A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Dragar]

I've no idea. It's like she thinks reflected light is different to light produced by the Sun or something.

peacegirl? What's going on? What are you trying to tell us?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Objects and the light they reflect are one and the same.

Not sure the weather where you are, but here it is a clear night with a very bright near-full moon. The moonlight is bright enough to cast shadows.

The moon does not emit light, it reflects sunlight. The sun's directly emitted photons are on the other side of the Earth, waiting to smile on me in the morning, but the reflected photons are right here in my yard, casting shadows and lighting up the driveway.

So, is the reflected light and the moon one and the same, or how does that work exactly? Is the sunlight only revealing the moon and not traveling away from it (ie reflected and continuing to travel)? If so what is it that is interacting with the trees to make shadows?

[Spacemonkey]

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
It would continue on, but what I'm trying to get at is that any light that is reflected from an object, do not keep that wavelength when the object is no longer there.

So what is light if it has no wavelength?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I've no idea. It's like she thinks reflected light is different to light produced by the Sun or something.

peacegirl? What's going on? What are you trying to tell us?

She is telling you that she has a mental illness and is not coherent enough to understand much of reality. This is reflected in her answers and I would image that by now she should be getting tired of trying to go over something yet again that makes as much sense to her as it does to us.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The same light that's being emitted from the Sun.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The specific light that's being emitted right now, 8.5 light minutes away, or the light that was emitted 8.5 minutes ago? The same light that was there a nanonsecond ago? 10 nanoseconds ago? 3 seconds ago? All the same light?

No, it's not the same light because light is constantly being replaced. But this has nothing to do with efferent vision. That's why you're confused.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's constantly moving but the presupposition is that the photons are traveling to the eye. That comes from the afferent model of sight. Do you see why this is so difficult?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Photons are traveling to the eye, and the skin, and hair, and to, from, around and- in the case of absorption- into everything.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's exactly right.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then why did you say "the presupposition is that the photons are traveling to the eye. That comes from the afferent model of sight." as if efferent vision proposes something else?

I wasn't agreeing with the afferent model. I was agreeing that photons are traveling everywhere all the time. But when light strikes an object that wavelength is present because the object is present. The afferent model of sight states that the light bounces off of an object and becomes that wavelength even if the object is no longer present. I'm not implying that photons from the Sun aren't constantly in motion.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

According to Lessans those photons don't trigger a photochemical interaction that forms an image in the brain, but nothing he wrote indicates he thought photons didn't travel or come in contact with everything.

You're right, he didn't. Because he knew photons did come in contact with everything. Efferent vision does not mean that photons are not interacting with the retina, or film. But I don't think you will understand why until I give you another analogy.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So far, you have been unable to explain how photons interact with the retina or film at a distance. Using Lessans example of the Sun being turned on led you to talk about photons appearing in the retina instantly, which cannot happen. If photons must be in contact with the retina or film, they have to get to the retina or film. They either have to travel there, teleport there, or appear there by magic.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They cannot be physically at the newly ignited sun and at the camera film simultaneously because they can't physically be in two places at once

No one said they are in two places at once. You will not understand what I'm talking about because you're not looking at this in terms of the brain looking through the eyes, as a window. You will continue to tell me this messes up physics, which it doesn't. Not for one second will you give up your position just to get an idea of what I'm presenting, will you? The very first thing you need to do is to picture the world outside of you (which means anything in your field of view) as a screen. This is the last time I'm going to attempt this. I didn't want to get into this subject again anyway.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes they can.

No, they can't. YOU specifically told me they can't:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You will not understand what I'm talking about because you're not looking at this in terms of the brain looking through the eyes, as a window. You will continue to tell me this messes up physics, which it doesn't. Not for one second will give up your position just to get an idea of what I'm presenting, will you?

What you are presenting changes from post to post, and that is why we can't make any sense of it. What you are trying to present doesn't even make any sense to you, as evidenced by your inability to answer simple questions and your refusal to stand behind your own answers.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the last time I'm going to attempt this. I didn't want to get into this subject again anyway.

