A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Actually, objects only absorb light; they don't reflect it. There is no property in the object that is capable of reflecting light. Light travels and bounces off of objects but that's not the same thing. This is where science did not get it right. FYI, just because my analogy was not the best doesn't mean that I have no clue what I'm talking about. I think I'm doing pretty well; but I'm only half of the equation. The other half is going to involve your leaving the afferent model behind, which you're not doing. That's why this whole thing sounds impossible when it's really not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Is the photon that "converges at the exact image point" (whatever that is supposed to mean) the same photon that is on the film/retina?

That was what I was trying to say but I was not explaining it right. So I am back to my original explanation which is that the object must be in range. This is true and I never did vacillate. We can still use the mirror image analogy; just in a different way than the way I was describing. Let's look at the mirror image on the mountain photo once again. Each photon on the object corresponds with the image on the water. This is exactly what happens with the eyes. The only mistake made by scientists is that the non-absorbed light is traveling. A mirror image is seen instantly if the efferent model is correct. I maintain that mirror images are reflections that do not involve travel time, although according to the afferent vision model there was no other way to explain what was occurring. When we draw an imaginary line between the photon at the object and the corresponding photon at the water's surface, we can see that the light between the mountain and the reflection on the water is exactly what's happening when we look at any object that has a light sensitive surface. If we are looking at the mountain directly, the light, instead of being at the water's edge is now at the retina. This mirror image on the retina/film is instant. The only difference is that the brain, looking through the eyes, sees the object in real time using that same light, whereas the camera creates a photograph of the object using the light that is instantly at the film.

1000 Pictures - Free Desktop Wallpaper

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, objects only absorb light; they don't reflect it. There is no property in the object that is capable of reflecting light. Light travels and bounces off of objects but that's not the same thing.

"Reflect" and "bouncing off" are two completely different things!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

"Reflect" and "bouncing off" are two completely different things!

What I mean by that is that the object does not reflect the non-absorbing light; but the light coming from the Sun does strike the object (in the full spectrum) and bounces off.

[Kael]

I was just thinking about all this, and I find I agree that it's simply attention peacegirl wants. There's no doubt that this thread, and its predecessor, is all about her. Lessans' ideas, with such scientific or philosophical merit as they possess, are easily falsifiable, and have been so falsified on several fronts, repeatedly. There isn't anything left to talk about. Except, of course, peacegirl's absurd and absurdly fascinating perseverance and insistence. Only an interest in the person behind these threads could possibly keep them going for so many posts after so many months, still steadily ticking away, as though the next iteration of the same arguments by either side will break through peacegirl's willful ignorance or the crushing weight of evidence against the amateurish and ignorant notions of her father.

I suppose this probably isn't a revelation to many people, but in retrospect I think I, too, was blinded by the pure distilled ridiculousness of the spectacle, and the fatuousness of its presenter, so much so that I couldn't help but dive in and poke at it, like some people do at scabs, rapt in disgusted and horrified fascination. But this never was about the truth value or content of Lessans' ramblings, I think. It was always about peacegirl. Though I can't shake that scab-picking fascination, that realization depresses me somewhat, and takes some of the enjoyment out of seeing what mental gymnastics she'll attempt next.

[Kael]

I keep forgetting that the quick reply box does that with long posts and shaky 'net connections...

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For example, LadyShea said that if an object absorbs non-blue wavelengths, then the light that is reflected cannot be the full visible spectrum. That right there is incorrect if efferent is valid, because in the efferent model, objects do not reflect the non-absorbing light*.

The minute you talk about non-absorbing light* reaching, traveling, forming on the film, we're not coming from the same premise.

But these things aren't based on the afferent vision premise or position, they are based on the known physics of light and matter.

You have to explain efferent vision in a way that it is compatible with light physics, and photochemistry, and the reality of physical locations, and the mechanics of physical interactions, or you have to change the physics models in each instance there is a contradiction

* It is non-absorbed light not non-absorbing light. There is a huge difference between the words absorbed and absorbing

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, objects only absorb light; they don't reflect it. There is no property in the object that is capable of reflecting light.

Then explain how I am reflecting light off a hand mirror (an object under any definition) onto the ceiling right this very second.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No. All the blue light does is reveal the object.

No, but the object does not reflect that blue wavelength.

No, it is there as long as we're looking at the object. It is not there if we are not looking at the object.

Well this should clear things up for all you sciencey types, what we have here is 'Quantum Light' since it requires an observer to have an existence, something like an observer can make an electron take a particular path because it is being observed, just so, in this case blue light does not exist if there is no observer. I'm certainly glad we got that part cleared up

[LadyShea]

I still believe there may be a breakthrough. Had I never seen similar moments in the past, I wouldn't keep doing this. But I have seen it. I have seen a person argue a deeply held belief for months on end then suddenly be all "oh."

