A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Bump for clarification and response

Originally Posted by Dragar

Whoa, peacegirl! Are you seriously suggesting that when I look at the sun, photons all magically appear in my eyes to interact with my retina, with a wavelength that matches the instaneously matches the colour of the sun at that moment 8.4 light minutes away?

Do they do that for every object around the Sun, too? Or just retinas and photographic film?

What about intervening empty space, do they appear there as well?

Please answer the questions below consistently with the statements above

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How am I wrong? Explain it without requiring the laws of physics to be changed.

I am paying perfect attention. You cannot explain it without requiring light to physically exist in two places at once, or instantly be at a different location.

Light is in constant motion. Light travels at a finite speed. Specific light cannot exist at two places at once. Light cannot instantly pop into existence in a location separated by space from its current location. Light cannot be destroyed.

So, how can light at the sun, that has not yet traveled to the camera (or in the case of your statement above the eyes), physically contact camera film (or eyes) instantly without violating or changing one or more of these known properties of light?

Physical contact requires physical proximity. The light and film have to be in the same physical location.

[LadyShea]

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.

Why would you refer to a duplicate image when I was specifically talking about photons?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what I just said.

It might have been what you were trying to say, but what you actually wrote is incorrect. Sunlight does not have a wavelength that includes all the colors. Sunlight is the composite of wavelengths light across the spectrum.

"Wavelength" is an inherent property of light and all electromagnetic energy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would you refer to a duplicate image when I was specifically talking about photons?

We are discussing whether efferent vision is true or not, and if it is true, photons traveling have nothing to do with what we see, even though light travels. Answer me this: If an image is the opposite side of the same coin (so to speak), is there travel time involved? How could there be a delay if it's the same exact image, just on opposite sides? Where did the expression "the opposite side of the coin" come from? It's the same coin. I hope you don't answer yes because you would be the one completely and utterly deluded.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

It might have been what you were trying to say, but what you actually wrote is incorrect. Sunlight does not have a wavelength that includes all the colors. Sunlight is the composite of wavelengths light across the spectrum.

"Wavelength" is an inherent property of light and all electromagnetic energy.

What you changed changed nothing David. Where in the world am I disagreeing with this? You are very confused.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

It might have been what you were trying to say, but what you actually wrote is incorrect. Sunlight does not have a wavelength that includes all the colors. Sunlight is the composite of wavelengths light across the spectrum.

"Wavelength" is an inherent property of light and all electromagnetic energy.

Very true specious_reasons, but it is the wavelength of light that comes from the Sun, not the wavelength that the object is reflecting.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would you refer to a duplicate image when I was specifically talking about photons?

Because photons don't carry the image. A duplicate image is exactly what is happening if you can understand my analogy. If you can't, all bets are off LadyShea, and it's your loss because you are not right.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are discussing whether efferent vision is true or not, and if it is true, photons traveling have nothing to do with what we see, even though light travels

No, we were talking about the requirement for photons to come into physical contact with film to create a photographic image. You are once again trying to weasel out of the question by talking about vision when I was talking about the physics of light and the physics of camera film

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

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

Can you respond to this point?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, we were talking about the requirement for photons to come into physical contact with film to create a photographic image. You are once again trying to weasel out of the question by talking about vision when I was talking about the physics of light and the physics of camera film

Fucked up observation. Sorry to say that but I need to shake you out of your complacency.

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

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Can you respond to this point?

Yes I can. Coming from the position of efferent vision (which looks out through the eyes, as a window), the Sun is a mirror image at the retina. It's instant LadyShea because a mirror image is just the opposite side of the same photographic coin.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are discussing whether efferent vision is true or not, and if it is true, photons traveling have nothing to do with what we see, even though light travels

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, we were talking about the requirement for photons to come into physical contact with film to create a photographic image. You are once again trying to weasel out of the question by talking about vision when I was talking about the physics of light and the physics of camera film[/qutoe]

Not at all.

Can you respond to this point?

Yes I can. Coming from the understanding of efferent vision, the Sun is a mirror image at the eye. It's instant LadyShea because a mirror image is just the opposite side of the same coin.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Could you be more specific? Do we in fact see both sides of an object that is seen directly and in its reflection as on the water in the photos.

[Vivisectus]

Ok, let me try to recap here. I have been busy for a while, and it seems I have missed a whole crop of new weird Lessanisms. Please let me know if I have missed any good new crazy.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Because the light that is being reflected from the object cannot exist independently without the object. When the object is gone, light energy continues to travel at a finite rate of speed. It never stops unless the Sun goes Supernova.

