A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Wanna bet she's off looking up how light works to find some new buzzword to glom on to?

Here you go peacegirl http://science.howstuffworks.com/light.htm

[davidm]

Objects do not reflect non-absorbed light, sayeth the genius!

So objects neither reflect nor absorb light!

Where does the light go, derper?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Keep sticking with the thread and hopefully you will understand ...

So sayeth peacegirl to TLR.



Like your buffoon of a father, you are a never-ending source of amusement.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wanna bet she's off looking up how light works to find some new buzzword to glom on to?

Here you go peacegirl HowStuffWorks "How Light Works"

Sounds like a good bet. Her butchering of the word "wavelength" would be truly hilarious coming from an actual comedian. Coming from someone who claims to know what she's talking about, it's just sad.



And peacegirl, for the record, I object to your staggering arrogance and your willful ignorance. You know exactly nothing of the relevant science, and you've made it abundantly clear that you have no interest whatsoever in learning. Yet you're convinced that all of the knowledge we've painstakingly gathered over the past several centuries is wrong. And you're so ignorant of your own claims that you don't have the first idea why they're completely at odds with pretty-much all of modern physics and biology.

Yet despite knowing less about the relevant science than the average third-grader, and despite having no coherent understanding whatsoever of your own "model," you're nonetheless convinced that you're right and that all of modern science is therefore wrong.


And you insist that it is we who are being close-minded. Yet you couldn't possibly be more wrong about the scientific mindset. There's nothing more genuinely exciting in science than the discovery of something new that overturns what we thought we had known. You have provided nothing of the sort, however. Your "model" has zero explanatory power, is flatly contradicted by mountains of theory and observational evidence, is utterly incoherent, and is often self-contradictory. And you've provided exactly zero evidence in support of it.


You are simultaneously the most pig-ignorant and breath-takingly arrogant person I've ever encountered, bar none.

[The Lone Ranger]

For myself, I'm attracted to the Many Worlds interpretation of QM.

It gets rid of a lot of those nagging problems like "spooky action at a distance" that have always bothered me.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am describing how efferent vision works. Even though I can't tell you exactly what's going on in the brain doesn't mean I don't have an understanding as to how we are able to see in real time.

You don't know how it works yet. You're still trying to work that out. I'm not asking you about what's going on in the brain. I'm asking you simple questions about where the light is and how it behaves at different times and places within your explanations. Any viable model has to have some set of consistent answers to such questions. So far, you don't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In order to understand efferent vision, you need to know how the premises are different from afferent vision. One such premise is that objects do not reflect light which only means that the light striking the object does not bounce off of the object taking the wavelength of the object with it through space and time. Can you temporarily accept this premise so I can explain what does happen to the non-absorbed light?

You have reverted to speaking of 'reflection' without distinguishing which meaning you are using, and are speaking yet again of the 'wavelength of objects'. So no, this is not even remotely acceptable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to explain how the ability to see in real time is plausible and does not go against the laws of physics. Whether one believes Lessans' observations are correct will ultimately depend on the results of empirical testing, which I believe will support his claim.

Exactly my point. You have faith in Lessans' conclusions, and are still trying to develop a model which will at least show them to be coherently possible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The minute you talk about objects reflecting light and landing on the film (which involves travel), you're coming from the premise of afferent vision.

Not at all. You told us that all of the sunlight is (N)reflected from the object (i.e. bounces off the object and continues travelling). That makes questions about this travelling light (and what happens when it gets to the film) entirely legitimate on your efferent model. Such questions are not coming from the afferent position.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's fine.

Right. So (N)reflecting light is the same thing as light travelling and bouncing off of objects, and you were wrong to say that science had got this bit wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is constantly being emitted. In efferent vision, the only thing that is necessary for us to see the object is for the light to be around the object because these are the conditions that allow the photons to interact with the film or retina. I'm not sure what you mean by light competing with light? We're talking about the same light; there are not two different types of light.

So you haven't understood the question. I explained it in detail in #4747, which I will repeat for you here:

Imagine the same sun/blue ball/camera example again, but with the Sun being ignited. When this first happens,the only light anywhere is from the Sun, travelling towards the ball. There is no light anywhere else (assume that the Sun is not within the camera's field of view). When the sunlight first hits the ball, the non-blue light within that sunlight is (P)absorbed while the blue light within that sunlight is (P)reflected, meaning there will now be an instantaneous image consisting of blue photons present at the film.