It's not fun, it isn't warm and fuzzy, but there is something to be said for that "oh." of reality. It's like rock bottom and then the person can't go anyplace but up.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I still believe there may be a breakthrough. Had I never seen similar moments in the past, I wouldn't keep doing this. But I have seen it. I have seen a person argue a deeply held belief for months on end then suddenly be all "oh."

It's not fun, it isn't warm and fuzzy, but there is something to be said for that "oh." of reality. It's like rock bottom and then the person can't go anyplace but up.

The exception being that some people at 'rock bottom' sincerely believe that that is the sum total of all there is and there is nothing else for them.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was what I was trying to say but I was not explaining it right. So I am back to my original explanation which is that the object must be in range. This is true and I never did vacillate. We can still use the mirror image analogy; just in a different way than the way I was describing. Let's look at the mirror image on the mountain photo once again. Each photon on the object corresponds with the image on the water. This is exactly what happens with the eyes. The only mistake made by scientists is that the non-absorbed light is traveling. A mirror image is seen instantly if the efferent model is correct. I maintain that mirror images are reflections that do not involve travel time, although according to the afferent vision model there was no other way to explain what was occurring. When we draw an imaginary line between the photon at the object and the corresponding photon at the water's surface, we can see that the light between the mountain and the reflection on the water is exactly what's happening when we look at any object that has a light sensitive surface. If we are looking at the mountain directly, the light, instead of being at the water's edge is now at the retina. This mirror image on the retina/film is instant. The only difference is that the brain, looking through the eyes, sees the object in real time using that same light, whereas the camera creates a photograph of the object using the light that is instantly at the film.

1000 Pictures - Free Desktop Wallpaper

You're reverting back to having no model at all, and only asserting that we can see what we can see instantly because we can see it and we can photograph what we see because we can photograph what we see.

The above offers no mechanism or explanation for a photon physically located at the Sun to be simultaneously physically located at film in a camera on Earth as required for a physical interaction. You offer no explanation for how a physically existing thing can be in two locations that are separated by 93 million miles.

Again, if the model doesn't allow two people to shake hands, it can't allow for a photon and camera film to physically interact.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not fun, it isn't warm and fuzzy, but there is something to be said for that "oh." of reality. It's like rock bottom and then the person can't go anyplace but up.

There is an illustration scientists use when trying to explain extra dimensions (more than 3 + time). They refer to 'Flat Land' and its inhabitants who live in a 2 dimensional world and have no concept of 'Up and down' because, for them, it does not exist, so they cannot concieve of a 3rd dimension. (Is there anyone here who doesn't know of the '5th dimension'?) Peacegirl has her worldview and reality, encompassed by Lessans book, and cannot concieve of anything else.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I mean by that is that the object does not reflect the non-absorbing light; but the light coming from the Sun does strike the object (in the full spectrum) and bounces off.

Why would the object absorb some light and reflect other light? Do the properties of light, or the properties of the matter the object consists of, change constantly or change under certain circumstances? What is the difference between reflecting and bouncing off?

[thedoc]

Fifth Dimension - Aquarious/ Let the Sun Shine in...

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Brains don't look, people do. Eyes don't see either, people do. The brain and eyes can't be separated. I already told you that the mechanism may never be completely understood. But that doesn't mean Lessans' observations were wrong, or that he had to explain the exact mechanism for him to be right.

This would be a point of progress for you, if you actually meant what you said here. But you didn't mean it at all, as you have in subsequent posts reverted right back to again claiming that the brain looks out through the eyes.

[thedoc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=_pGmOY9kRPk

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'll fix it. Where in the picture would the image point (i.e., the point where the the object and the mirror image intersect) converge?

Exactly. That's what I needed you to say.

There is no bouncing at the intersection. The photons from the object are not in two different places. That's why a mirror image is one and the same or the opposite side of the same imaginary coin.

Yes it will be there to interact with it. That's where you're wrong. This is not meant to divert the important parts of the discussion. This IS the important part, so you'll have to bear with me until you get it [hopefully].

