A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

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?

Whenever we're talking about objects reflecting light we're talking about (P) reflection because objects do not (N) reflect light in the standard sense, which would mean the wavelength of the blue table travels through space and time even when the table is no longer there. Most objects absorb light depending on the type of material they are made of which is what gives the object its characteristic features. But we're seeing the object due to efferent vision which causes a mirror image on our retinas instantly.

[LadyShea]

All objects react to light except for certain surfaces like mirrors.

Which surfaces are those? "Like mirrors" includes what all materials? What is it about mirrors that makes them different?

Depending on their particular composition will determine how much light is absorbed.

What compositions absorb light? How do you know which materials will or will not absorb or reflect in your model? Is there any way to predict which materials will absorb or reflect by determining the composition?

Like if I hand you any given object, could you tell me if it's absorptive or reflective just by the composition?

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.

I'd like to remove the "us" part and focus only on what happens between light and objects when there is no observer; no us, no camera, no eyes.

So, can you rephrase this statement without "us" being present?

[davidm]

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

in the standard sense, which would mean the wavelength of the blue table travels through space and time even when the table is no longer there.

This is not the standard model at all. This is a misunderstanding of the standard model, or it is a purposefully built strawman.

We do not believe the "wavelength of the blue table" travels anywhere or even exists to travel to begin with.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whenever we're talking about objects reflecting light we're talking about (P) reflection because objects do not (N) reflect light in the standard sense, which would mean the wavelength of the blue table travels through space and time even when the table is no longer there. Most objects absorb light depending on the type of material they are made of which is what gives the object its characteristic features. But we're seeing the object due to efferent vision which causes a mirror image on our retinas instantly.

As long as any light at all ever bounces off of objects, then objects do (N)reflect light in the standard sense. What you mean is that they don't (N)reflect only one particular wavelength of light representing the color of the object. But you misrepresent this by speaking of the "wavelength of the blue table", for no such thing exists on the afferent model you are arguing against. The blue wavelength is a property of the light, not of the table. The reflected blue light was exactly the same (i.e. also blue) before it got to the object. The only difference after reflection is that the other colors of light aren't there with it anymore. Because they got absorbed. If you allow objects to have any absorptive properties at all, then the (N)reflected light bouncing off it will not be white sunlight. It will be travelling, and it will now represent the color of the object. This is a pure matter of logic, and is not any kind of assumption.

[davidm]

Peacegirl's pathologies run deeper than thought. Not only must she defend her father's crackbrained assertions about light and sight, but because Lessans was never wrong about anything according to her, she must also defend his incorrect description of the standard model of light and sight: For example:

Once again certain facts have been confused and all the reasoning
except for light traveling at a high rate of speed are completely
fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes.

Lessans states that light reflects an image which of course is wrong, but I suspect this is why peacegirl keeps mouthing inanities like "light reflects objects." It's because she is trying to hew to Daddy's incorrect description of the correct model of light and sight. So in addition to finding her parroting Lessans' inanities about his own (non-existent) model of light and sight, you will find that she will continue to construct a straw version of the correct model because she is following the Holy Text.

[davidm]

Also -- just watch! -- no matter how many times she is corrected, she will continue to blather on that scientists claim that light carries an image. And then she will deny that this supposed claim of science is true. She has been corrected on this point too many times to count: science does NOT say that light "carries an image." The image, of course, is built in the brain by comparing photons of various wavelengths (color) and tones (light/dark). But she will continue to maintain, babbling like a robot, that scienctists say "light carries an image." Why? Becuase that's what Lessans said that scientists say! And we all know that Lessans can't be wrong!

[LadyShea]

Those are super good points. peacegirl it seems Lessans misrepresented the standard model of sight...is that why you continue to do so, even after multiple corrections?

[davidm]

Yes, and again: she will continue to insist that scientists assumed that afferent seeing was correct; this is because Lessans explicity stated: Scientists assume afferent seeing is correct because Aristotle said so.

And here again, she has repeatedly been corrected on this point. Scientists don't assume anything, they LOOK at the eye. TLR has dissected eyes to see how they work.

The amount of cognitive dissonance peacegirl has to deal with must be truly incredible. This probably is why she won't read The Lone Ranger's essay on light and sight: Because it can't be right, that scientists have studied the eye! Lessans said they merely made assumptions about the eye! Hence, that must be the case! Why? Because Lessans is never wrong!

[Spacemonkey]

Yeah, it took us months in the IIDB threads to get her to stop using the phrase "images carried upon the wings of light" to describe what happens with afferent vision, but I'm sure she never stopped believing it to be a reasonable and adequate description.

Lessans is always right (even when he's wrong). Peacegirl is simply incapable of believing anything else.

