A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And how do you define/determine visual range?

The object being in visual range only means that it is present in the here and now. It exists. It is within our visual space (even if it's behind us or around the bend or below the horizon). It can be seen due to its (P) reflection. In other words, it's within our field of view even though a mirror, or water, or some other surface is allowing us to see it through its reflective properties.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But don't you get it yet? This is consistent with efferent vision. This is the only requirement, whereas in the afferent vision model it says "NO". The object is not the important thing; it's the light that is (N) being reflected that is traveling to our eyes and allowing us to interpret the image. How else could scientists claim that we would see Columbus discovering America (or any other past event) if we were on the star Rigel looking through a telescope, if that physical event no longer exists?

I'm sure lots of things are consistent with efferent vision. This may well be. The rest of reality? Not so much.

And this is the standard model I'm describing. It's completely consistent. Of course if we remove the object after it has reflected the light, we will still be able to see it due to the light that is already on its way towards us. And we will notice the absence of the object only when we stop receiving reflected light from it, which can be quite some time after the light has been reflected, given sufficient distance.

That's how radar works too, incidentally. As TLR pointed out, according to Lessans, that shouldn't work either.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If planets move, we need to take that into consideration when calculating their distance + the speed of light. What's so magical about this? You have to remember that what we see has no bearing on the actual position of the planet as it moves. What we believe we are seeing is at odds, of course, which is the entire point of this discussion.

Planets move sideways. On the sky. Across the sky.

I think that what we are seeing is the old position of the planet. I would aim my rocket assuming I see its old position. It is old because I am seeing a delayed image.

You believe we see in realtime, so you believe we are seeing the current position of the planet. You believe we see in realtime, so it is the current position. So you would aim your rocket assuming you are seeing where the planet is now.

My rocket would get there, because I'm aiming at a different place to you. We're both aiming ahead of the planet (so as to reach it when it moves), but I'm also aiming even further ahead, because I don't think the planet is right now in the same place you do.

I have bolded a statement in your quote that makes no sense. Why is the actual position of the planet now not what we see, peacegirl? Do we no longer see in realtime? That's not what you said before.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

(N) light doesn't fade out, but (P) light does. That's why there is an inverse relationship to the object that is reflecting that light. You just explained that light fades out as the object gets further and further away from the observer, so now you're retracting that statement?

The light doesn't fade out. It becomes less intense at further distances because at the source point it is radiating out in all directions in straight lines. The angle of those lines away from each other increases with distance . Intensity is not brightness.

Draw a circle at one side of a piece of paper and 3 draw straight lines at 45 degree angles to each other from the same starting point on the circle. See how the lines are closer together near the circle and get further and further apart? Now imagine you are standing a mile away, how far apart would those lines be If they never changed direction?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The object being in visual range only means that it is present in the here and now. It exists. It is within our visual space (even if it's behind us or around the bend or below the horizon). It can be seen due to its (P) reflection. In other words, it's within our field of view even though a mirror, or water, or some other surface is allowing us to see it through its reflective properties.

According to efferent vision, if an object is within our 'visual range' we can see it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The light doesn't fade out. It becomes less intense at further distances because at the source point it is radiating out in all directions in straight lines. The angle of those lines away from each other increases with distance . Intensity is not brightness.

Oh really? You're splitting hairs LadyShea to keep your position at all costs, just like I'm being blamed for doing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Draw a circle at one side of a piece of paper and 3 draw straight lines at 45 degree angles to each other from the same starting point on the circle. See how the lines are closer together near the circle and get further and further apart? Now imagine you are standing a mile away, how far apart would those lines be If they never changed direction?

Okay, let's forget a mile. Let's talk about a fraction of a mile. Explain to me how the light could disperse that quickly and to the extent that due to the dispersed light, we could not get an image, yet we could get an image due to as little as the smallest movement toward us that would bring the object into our visual range.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

According to efferent vision, if an object is within our 'visual range' we can see it?

Thedoc, I'm sorry but I cannot talk to you. The things you have said throughout these threads are filled with attack. Even if you aren't sure whether there is something to Lessans' claims or not, he did not deserve the vitriol that I feel in here, and you are one of the ringleaders. So you'll have to get your answers indirectly from now on.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...light that eventually fades out ...

The stupid never stops.

So, now, according to peacegirl, the light of distant objects "fades out." What does that mean? It gets tired and just stops? It sits down for a rest? It grows invisble? What?

Stunning display of ignorance. And the display never stops.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thedoc, I'm sorry but I cannot talk to you. The things you have said throughout these threads are filled with attack. Even if you aren't sure whether there is something to Lessans' claims or not, he did not deserve the attitude and negativity that I feel in this thread, and you are one of the ringleaders. So you'll have to get your answers indirectly from now on.