There's no bouncing light at what intersection? How was this the important part? The image point for the lake example is under the lake, and purely virtual. How was any of this 'image point' nonsense meant to help you?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all, if efferent vision is correct, mirrors do not involve a time delay. Yes, I am presupposing that efferent vision is correct in order to explain how this works. Spacemonkey keeps coming from an afferent position and can't understand why he is confused. I must start from this premise in order to explain Lessans' observations. Of course everyone says that the afferent perspective explains everything perfectly, but does it, or could it be mistaken? It does not mean that just because mirror images are perfectly explained with the standard model of sight, that it is 100% correct. What do you think this discussion has been about if not to show you a different way of looking at what's going on? I need to discuss mirror images in order to show you how it works in an efferent model, and why the photons don't have to traverse 93 million miles to intersect the film/retina.

You're lying to yourself again. This false claim doesn't get any less false the more you repeat it. You are deluding yourself with this falsehood.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No. All the blue light does is reveal the object. If you can't get the difference you will not understand the efferent vision model.

No, but the object does not reflect that blue wavelength.

No, it is there as long as we're looking at the object. It is not there if we are not looking at the object.

Yes, in the sense that the object does not reflect the blue wavelength. This can get confusing because we can see the object, as a mirror image, across a large expanse of space (as long as the blue object is within range of the image that is seen).

Absolutely not. I've said this 100 times Spacemonkey, so why are you bringing this up again?

If the blue light (travelling along within the multi-colored sunlight) stays at the blue ball when it gets there, then it becomes stationary light. Is that what you mean to say? Because something can't always be moving if it sometimes stays in one place. And if this light doesn't bounce off, get absorbed by the ball, cease to exist, or teleport somewhere else, then it has to stay there and become stationary. So you need to either include stationary light within your model or revise your answers here.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The exception being that some people at 'rock bottom' sincerely believe that that is the sum total of all there is and there is nothing else for them.

or they are schizophrenic and may have a moment of clarity and then slip back into incoherent irrationality.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've answered this. Yes, there has to be photons at the film for a photograph to be taken.

At the film.

No, it is not moving IF the photons and matter converge at the same exact place. There are no two consecutive times, just one.

There are two consecutive times, because the question is asking about the time just before the photograph is taken. The time just before the photograph is taken, and the time when the photograph is taken, are by definition two consecutive times. (Is the problem here that you don't know what consecutive means?)

And your answers here are again positing stationary light. If the very same photons which are at the film when the photograph is taken, are also at that very same place just before that, then they have not moved and are stationary. If you want light to always be in motion then you can't have the same light at the same place at two consecutive times. Do you want stationary light to be a part of your model? Because by your current answers, you now have stationary light at two places - both at the blue ball and at the camera film.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But these things aren't based on the afferent vision premise or position, they are based on the known physics of light and matter.

Of course these things are based on the afferent vision model which is why it is believed we see the past, even if it's a nano-second delay. Efferent vision can be explained in terms of physics, but different from what is believed to be true, otherwise, there would be no disputation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have to explain efferent vision in a way that it is compatible with light physics, and photochemistry, and the reality of physical locations, and the mechanics of physical interactions, or you have to change the physics models in each instance there is a contradiction

The physical model I am describing matches what occurs in a mirror image. This is where Lessans parts ways with the present scientific explanation. Mirror images are instant reflections (they are not traveling) based on the same reasoning that allows us to see in real time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

* It is non-absorbed light not non-absorbing light. There is a huge difference between the words absorbed and absorbing

Thanks for the correction.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Fair enough. Then I'll explain it in a different way based on primary school level optics. It's as simple as this. Nothing from the object is being reflected. We are able to see the image on the water because each photon from the object directly correlates with the virtual image on the water. But it is there instantly because of the fact that objects don't reflect light. All they do is absorb light in order that we can look out, through the eyes, to see that which is in our visual range in real time.

If I hadn't read further through the thread, I wouldn't have known you had reverted to speaking here of (P)reflection rather than (N)reflection. (The latter just is light bouncing off objects, which you later admit happens but try to distinguish from 'reflection'.) And none of your above post explains what you were trying to do with your 'image point' diversion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There are two consecutive times, because the question is asking about the time just before the photograph is taken. The time just before the photograph is taken, and the time when the photograph is taken, are by definition two consecutive times. (Is the problem here that you don't know what consecutive means?)

And your answers here are again positing stationary light. If the very same photons which are at the film when the photograph is taken, are also at that very same place just before that, then they have not moved and are stationary. If you want light to always be in motion then you can't have the same light at the same place at two consecutive times. Do you want stationary light to be a part of your model? Because by your current answers, you now have stationary light at two places - both at the blue ball and at the camera film.

Your questions are very confusing. Instead, why don't you tell me where the photons are in a mirror image? You need to remember that the light coming from one's visual field are instant mirror images on the film/retina. That's really all you need to know in order to understand why we see in real time, assuming efferent vision is true (which I am thoroughly convinced it is).