So the light cannot exist independently of the object, but still continues to travel at a finite speed without the object, unless the specific sun it comes from goes supernova.

Fascinating - you manage to contradict yourself in a single sentence.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

“The analogy I'm offering is not in the book. Camera film absolutely works the way the retina works. I'm just extending his knowledge so you can understand it. I'm not altering his observations.”

But the book states that we can see the dun the moment it is turned on. so the eyes only need light to be at the object to see something. Camera's need light to interact with the sensor or film though, so they cannot. So this IS in contradiction with the book.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

“Photons don't change form; they reflect objects.”

Wow! So photons are not reflected from objects, the objects are reflected from or by photons? So actual objects bounce around? This alternate universe you are describing is getting more and more bizarre, Peacegirl.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Light doesn't stop existing. I keep saying that, but the wavelength that came from the object is no longer here. The presupposition is that the object and the wavelength are one and the same. You can't have one without the other. I know that's not what the afferent model states. It states that wavelengths that are reflected off of objects travel indefinitely through space and time and the image of that object can show up thousands or millions of years later.

Ermmm... the wavelength of the object? And the wavelength IS the object? You do not know what a wavelength is, do you Peacegirl? So you are trying to use it as the new magic phrase.

The Wavelength of light just determines the colour. That is it. Nothing else. Which makes that entire paragraph complete nonsense - you didn't even knew what you were trying to say yourself.

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.

You use the word "because" as if that sentence explains anything, but it doesn't. Mirror images are just the new focusing, aren't they? Something you do not understand, but like to invoke to make it seem as if you are explaining something?

If I am to take this literally, the back of the mountain is showing up on the water?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Ermmm... you do not understand what an image is either, do you? So a mirror image (whatever you think that is) instantly appears on the retina, and this is perfectly normal because... what? Mirrors images are magic? This is just the new focusing isn't it? Something that you do not understand in the slightest.

How come the mirror image on the water is all blurry and a different colour by the way? If it was the "other side of the coin" (whatever THAT means) then how come it is different?

[LadyShea]

Nope, this is the known physical interaction of light and camera film. They must be in physical contact for the interaction to occur. Calling it "fucked up" is neither a scientific nor logical refutation of the facts as I've stated them.

Either you can explain it or you can't.

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

Can you respond to this point?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I can. Coming from the position of efferent vision (which looks out through the eyes, as a window), the Sun is a mirror image at the retina. It's instant LadyShea because a mirror image is just the opposite side of the same photographic coin.

Once again film in a camera having a physical, chemical reaction requiring physical contact with light photons is not the brain looking out through the eyes as a window. You are not responding to my point at all.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What you changed changed nothing David. Where in the world am I disagreeing with this? You are very confused.

It's not a matter of disagreeing. You are not using the terms correctly. This either means you don't understand or you are not considering your words carefully enough. I am explaining it to you in the hopes that either it will help clear your misunderstanding or to help you use the terms correctly.

Making poorly worded statements only reinforces the bad notions that people already have about you. You can't possibly hope to convince anyone of anything if you can't articulate it properly.

Very true specious_reasons, but it is the wavelength of light that comes from the Sun, not the wavelength that the object is reflecting.

Like this. I'm going to ignore whatever point you think you're trying to make, because I'm not at all interested in Lessans' ideas.

When light comes into contact with matter, it either passes through, is absorbed, or is reflected. For example, in glass, some light is reflected, some light is absorbed, and most light passes through.

For a blue object, light of most wavelengths are absorbed, and blue light is reflected back. Again, this has all been very well empirically tested and is considered scientific fact.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Whoa, peacegirl! Are you seriously suggesting that when I look at the sun, photons all magically appear in my eyes to interact with my retina, with a wavelength that matches the instaneously matches the colour of the sun at that moment 8.4 light minutes away?

Do they do that for every object around the Sun, too? Or just retinas and photographic film?

What about intervening empty space, do they appear there as well?

Please answer the questions below consistently with the statements above

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How am I wrong? Explain it without requiring the laws of physics to be changed.

I am paying perfect attention. You cannot explain it without requiring light to physically exist in two places at once, or instantly be at a different location.

Light is in constant motion. Light travels at a finite speed. Specific light cannot exist at two places at once. Light cannot instantly pop into existence in a location separated by space from its current location. Light cannot be destroyed.

So, how can light at the sun, that has not yet traveled to the camera (or in the case of your statement above the eyes), physically contact camera film (or eyes) instantly without violating or changing one or more of these known properties of light?