Then feel free to return to Lessans' first non-discovery by showing me exactly where he supports his previously listed presuppositions about conscience.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You will not understand what I'm talking about because you're not looking at this in terms of the brain looking through the eyes, as a window. You will continue to tell me this messes up physics, which it doesn't. Not for one second will give up your position just to get an idea of what I'm presenting, will you?

peacegirl, as far as I know you are the only person on the planet that looks out their eyes as if they were windows directly with their brain. So you will excuse us since we don't do it that way and don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So what is light if it has no wavelength?

Who said light didn't have a wavelength? Sunlight has a wavelength that includes all of the colors of the visible spectrum. This light is everywhere.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes they can.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, they can't. YOU specifically told me they can't:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Can particular photons be in more than one place at the same time?

No Spacemonkey.

When I said they can be at two places at once, I was referring to a duplicate image. But in reality the light from the object must interact with the film or retina. They can't be at two distinct places under any model, which LadyShea was pointing out. And I agree.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You will not understand what I'm talking about because you're not looking at this in terms of the brain looking through the eyes, as a window. You will continue to tell me this messes up physics, which it doesn't. Not for one second will give up your position just to get an idea of what I'm presenting, will you?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What you are presenting changes from post to post, and that is why we can't make any sense of it. What you are trying to present doesn't even make any sense to you, as evidenced by your inability to answer simple questions and your refusal to stand behind your own answers.

Wrong Spacemonkey. Your questions will not explain the plausibility of efferent vision. All you keep doing is giving me the same example of light leaving its source and logically we are supposed to be seeing the blue photon before the object turns red because the blue photon was first.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the last time I'm going to attempt this. I didn't want to get into this subject again anyway.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then feel free to return to Lessans' first non-discovery by showing me exactly where he supports his previously listed presuppositions about conscience.

I'm turned off right now and I don't know if I feel like continuing. The fact that you call this a non-discovery is a slap in the face. You're not really interested in learning what this discovery is about.

[naturalist.atheist]

It's got to be schizophrenia. peacegirl has good moments and then not so good moments.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I said they can be at two places at once, I was referring to a duplicate image. But in reality the light from the object must interact with the film or retina. They can't be at two distinct places under any model, which LadyShea was pointing out. And I agree.

Yes. I was responding to your initial "Yes they can" which you then changed to a "No one said they can". LadyShea said that the very same photons can't be in two places at once, but must instead "travel there, teleport there, or appear there by magic". You do not disagree with her on that. You do think duplicate photons will come into existence at the film or retina. You just don't want to call it magic, and refuse to answer any questions about it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong Spacemonkey. Your questions will not explain the plausibility of efferent vision. All you keep doing is giving me the same example of light leaving its source and logically we are supposed to be seeing the blue photon before the object turns red because the blue photon was first.

Apparently you haven't even been reading my questions, because they have absolutely nothing to do with what you just described. You keep referring instead to an example which I haven't used in months.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm turned off right now and I don't know if I feel like continuing. The fact that you call this a non-discovery is a slap in the face. You're not really interested in learning what this discovery is about.

Then take a break and come back when you're ready to discuss things a little more rationally. BTW, calling it a 'non-discovery' is just my way of showing you how biased and premature it is for you to call it a 'discovery'. The appropriately neutral term would be to call it his 'claim'. If you get to call it a 'discovery' while it still remains in contention for everyone but yourself, then the rest of us are equally justified in referring to it as his 'non-discovery'.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who said light didn't have a wavelength? Sunlight has a wavelength that includes all of the colors of the visible spectrum. This light is everywhere.

Not correct, peacegirl. Color=wavelength. The Sun emits light at all wavelengths. The Sun emits light of all colors.

If you put a red object in sunlight, the object absorbs most wavelengths of light and reflects red light.
If you put a blue object in sunlight, the object absorbs most wavelengths of light and reflects blue light.

And it is also not true that light is everywhere. Light travels in a straight line until it hits an object, then it is either reflected or absorbed. This is why about 1/2 the Earth is in shadow. Night happens because the light emitted from the Sun is blocked or reflected by the Earth.

Of course, it's hard to be completely without light. There are other stars emitting light and the moon reflects sunlight back to Earth.

