with it. Now that you've admitted your previous error, the next question is whether or not that light at the camera travelled there from the object being photographed.

At one time light had to travel to the object, but once the light is here, it's always here. I'll say this again: If you can see an object through a lens, the light is already present so when you take a photograph it's a photograph in real time, not delayed time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Never mind. I want to end this part of the discussion.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course you do. You have no interest in investigating efferent vision properly to find out if it is really a coherent possibility. You're terrified that you might find out that it isn't.

That's not true. This thread was intended for his first discovery until it got hijacked again. I also said more empirical studies will determine, once and for all, who is right, but the testing has to be reliable and replicable.

[LadyShea]

I also said more empirical studies will determine, once and for all, who is right, but the testing has to be reliable and replicable.

The moons of Jupiter observation is reliable, you can even test it yourself, and has been replicated countless time over several centuries.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The photons from the sun reach the object that is reflecting the light, but remember that the light is already present at the film otherwise a photograph could not be taken. Also remember that the object must be in view. We can't get a photograph of the moon if it's not in the camera's field of view.

Right, so now you're agreeing that the light at the camera (at the time the photograph was taken) previously travelled there from the sun by way of the surface of the object being photographed.

Now you have previously agreed that the nature of the image produced on the film is caused by the properties (i.e. frequency) of the light at the camera when the photograph is taken.

So the next question is this: If the object changes color after the light in question leaves its surface, but before that light reaches the camera (i.e. before the photograph is taken), can the frequency of that travelling light change while it is in transit (between the object and the camera) so that it continues to match the real-time color of the object?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I also said more empirical studies will determine, once and for all, who is right, but the testing has to be reliable and replicable.

Yeah, and testing has reliably been replicated more times than anyone can count with respect to the moons of Jupiter, ever since this phenomenon was first noticed in 1676, which is, oh, 335 years ago! How many times were you given this link, peacegirl, which demonstrates not just the moons of Jupiter proof of delayed seeing via light but two others proofs as well, along with literally THOUSANDS of other proofs that are made every day, every time we use equipment that depends on delayed-time seeing via light.

And you wonder why people call you dishonest?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe that is true because blind people can see patterns from impulses being relayed by the optic nerve, but this doesn't mean we're dealing with true vision; the kind of vision that allows us to actually see normally.

You're missing the point. Lessans' bizzare strawman of what he wrongly thought afferent vision requires never happens. What afferent vision does require actually does happen, as you just agreed. So Lessans' passage you quoted is incorrect. He did not describe a requirement of afferent vision which doesn't actually occur.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All the information is there at the eye, that is true, but the eye can't see itself. It must use the light's wavelengths by means of the cones and rods to see the real world --- that's out there --- not in the brain.

There is nothing efferent in this at all. What you describe is simply the brain interpreting afferently recieved (and allegedly real-time) information from the light which has arrived at the eyes. What you are describing is how people 'look out'. You are no longer describing how all this happens and then the brain looks out as some further additional act. This is no longer efferent. It is just (allegedly) real-time afferent vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At one time light had to travel to the object, but once the light is here, it's always here. I'll say this again: If you can see an object through a lens, the light is already present so when you take a photograph it's a photograph in real time, not delayed time.

No-one is denying that the light is always there once it is there. That is a tautology and does not in any way establish that the photograph will be real-time rather than delayed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true. This thread was intended for his first discovery until it got hijacked again. I also said more empirical studies will determine, once and for all, who is right, but the testing has to be reliable and replicable.

You are still refusing to discuss his first non-discovery with me. And no further testing is necessary. All you have to do is follow through the implications of your own position for yourself by answering my questions. Do you have the courage to do that?


So the next question is this: If the object changes color after the light in question leaves its surface, but before that light reaches the camera (i.e. before the photograph is taken), can the frequency of that travelling light change while it is in transit (between the object and the camera) so that it continues to match the real-time color of the object?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No-one is denying that the light is always there once it is there.

Actually, pretty much everyone but peacegirl and Lessans would deny that the light is always there once it is there. I believe they are the only ones who believe that light just hangs around waiting for us to see stuff.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Actually, pretty much everyone but peacegirl and Lessans would deny that the light is always there once it is there. I believe they are the only ones who believe that light just hangs around waiting for us to see stuff.

I'm perhaps overly charitably reading her as saying that light is 'always there-once-it-is-there' rather than 'always-there once it is there'. The one is a trivial tautology while the other is a straight contradiction (and she's not very good with anything that comes in between).

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry, but it's not faith based. If you can't see that man's will is not free, that's not Lessans' fault. If you can't see how conscience works under different environmental conditions, that's not Lessans' fault. If you can't see that one can anticipate an action that would cause remorse, even if others don't believe he is blameworthy, that's not Lessans' fault.

So you see Spacemonkey, it's not Lessans fault, it's all your fault, you're just a no-good trouble maker.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And when his knowledge turns out to be true, what will people think of you and your disgusting name calling even if they don't know your real name. I guarantee you would not talk this way if you weren't anonymous. What a coward!

DOH! You got me. I didn't know peacegirl was your real name.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So you see Spacemonkey, it's not Lessans fault, it's all your fault, you're just a no-good trouble maker.

My goodness, I thought the Golden Age was to be a blame-free environment!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So you see Spacemonkey, it's not Lessans fault, it's all your fault, you're just a no-good trouble maker.

Yes. Yes, I am. If I can't see that Lessans was right about things he never gave anyone any reason to think to be true, then that's my fault, not his. Nothing could ever be his fault. He was infallibly perfect and must be worshipped with unwavering faith and devotion. All hail the great Lessans!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm perhaps overly charitably reading her as saying that light is 'always there-once-it-is-there' rather than 'always-there once it is there'. The one is a trivial tautology while the other is a straight contradiction (and she's not very good with anything that comes in between).

Yes, that appears to be exactly what Lessans believed, and what she believes. He wrote something to the effect that the light arrives at the other side of the earth while you are sleeping and that the same light is waiting to say good morning to you when you wake up. The crackpottery stretches the bounds of human reason. It's why long ago I proposed a new category for Lessans, because he has transcended mundane crackpottery: I propose "shatterpot."

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

My goodness, I thought the Golden Age was to be a blame-free environment!

You are absolutely right even if you do not understand anything, we are just asigning fault, not placing blame, don't you know the difference?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, that appears to be exactly what Lessans believed, and what she believes. He wrote something to the effect that the light arrives at the other side of the earth while you are sleeping and that the same light is waiting to say good morning to you when you wake up. The crackpottery stretches the bounds of human reason. It's why long ago I proposed a new category for Lessans, because he has transcended mundane crackpottery: I propose "shatterpot."

Well Lessans doesn't understand 'dark' either, which is much superior to light any day, or night.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, that appears to be exactly what Lessans believed, and what she believes. He wrote something to the effect that the light arrives at the other side of the earth while you are sleeping and that the same light is waiting to say good morning to you when you wake up. The crackpottery stretches the bounds of human reason. It's why long ago I proposed a new category for Lessans, because he has transcended mundane crackpottery: I propose "shatterpot."

If that is all true and Lessans pot is all cracked would that let all his enlightenment out to be lost forever?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Actually, pretty much everyone but peacegirl and Lessans would deny that the light is always there once it is there. I believe they are the only ones who believe that light just hangs around waiting for us to see stuff.

It wouldn't surprise me if Lessans still thought there was a luminiferous ether. The books he was reading were probably that old.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Yes, you are. As long as you keep posting here people will keep questioning your claims.

Really, as if peacegirl could stop posting.