But at that same moment, none of this sunlight (just now reaching the blue ball for the first time) is (N)absorbed, as it is all (N)reflected as it bounces off the ball's surface. But some of that sunlight bouncing off the ball will end up going in the direction of the camera. So when the sunlight first hits the ball there will be blue photons at the film (forming an instant image) but no sunlight there. At some point in the future, the travelling sunlight will also get there. So what happens then? What prevents the travelling white sunlight from interacting with the film instead of the blue and instantaneous image-comprising photons already there?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that this knowledge does not go against the laws of physics. Light is constantly being replaced by new light but it does not carry the image of the object anywhere. Photons being emitted by the Sun are always being emitted so light is not stationary. Scientists believe that when light from the Sun bounces off an object that light is no longer traveling with the full spectrum. It's now traveling with the non-absorbed wavelength of the object it just struck. If it strikes another object, it will then bounce off that object and travel with that wavelength until it strikes another object which (N) reflects that wavelength, and on and on and on. That's the afferent theory, which the efferent theory disputes.

Of course the light being emitted by the Sun is not stationary. But is any light anywhere else ever stationary? If not, then you will need to reanswer the below questions, because your last set of answers posited stationary light both at the object and at the camera film.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I never said I did. But I know a hell of a lot more about the brain (and the eyes, and physics, and optics, and astronomy, and ... well, you get the picture) than you do.

And sometimes the more knowledge you have, the more crowded it gets in there and leaves no room for new thought.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Not that that's much of an accomplishment.

Na na na na na

Just because we might not know the exact mechanism does not make it magic.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Since your proposed "model" violates lots of physical laws and is contradicted by both experimentation and observation, "magic" is the only "explanation" you've got.

Not true. I am very carefully explaining how efferent vision allows us to look out at the world and see in real time by creating an upside down mirror image on the retina which doesn't involve time. The light that is seen (efferently) is there instantly as one looks through the eyes to see objective reality. We're not talking about perception right now. Just because you don't get it yet TLC doesn't invalidate this knowledge. Secondly, my model for how the brain works is very plausible. It's possible that the entire brain is used to look through the eye, or maybe the frontal lobes. Seeing and perceiving are two different things. We know the visual cortex has many functions but it may not serve the purpose of seeing the way we thought (through interpreting signals). The following supports Lessans' observations.

Remarkably however, the patterns of orientation and ocular dominance are not fixed genetically, but develop from visual experience, mostly after birth. This was demonstrated in the cat visual cortex in a series of dramatic experiments. For example, a newborn kitten brought up in the dark for a few months stays blind for life though its eye and brain are apparently normal, solely because it didn't experience visual input in a critical period of its early development. A kitten with one eye closed for the first few months loses vision in that eye, but can see perfectly well with the open one. Similarly, if the kitten is brought up in an environment where it sees only horizontal lines, it has great difficulty in perceiving vertical contours and objects. Such experiments show that the visual cortex learns from experience, and self-organizes its structure to process visual input.

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~nn/web-pubs/sirosh/pvc.html


This is similar to what Lessans said when he wrote this:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 116-118

It is an undeniable fact that light travels at a high rate of speed,
but great confusion arises when this is likened to sound as you will
soon have verified. The reason we say man has taste, touch, smell,
sight, and hearing is because these describe individual differences that
exist, but when we say that these five are senses we are assuming the
eyes function like the other four — which they do not. When you
learn what this single misconception has done to the world of
knowledge, you won’t believe it at first. So without further delay, I
shall prove something never before understood by man, but before I
open this door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ to show
you all the knowledge hidden behind it, it is absolutely necessary to
prove exactly why the eyes are not a sense organ. Now tell me, did it
ever occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally
accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately
symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult
since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In
fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a child that no object is
capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is
impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of
sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since
the nerve endings are being struck by something external.

“But doesn’t light cause the pupils to dilate and contract
depending on the intensity?”

That is absolutely true, but this does not cause; it is a condition
of sight. We simply need light to see, just as other things are a
condition of hearing. If there was no light we could not see, and if
there was nothing to carry the sound waves to our ears, we could not
hear. The difference is that the sound is being carried to our
eardrums whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the
waves of light to impinge on our optic nerve. This is somewhat
equivalent to a baby sleeping with his eyes wide open who does not
awaken when objects are placed in front of him, although a loud noise
which strikes the ear drum can easily do the job. Did you ever wonder
why the eyes of a newborn baby cannot focus the eyes to see what
exists around him, although the other four senses are in full working
order?

“I understand from a doctor that the muscles of the eyes have not
yet developed sufficiently to allow this focusing.”