Physical contact requires physical proximity. The light and film have to be in the same physical location.

You obviously understood nothing I have been discussing. How do light and film need physical proximity when they are one and the same thing? There is no physical distance between them at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

It's not a matter of disagreeing. You are not using the terms correctly. This either means you don't understand or you are not considering your words carefully enough. I am explaining it to you in the hopes that either it will help clear your misunderstanding or to help you use the terms correctly.

Making poorly worded statements only reinforces the bad notions that people already have about you. You can't possibly hope to convince anyone of anything if you can't articulate it properly.

Like this. I'm going to ignore whatever point you think you're trying to make, because I'm not at all interested in Lessans' ideas.

When light comes into contact with matter, it either passes through, is absorbed, or is reflected. For example, in glass, some light is reflected, some light is absorbed, and most light passes through.

For a blue object, light of most wavelengths are absorbed, and blue light is reflected back. Again, this has all been very well empirically tested and is considered scientific fact.

But where I am disagreeing with this? The only thing I am disagreeing with is that the wavelength that the object is reflecting is being carried along without the object being present. It's a fallacy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, this is the known physical interaction of light and camera film. They must be in physical contact for the interaction to occur. Calling it "fucked up" is neither a scientific nor logical refutation of the facts as I've stated them.

Either you can explain it or you can't.

Once again film in a camera having a physical, chemical reaction requiring physical contact with light photons is not the brain looking out through the eyes as a window. You are not responding to my point at all.

It's not necessary for film to have a brain in order for film to act exactly like the retina. You are not responding to my point at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ok, let me try to recap here. I have been busy for a while, and it seems I have missed a whole crop of new weird Lessanisms. Please let me know if I have missed any good new crazy.

So the light cannot exist independently of the object, but still continues to travel at a finite speed without the object, unless the specific sun it comes from goes supernova.

Fascinating - you manage to contradict yourself in a single sentence.

Forget that because photons can exist even if the Sun goes Supernova. That was not a good analogy on my part.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

“The analogy I'm offering is not in the book. Camera film absolutely works the way the retina works. I'm just extending his knowledge so you can understand it. I'm not altering his observations.”

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But the book states that we can see the dun the moment it is turned on. so the eyes only need light to be at the object to see something. Camera's need light to interact with the sensor or film though, so they cannot. So this IS in contradiction with the book.

This is not a contradiction if Lessans is right about efferent vision, which you are all getting more and more confused over. I admit that it's partly my fault when I mentioned the Sun going supernova.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

“Photons don't change form; they reflect objects.”

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Wow! So photons are not reflected from objects, the objects are reflected from or by photons? So actual objects bounce around? This alternate universe you are describing is getting more and more bizarre, Peacegirl.

What does this have to do with objects bouncing around just because light reveals those objects due to its properties? You're right, this IS getting more and more bizarre.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Light doesn't stop existing. I keep saying that, but the wavelength that came from the object is no longer here. The presupposition is that the object and the wavelength are one and the same. You can't have one without the other. I know that's not what the afferent model states. It states that wavelengths that are reflected off of objects travel indefinitely through space and time and the image of that object can show up thousands or millions of years later.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ermmm... the wavelength of the object? And the wavelength IS the object? You do not know what a wavelength is, do you Peacegirl? So you are trying to use it as the new magic phrase.

Where am I making a distinction between the two phrases? They both mean the same thing but are expressed differently depending on the sentence. This has nothing to do with magic.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The Wavelength of light just determines the colour. That is it. Nothing else. Which makes that entire paragraph complete nonsense - you didn't even knew what you were trying to say yourself.

If you read the previous posts you would see that I do understand that a wavelength is the color, and I said that the default position when an object is no longer present is light from the Sun which consists of the entire visible spectrum.

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You use the word "because" as if that sentence explains anything, but it doesn't. Mirror images are just the new focusing, aren't they? Something you do not understand, but like to invoke to make it seem as if you are explaining something?

Focusing is necessary for a clear picture, but this is not the answer. The answer lies in the fact that we are seeing reality in the present due to the properties of the brain.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If I am to take this literally, the back of the mountain is showing up on the water?

The back of the mountain? How about the front view of the mountain?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ermmm... you do not understand what an image is either, do you? So a mirror image (whatever you think that is) instantly appears on the retina, and this is perfectly normal because... what? Mirrors images are magic? This is just the new focusing isn't it? Something that you do not understand in the slightest.

How come the mirror image on the water is all blurry and a different colour by the way? If it was the "other side of the coin" (whatever THAT means) then how come it is different?