Even when you finally get her to admit some point to be incorrect, she'll later just revert back to it anyway, because the only beliefs that she can retain are those she got from her father. It doesn't matter if it's light carrying images, assumptions of Aristotle, wavelengths as things (rather than properties), objects having wavelengths, brains 'looking', or that equations-to-the-moon analogy. She'll keep returning to them because they are too strongly ingrained for her to let them go. She simply can't learn to think any differently. She can't learn at all.

[thedoc]

I believe that somewhere in the dim recesses of past posts on this thread Peacegirl claimed that 'white' Sunlight would strike an object, say blue to be consistant, and could be reflected to another object, that could be red, and then reflected yet again to an object that was a different color, say indigo. Each time the 'White' light, if seen by an eye or camera, would be there instantly with the correct color even though the light itself is still white. In fact if white light strikes a blue object only the 'Blue' Photons (photons with a frequency corosponding to the color blue), would be reflected and if that light strikes a red object it would be absorbed and nothing would be reflected, end of story. I also believe that somewhere there was an experiment proposed involving a sheet of paper of a particular color and a source of light of a different color. With the result that no light would be reflected off of the paper. Of cource in real life the source of light may not be a 'pure' color and the color of the paper may not be 'pure' enough but the results should be close enough.

[naturalist.atheist]

Peacegirl is mentally ill and her posts reflect that illness but I think there is more here than adherence to her dad's book. He did something to peacegirl that not even peacegirl wants to confront.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Peacegirl is mentally ill and her posts reflect that illness but I think there is more here than adherence to her dad's book. He did something to peacegirl that not even peacegirl wants to confront.

Among all the dire and distressing posabilities, the most disturbing is that Daddy Lessans may have read to her out of his book when she was very young, And some wonder why she posts the way she does. Can you imagine the nightmares that would result from those ideas and images?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That negates known and empirically observed light physics. So, let's see your new model of light.

The new model of sight is the following: In efferent vision, the brain looks through the eyes, as a window, and sees the external world (or one's field of vision) because of the ability of objects to absorb light, not (N) reflect light. Light therefore becomes a condition of sight, not a cause, since light is not bouncing off of the object and taking the wavelength of the object with it. This also means that the object must be in range for it to be resolved since light alone does not travel with the wavelength that is (N) reflected off of the object.

Photons coming from the Sun are always being emitted and this full spectrum light is traveling at the speed of light which is why the model of efferent sight does not negate any new technologies based on the speed of light or how it's used to measure distance and location. The reason efferent vision works is because we don't have to wait for light to traverse a certain distance (the real distance between the object and the eye or film) for us to get an image. All that is necessary to meet the requirements for sight is for the object to be in range and for it to be large enough or bright enough to be seen, for then a mirror image shows up on the retina or film instantly. The visual cortex is able to process the visual information to determine the object's actual location whether it's a few feet away or a 93 million miles away.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So peacegirl, if we fired some light at a distant object (say an aeroplane), there will of course be a reflection from the plane, and we can make an image of the aeoroplane using this light.

According to Lessans, should we expect a time delay between our firing of the light, and receiving the reflection back from the aeroplane?

This has been tried before. But let's try again.

There probably wouldn't be a time delay because the light is traveling very fast, but we would not SEE the airplane until it came into view (or range) because objects (in this case the airplane) do not reflect (N) light where it then travels beyond the range of the object. In other words, WE CANNOT GET AN IMAGE OF THE AIRPLANE FROM LIGHT ALONE; THE OBJECT MUST BE IN VIEW. AND NO ONE CAN DISPUTE THIS. I'M NOT REWRITING PHYSICS.

[LadyShea]

peacegirl, I have continually asked for you to explain how you think light works when there is no observer. If I understand what light and objects are doing in your model- when there is nobody seeing or photographing the interactions- then I can better formulate pertinent questions to the model of seeing you are proposing.

As it is your ideas require light and matter to interact in inconsistent and unpredictable ways. With this being the case, nothing you say about sight can possibly make any sense or possibly be true.

SO, can you, or can you not tell me how light and matter interacts without involving people or cameras?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In your model, where and in what state of being does light exist if it has been emitted by the sun, but has not been absorbed by some form of matter?

Light exists in the form of light energy or photons which are emitted continually and travel at the speed of light. This is the nature of light. It never changes or disappears. The full spectrum of light from the Sun stays the same. Light gets absorbed by matter which may cause the light to change form (i.e., photosynthesis), but we see the object due to the absorption properties of the object itself, not the object's reflective properties along the brain's ability to see efferently, which is key. This is also why science never entertained this model due to the belief that light carried the image of the object and that the eyes were a sense organ. The light being emitted from the Sun that bounces off of any object remains in the full spectrum which is why light does not bring the wavelength of the object to us. We see the object only because it's there to be seen due to efferent vision.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The new model of sight is the following: In efferent vision, the brain looks through the eyes, as a window, and sees the external world (or one's field of vision) because of the ability of objects to absorb light, not (N) reflect light. Light therefore becomes a condition of sight, not a cause, since light is not bouncing off of the object and taking the wavelength of the object with it. This also means that the object must be in range for it to be resolved since light alone does not travel with the wavelength that is (N) reflected off of the object.