And he believes this because this is what he was taught, but it is
not the truth. In fact, if an infant was placed in a soundproof room
that would eliminate the possibility of sense experience which is a
prerequisite of sight, even though the eyelids were permanently
removed, he could never have the desire to see. If a newborn infant
was not permitted to have any sense experiences, the brain would
never desire to focus the eyes to look through them at the external
world no matter how much light was present. Consequently, even
though the lids were removed, and even though many colorful objects
were placed in front of the baby, he could never see because the brain
is not looking.

Furthermore, and quite revealing, if this infant was
kept alive for fifty years or longer on a steady flow of intravenous
glucose, if possible, without allowing any stimuli to strike the other
four organs of sense, this baby, child, young and middle aged person
would never be able to focus the eyes to see any objects existing in that
room no matter how much light was present or how colorful they
might be because the conditions necessary for sight have been
removed, and there is absolutely nothing in the external world that
travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve to cause it.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As Darwin once pointed out, an odd thing is that it's always the ones who know the least about science who are convinced that science has got it wrong about fundamental things like evolution [and how we see].

I wish you wouldn't take this personally because that's what you're doing. I guarantee that if some big name came up with this, you would take this more seriously. You certainly wouldn't treat him with the disrespect you're treating Lessans. How can you be so sure that the brain is doing what you say it is when this organ is the most complex? You, of all people, should be more open to the possibility that the eyes work in a different way, or you will never make the effort to understand it.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am very carefully explaining how efferent vision allows us to look out at the world and see in real time by creating an upside down mirror image on the retina which doesn't involve time.

False.

You are explaining nothing, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. You are asserting, and without a shred of evidence. There is a very important difference.

I wish you wouldn't take this personally because that's what you're doing.

I object to your willful ignorance and to your truly astounding arrogance.

[davidm]

@ the garbage posted above.

Once again, no one is taking it "personally." Indignation naturally arises among honest people at willfully ignorant liars such as yourself. As this also has been repeatedly explained to you, when you charge other people with taking stuff personally, you are only cementing your reputation for dishonesty.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guarantee that if some big name came up with this, you would take this more seriously. You certainly wouldn't treat him with the disrespect you're treating Lessans.

Bullshit.

That is both utterly false and frankly, insulting.


But then, as has been repeatedly explained to you, no one in this thread has been more insulting than you have.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true. I am very carefully explaining how efferent vision allows us to look out at the world and see in real time by creating an upside down mirror image on the retina which doesn't involve time.

You have explained nothing. You have asserted this, without any explanation of HOW all this physically takes place. But it makes no difference, because it's all known to be false anyway.

Hey, peacegirl, how about those moons of Jupiter, eh?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guarantee that if some big name came up with this, you would take this more seriously. You certainly wouldn't treat him with the disrespect you're treating Lessans.

Of course, because of your total ignorance of science you would think this way. You think science operates by personalities.

The thing is, if a "big name" posted this swill, we would be astounded. No serious scientist would make such fundamentally false, incoherent, and empirically disproved assertions. If someone with a major reputation in science said the things that you are saying, we would think that he had acquired some kind of an illness. Like your illness.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guarantee that if some big name came up with this, you would take this more seriously. You certainly wouldn't treat him with the disrespect you're treating Lessans.

I can guarantee you are 100% wrong about that. These ideas would be no less ridiculous coming from anyone else.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can you be so sure that the brain is doing what you say it is when this organ is the most complex?

We can be 100% certain that brains don't "look out" through the eyes as windows, because brains cannot possibly "look out". They don't have eyes with which to look.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Lessans

...but before I
open this door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ to show
you all the knowledge hidden behind it...

His buffoonery is unerringly risible, though of course he did not intend it to be. His high-flown, self-important way of stating as facts things that are demonstrably false is quite humorous.

lol, it's like a game show emcee: "But before I open this door marked 'Man Does Not Have Five Senses,' how much will you wager, Rita?"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How did it get to be on the ceiling if it was absorbed by, rather than reflected from, the mirror?

Is a mirror an object?

Of course it's an object but the mirror does not absorb; it (P) reflects. That's why we get a mirror image on the ceiling.

[LadyShea]

I guarantee that if some big name came up with this, you would take this more seriously. You certainly wouldn't treat him with the disrespect you're treating Lessans. .

Nope. More Carl Sagan (you really should read him sometime), whom I hold in the deepest respect because he wrote clearly and beautifully, explained things honestly and in detail, and he wrote for laypeople even though he didn't have to.


One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority'.