I can see I'm getting you agitated and I'm sorry about that, but I will defend Lessans' position whether you feel threatened by my analogy or not. Mirror images are not magic. They do not require photons to travel because the image that is on the retina is the same image; just the opposite side of the coin.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

List of unanswered questions concerning efferent vision which Peacegirl can't address because they don't make her feel "warm and fuzzy":


1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

3. If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?


The Sun just ignited. So yellow light comes into existence both at the Sun and in the observer's eyes. One second later the Sun is green, meaning green light is now in existence at the surface of the Sun and has also just come into existence in the observer's eyes. At this time, where is the yellow light that was at the Sun one second ago? Is any of it travelling towards the Earthbound observer at this point?


So imagine some photons of a particular wavelength travelling along at some distance from a light emitting object. What happens to that travelling light if the object then ceases to exist?

Will that travelling light cease to exist?

Will it continue to exist and travel but without any wavelength at all?

Will it continue to exist and travel but with some other different wavelength?

Bump.

[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.

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.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Could you be more specific? Do we in fact see both sides of an object that is seen directly and in its reflection as on the water in the photos.

No, we don't see both sides of an object if one side of that object is out of view. A mirror image is just that. It is an exact copy of what we see. So if we see the front side of a mountain; that's what will show up on the water because it's the same exact image.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

No, you're not envisioning what I'm saying so you revert right back to your afferent position. I'm not answering these questions because they don't apply to what I'm trying to get across. Show me that you understand what I'm talking about for a change.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Nonsense. You haven't provided any reasoning. We only just established that you've been thinking of duplicate photons instantaneously coming into existence at the film or retina, and since then you've refused to answer any questions about this at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

You're lying to yourself again. As I've told you every single time you've used this blatantly false excuse, my questions do not come from any other different position, but are based purely on your answers and claims. For instance:

- You've said there is light at the camera film when the photograph is taken which determines the nature of the photograph. If that is true, then that same light either existed just before that moment, or it didn't. And if it did then it must have existed at some specifiable location. None of this involves any afferent assumptions or comes from any position but your own.

- You've said that when the newly ignited yellow/green alternating Sun is ignited, yellow then green alternating light will be constantly coming into existence at the observer's eyes before any light has had time to travel from the Sun to the Earth. You've also said that the original non-duplicate light exists at the Sun. So it has to be either true or false that some of this original light will be travelling towards the Earth during this time. None of this involves any afferent assumptions or comes from any position but your own.

- You've said that the frequency/wavelength of the light travelling away from an object cannot continue to exist when that object ceases to exist. So when this happens, either the light with this frequency also ceases to exist, or it continues to exist with no frequency, or it mus continue to exist with a new frequency. None of this involves any afferent assumptions or comes from any position but your own.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Refusing to answer any questions about your own answers and claims is not rational or reasonable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

What term do you think would be fair for us to use then?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you're not envisioning what I'm saying so you revert right back to your afferent position. I'm not answering these questions because they don't apply to what I'm trying to get across. Show me that you understand what I'm talking about for a change.

That's obviously not true. See my above post. These questions have nothing to do with any position of afferent vision, and directly relate to exactly what you have been talking about. Stop lying.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, we don't see both sides of an object if one side of that object is out of view. A mirror image is just that. It is an exact copy of what we see. So if we see the front side of a mountain; that's what will show up on the water because it's the same exact image.

Why is the mirror image horizontally flipped when I look in a mirror, but vertically flipped when I look at the mirror image on the water?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are discussing whether efferent vision is true or not, and if it is true, photons traveling have nothing to do with what we see, even though light travels.

What you were trying to say was that while the photons at the object do not interact with the retina/film, an image consisting of duplicate photons instantaneously coming-into-existence at the retina/film does interact with it. But if the original non-duplicate photons at the object still travel, then what happens when they turn up at the film/retina? How will the film/retina know not to interact with them?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Answer me this: If an image is the opposite side of the same coin (so to speak), is there travel time involved? How could there be a delay if it's the same exact image, just on opposite sides? Where did the expression "the opposite side of the coin" come from? It's the same coin. I hope you don't answer yes because you would be the one completely and utterly deluded.

You can't expect us to answer your questions in accordance with efferent vision when we neither believe it nor understand how it is supposed to work. Our answer is always going to be that our perception of both the mountain and its reflection in the water involves travel time, as they both involve light from the mountain travelling to our eyes. Even if we were to give you the answer that you want to hear - that the mirror image is instantaneous - that gets us no closer to understanding how this is supposed to work or be possible. And we can't give you that information. You have to explain it to us.