Again, this all is empirically proven, and well established fact. Regardless of how you think we see, these facts are true and must remain true. Any explanation of vision that defies these facts must necessarily be false.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You don't understand the entire definition then, because this phrase reflection off of indicates a physical interaction requiring movement which requires time.

A mirror image is instantaneous because the image that shows up on the water is the opposite side of the same thing. If you think of the mountain scene as a screen (and eliminate the false notion that light carries (or becomes) the wavelength of the object such that the object can be removed but the wavelength remains), you will more easily understand why there is no time element in this at all even though there is still an interaction between light and the surface of the water. But you need to think in terms of efferent vision in order to visualize this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Not correct, peacegirl. Color=wavelength. The Sun emits light at all wavelengths. The Sun emits light of all colors.

That's what I just said.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

If you put a red object in sunlight, the object absorbs most wavelengths of light and reflects red light.
If you put a blue object in sunlight, the object absorbs most wavelengths of light and reflects blue light.

I'm not disputing this.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And it is also not true that light is everywhere. Light travels in a straight line until it hits an object, then it is either reflected or absorbed. This is why about 1/2 the Earth is in shadow. Night happens because the light emitted from the Sun is blocked or reflected by the Earth.

That's correct. I will qualify that by saying in daylight, light is everywhere. That's what LadyShea was alluding to.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Of course, it's hard to be completely without light. There are other stars emitting light and the moon reflects sunlight back to Earth.

Again, this all is empirically proven, and well established fact. Regardless of how you think we see, these facts are true and must remain true. Any explanation of vision that defies these facts must necessarily be false.

Lessans is still in the game then because none of these facts are being challenged. What is being challenged is afferent vision which, if proved to be false, would change the belief that we are seeing the past instead of the present.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who said light didn't have a wavelength? Sunlight has a wavelength that includes all of the colors of the visible spectrum. This light is everywhere.

If the light continues on after the object is gone, you have stated that it does not keep that wavelength of the object. So if it no longer has that wavelength of the object, does it have a wavelength, if so what wavelength does it have?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I said they can be at two places at once, I was referring to a duplicate image. But in reality the light from the object must interact with the film or retina. They can't be at two distinct places under any model, which LadyShea was pointing out. And I agree.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes. I was responding to your initial "Yes they can" which you then changed to a "No one said they can". LadyShea said that the very same photons can't be in two places at once, but must instead "travel there, teleport there, or appear there by magic". You do not disagree with her on that. You do think duplicate photons will come into existence at the film or retina. You just don't want to call it magic, and refuse to answer any questions about it.

What do you think I've been trying to do these last couple of days? But you refuse to follow my reasoning.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong Spacemonkey. Your questions will not explain the plausibility of efferent vision. All you keep doing is giving me the same example of light leaving its source and logically we are supposed to be seeing the blue photon before the object turns red because the blue photon was first.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Apparently you haven't even been reading my questions, because they have absolutely nothing to do with what you just described. You keep referring instead to an example which I haven't used in months.

I'm tired of your questions because you are not understanding the efferent version of sight at all, and you're trying to make me conform to your way of thinking which comes from a different position entirely. The two positions will never meet.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm turned off right now and I don't know if I feel like continuing. The fact that you call this a non-discovery is a slap in the face. You're not really interested in learning what this discovery is about.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then take a break and come back when you're ready to discuss things a little more rationally. BTW, calling it a 'non-discovery' is just my way of showing you how biased and premature it is for you to call it a 'discovery'. The appropriately neutral term would be to call it his 'claim'. If you get to call it a 'discovery' while it still remains in contention for everyone but yourself, then the rest of us are equally justified in referring to it as his 'non-discovery'.

Don't tell me I'm not talking rationally. I'm talking very rationally and if I leave for any length of time I'll probably not come back.