Photons coming from the Sun are always being emitted and this full spectrum light is traveling at the speed of light which is why the model of efferent sight does not negate any new technologies based on the speed of light or how it's used to measure distance and location. The reason efferent vision works is because we don't have to wait for light to traverse a certain distance (the real distance between the object and the eye or film) for us to get an image. All that is necessary to meet the requirements for sight is for the object to be in range and for it to be large enough or bright enough to be seen, for then a mirror image shows up on the retina or film instantly. The visual cortex is able to process the visual information to determine the object's actual location whether it's a few feet away or a 93 million miles away.

This is not a model, it's a restatement of your conclusions. Not a single explanation for how any of these factors actually happen, just assertions that they do happen.

Do you know what "working model" means? It means it can be applied (tested) against any example and get consistent results. It means it makes predictions that tend to be accurate. In your model "things like mirrors" reflect, what things? Why? How?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, I have continually asked for you to explain how you think light works when there is no observer. If I understand what light and objects are doing in your model- when there is nobody seeing or photographing the interactions- then I can better formulate pertinent questions to the model of seeing you are proposing.

As it is your ideas require light and matter to interact in inconsistent and unpredictable ways. With this being the case, nothing you say about sight can possibly make any sense or possibly be true.

Hold it right there. Where is this model unpredictable or inconsistent?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

SO, can you, or can you not tell me how light and matter interacts without involving people or cameras?

Of course I can. It reacts the same way whether we're seeing it or taking a picture of the object or not. I will say once again that this is not magic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is not a model, it's a restatement of your conclusions. Not a single explanation for how any of these factors actually happen, just assertions that they do happen.

Do you know what "working model" means?

Absolutely wrong. This is a working model except for the empirical proof that efferent vision is valid. The way I explained this is just as good as the way the afferent version is explained. Show me the difference.

[LadyShea]

The visual cortex is able to process the visual information to determine the object's actual location whether it's a few feet away or a 93 million miles away.

Great. How does a single photon get physically absorbed by camera film at that same distance?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hold it right there. Where is this model unpredictable or inconsistent?

In your model "things like mirrors" reflect, what things? Why? How? If I hand you an object can you predict whether it reflects or absorbs? If I describe the properties of a material down to it's chemical composition, but don't let you see the object, can you predict what color will be revealed when you do see it?

What happens to specific light that is not absorbed?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course I can. It reacts the same way whether we're seeing it or taking a picture of the object or not. I will say once again that this is not magic.

The same way as what?

Okay, then are you willing to work with me on my desert/rock/plant but no people example? It's a few pages back

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely wrong. This is a working model except for the empirical proof that efferent vision is valid. The way I explained this is just as good as the way the afferent version is explained. Show me the difference.

No, you haven't explained a single process for how these things occur. You just keep asserting that they happen.

I have offered step by step explanations for mirror reflections and even diagrams, you offer "some things like mirrors reflect". When given an example you can't explain why this example does A while another does B.

Let's look at one aspect of your "model".

the ability of objects to absorb light, not (N) reflect light.

What accounts for this ability? How does the process work? What happens to absorbed light and what causes absorption? What happens to any light that is not absorbed?

[LadyShea]

the wavelength of the object with it

How many times do we have to correct you on this? Nobody thinks light takes, carries, picks up, or acquires "the wavelength of the object". Do you or do you not understand the standard model you are attempting to use for comparison?

Making the same repeated mistaken assumption makes you look unable to learn or understand. Not a good way to convince people you're on to something.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There probably wouldn't be a time delay because the light is traveling very fast, but we would not SEE the airplane until it came into view (or range) because objects (in this case the airplane) do not reflect (N) light where it then travels beyond the range of the object. In other words, WE CANNOT GET AN IMAGE OF THE AIRPLANE FROM LIGHT ALONE; THE OBJECT MUST BE IN VIEW. AND NO ONE CAN DISPUTE THIS. I'M NOT REWRITING PHYSICS.

You say there wouldn't be a time delay because the light is travelling very fast. I thought we saw instantly? What does light travelling 'very fast' have to do with anything? And 'very fast' still leads to a time delay if there is a large distance to cover, if you mean we need to wait for the light to reach the plane.

Let me put it another way: imagine I turn on a torch pointing at a distant plane, for just a fraction of a second. There's no other light in the world. Will I be able to see the plane instantly?

Or will I have to wait for the light from my torch to reach the plane?

Or will I have to wait for the light from my torch to reach the plane and bounce back to my eyes?

If those aren't correct as to how Lessans explains vision, please explain it as he would. But I want to know if there will be a time delay, and if so, why and how big.