[Science] is not perfect. It can be misused. It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool we have, self-correcting, ongoing, applicable to everything. It has two rules. First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised. ... The obvious is sometimes false; the unexpected is sometimes true.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it's an object but the mirror does not absorb; it (P) reflects. That's why we get a mirror image on the ceiling.

So how does (P) reflect differ from the standard definition of reflection in this specific example?

Why do mirrors reflect but other objects can only absorb? Which properties of various "objects" or matter are important in your model?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

For myself, I'm attracted to the Many Worlds interpretation of QM.

It gets rid of a lot of those nagging problems like "spooky action at a distance" that have always bothered me.

Well I like QM like it is, the "Spooky actions at a distance", "Quantum intanglement", the way an electron defies observation, or at least makes it harder, seem to make it much more interesting and that there is a lot we need to learn to really understand. If MW were true and all those problems were explained it would be a lot less interesting, and I don't see anything so great about other worlds to speculate about, probably just more of the same.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Objects, except for mirrors, absorb light you mean.

For the most part.

Solid objects, for the most part, will reflect light

http://www.fi.edu/color/


Mirrors and Reflection
Name: Nicholas S.

Question:
What makes a mirror such a better reflector than anything else from the point of view of physics? Is it only because it is polished to be very flat? Isn't a mirror, glass with a silver coat painted on the back? A black surface that is polished to be very flat, would not work.. so what are the prerequisites for a mirror? Also how does this apply when water reflects light & images? Ultimately I would like to know if surface molecules can be oriented, by electrical or magnetic forces, to acquire mirroring reflective capacities?

Replies:
Nicholas, The color of an object is the first factor of whether something will reflect. Some molecules can absorb visible light and hold it long enough to convert it to heat. This is what makes something look black. Some molecules release visible light almost as soon as it is absorbed. These materials look white. Most materials absorb some colors better than others. These have various colors.

The next concern is smoothness. A rough surface reflects in all directions. A piece of concrete is a good example. A very smooth surface reflects in a very ordered fashion, sending most light out in a single direction. This is a mirror. A good mirror is silvered because of color and smoothness. Metals are very flexible, very easy to smooth with just a small amount of heat. Metallic paint produces a very smooth surface. Of all metals, silver is probably the most "white". It reflects almost every color. Gold and copper would not reflect blue very well.

Water surfaces reflect a little bit when shining a light straight down on it. Most of the light continues on into the water (refraction). Some reflects back. Because the surface is very smooth (most liquids are), reflected light forms a clear image. When light is shined at a shallow angle, something different happens. Light coming in almost parallel to the water surface cannot pass through. What little that does get into the water gets bent right back out. The process is called Total Internal Reflection. Light passing from one material to another has its direction changed a little. A prism is a good example of this. At too shallow an angle, this new angle is too big. The light gets bent back out.

Dr. Ken Mellendorf Illinois Central College

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/phy00399.htm

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For the most part.

Solid objects, for the most part, will reflect light

Oops! Contradicting yourself again, we see! Earlier you said objects neither reflect nor absorb light!

[LadyShea]

Solid objects, for the most part, will reflect light

http://www.fi.edu/color/

I know why mirrors (N) reflect, I am trying to understand (P) reflection in the context of this repeated statement of yours

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

So, which objects (P) reflect and which (P) absorb and what properties do we we look for in any object to know which it is?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So how does (P) reflect differ from the standard definition of reflection in this specific example?

Why do mirrors reflect but other objects can only absorb? Which properties of various "objects" or matter are important in your model?

All objects react to light except for certain surfaces like mirrors. Depending on their particular composition will determine how much light is absorbed. This allows us to see the color and shape of the object. In other words, the object, through it's property of absorption, reveals itself to us by means of light. It does not travel to us by means of light.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All objects react to light even if they absorb no wavelengths. Depending on their particular composition determines how much light is absorbed. This allows us to see the color and shape of the object. In other words, the object, through it's property of absorption, reveals itself to us.

So even though we know that an apple looks red because it absorbs all wavelengths but the red; and even though we know that this reflected red wavelength is what the eye and brain react to, you come along and say just the opposite -- that we see objects because they absorb light -- even though earlier you said objects neither absorb nor reflect light!

If this is the case, O peacegirl, then why do apples look red? If we (somehow!) saw the absorbed wavelengths, then the apple should appear to be a mixture of every color but red! This would put it somewhere in the blue-green range of the spectrum! So Lessans predicts we see blue-green apples, but we don't!

Oh, and peacegirl, where the fuck in his book did Lessans say any of this stuff that you are now saying? It is obvious you are just making up shit you don't understand in a desperate hand-waving effort to look like you know what you are talking about. But you are fooling no one here.