You're not going to get away with your justification for calling this a non-discovery. Even if you aren't sure whether this is a true discovery or not, until the facts come in, you don't have to call it a non-discovery when you really don't know whether it's a genuine discovery or not. If you can't stop from thinking that his claims are false, at the very least keep your thoughts to yourself. I know he has a genuine discovery, and you're going to have to deal with the fact that I am going to use this term because I don't need you or anyone else to tell me that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. Call it unfair but I will not accept your use of the term "non-discovery" if you want to converse with me. That's up to you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A mirror image is instantaneous because the image that shows up on the water is the opposite side of the same thing. If you think of the mountain scene as a screen (and eliminate the false notion that light carries (or becomes) the wavelength of the object such that the object can be removed but the wavelength remains), you will more easily understand why there is no time element in this at all even though there is still an interaction between light and the surface of the water. But you need to think in terms of efferent vision in order to visualize this.

Are you saying that in an image with the object and it's reflection we are in fact seeing both sides of the object? The front and the back, from the line of sight of the viewer?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If the light continues on after the object is gone, you have stated that it does not keep that wavelength of the object. So if it no longer has that wavelength of the object, does it have a wavelength, if so what wavelength does it have?

The default position of light is the Sun's wavelength which is a neutral color and contains all of the colors of the visual spectrum.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Are you saying that in an image with the object and it's reflection we are in fact seeing both sides of the object? The front and the back, from the line of sight of the viewer?

Sort of. If you are looking out at the screen of life what we are getting is the mirror image on our retina (if the efferent version of sight is true which I believe it is). This is why the image shows up on film instantly as well (because film works like the retina), and why we are able to see the external world in real time.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A mirror image is instantaneous because the image that shows up on the water is the opposite side of the same thing. If you think of the mountain scene as a screen (and eliminate the false notion that light carries (or becomes) the wavelength of the object such that the object can be removed but the wavelength remains), you will more easily understand why there is no time element in this at all even though there is still an interaction between light and the surface of the water. But you need to think in terms of efferent vision in order to visualize this.

I am not talking about how we see, I am talking about the properties of light aka light physics. Reflection is a physics term, light reflects as does sound, anything in motion can be reflected. Motion requires time as it relates to distance. Therefore, there can be no physical interaction called a reflection without a time factor.

So far, you cannot show how efferent vision is compatible with light physics. If we need to change the properties of light for efferent vision to work, then it is false.

Light does not carry or become the wavelength of objects. That is a false notion that nobody here has posited. That's your strawman understanding so your continuing to argue against it as if it is our position is meaningless.

[LadyShea]

Visualizing the world as a screen implies there is something being projected onto it from some other location.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The default position of light is the Sun's wavelength which is a neutral color and contains all of the colors of the visual spectrum.

Are you ignoring posts purposefully? The Sun doesn't have a wavelength.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't need you or anyone else to tell me that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8.

Yeah, I don't need anyone else to tell me that .5 is .5 either! We are like twins!

What idea is it that you think this tautology expresses? You use it kind of a lot because Lessans used it, but really it doesn't mean anything useful.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Photons reflect objects? What?

And light is energy. Light energy can change form to other types of energy...see photosynthesis and solar power.

You did say it could stop existing

Right here "Because the light that is being reflected from the object cannot exist independently without the object."

The wavelength is a property of the light. It is not from the object at all and it is certainly not dependent on the object it was emitted or reflected from, and no longer in contact with, for continued existence. Once the light travels away from the object, the interaction is done.

Who's presupposition? Certainly nobody here. It doesn't even make any sense. Is that a strawman you've built?

No, it doesn't state that. Wavelengths are not reflected. Light it reflected. Light has a wavelength. And since light is energy, and since a property of light is that it travels indefinitely, it will travel indefinitely unless it is absorbed and converted to another form of energy.

This has nothing to do with afferent vision, this is only the physics of light

So you think reflected light has different inherent properties, and behaves differently, than emitted light?

You think that when light interacts with something, then leaves the area, it is still dependent on whatever it interacted with to maintain it's properties? What if it is reflected 500 times off 500 objects? Which object is it dependent on to maintain it's wavelength?

What exactly do you think a wavelength is?

So when you use a hand mirror to reflect light from the bathroom and make a dancing light spot on the side wall in the next room, (or the floor to tease your cat) the bathroom light and the mirror are one and the same, or the mirror and the light spot on the wall are one and the same?

Bump