That is all a matter of perception, and to you even questioning Lessans Ideas is an attack, even when someone is trying to find out what you are saying. Look back at the thread, if you dare, I've not called you names or used profanity to you. Yes, I've been extremely at your evasion of even the most basic questions, and frustration does lead to some hostility. Why don't you try being straight and honestly try to answer questions when they are asked instead of putting people off for days at a time before you even give half an answer. All your troubles with this thread are of your own making, as they say, "You made your bed, now lie in it".

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? You're splitting hairs LadyShea to keep your position at all costs, just like I'm being blamed for doing.

Okay, let's forget a mile. Let's talk about a fraction of a mile. Explain to me how the light could disperse that quickly and to the extent that due to the dispersed light, we could not get an image, yet we could get an image due to as little as the smallest movement toward us that would bring the object into our visual range.

This is elementary school geometry that you can demonstrate to yourself with a ruler and a piece of paper. There are interactive videos online to show you graphically how it works...look up "inverse square law interactive"

I am not "splitting hairs" I am trying to explain a simple law of physics that is a factor in optics.

Aren't you even remotely embarrassed by your inability to understand these things?



The further away, the larger the space the light is needing to fill if you will. The closer you are to the source, the more light is hitting your eyes (sensors), as you move further away more of the light is traveling past you and away from you, and so there is less light to be detected on the small sensor that is your eye.

The larger the sensor, the further away it can be and still detect enough light to resolve an image

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

That is all a matter of perception, and to you even questioning Lessans Ideas is an attack, even when someone is trying to find out what you are saying. Look back at the thread, if you dare, I've not called you names or used profanity to you. Yes, I've been extremely at your evasion of even the most basic questions, and frustration does lead to some hostility. Why don't you try being straight and honestly try to answer questions when they are asked instead of putting people off for days at a time before you even give half an answer. All your troubles with this thread are of your own making, as they say, "You made your bed, now lie in it".

Some hostility??? You've been hostile from day one. This isn't about your becoming hostile. You have been lying and telling everyone that I'm here for a meal ticket over and over again. How dare you! I don't need to talk to you anymore to get my points across. You are scratched off the list as NA is and Davidm are. You made your bed. NOW LIE IN IT!!!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The object being in visual range only means that it is present in the here and now. It exists. It is within our visual space (even if it's behind us or around the bend or below the horizon). It can be seen due to its (P) reflection. In other words, it's within our field of view even though a mirror, or water, or some other surface is allowing us to see it through its reflective properties.

So visual range means "we can see it"? How is the visual range determined in your model? How can it be predicted and measured?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So visual range means "we can see it"? How is the visual range determined in your model? How can it be predicted and measured?

Exactly the way it is measured in optics. I'm not contesting optics. Optics is perfectly consistent with what I'm trying to prove to you.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? You're splitting hairs LadyShea to keep your position at all costs, just like I'm being blamed for doing.

Yes, REALLY!

[peacegirl]

ANNOUNCEMENT:

I will not tolerate anymore name calling. If someone calls me bird-brain, buffoon, blockhead, asshat, airhead, ignoramous, pig-headed, liar, mentally ill, moron, or stupid, one more time (and that goes for any other name that is meant to belittle), you will be immediately put on ignore. This also includes any hint of sarcasm or jokes that are made at my expense. I don't deserve this kind of treatment regardless of what you think about these claims. You are not entitled to talk down to me. If there is only one person left, that person is who I will talk to. If there is no one left, then that will be the time I leave permanently. Do you get the rules now? Whomever doesn't understand whether they have crossed the line, they will know soon enough!!! Like I've been saying for months now, which no one has taken seriously --- ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Some hostility??? You've been hostile from day one. This isn't about your becoming hostile. You have been lying and telling everyone that I'm here for a meal ticket over and over again. How dare you! I don't need to talk to you anymore to get my points across. You are scratched off the list as NA is and Davidm are. You made your bed. NOW LIE IN IT!!!

She actually thinks people give a shit if she puts them on ignore.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

ANNOUNCEMENT:

I will not tolerate anymore name calling. If someone calls me ignoramous, pig-head, bird-brain, buffoon, blockhead, asshat, stupid, or anything else, you will be immediately put on ignore. I don't deserve this treatment regardless of what you think about these claims. You are not entitled to talk down to me. If there is only one person left, that person is who I will talk to. If there is no one left, that is when I will leave permanently. Do you all get the rules now? I hope so. Whomever doesn't understand whether they have crossed the line, they will know soon enough!!! Like I've been saying for months now, and no one has taken me seriously --- ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

An ANNOUNCEMENT!

Fuck off, peacegirl.

[LadyShea]

In optics the visual range (what we can see, and why and when and from how far away) is determined by the factors I have given to you twice now, and you told me it didn't explain why we can't see something we can't see (which it perfectly explains)

How can it be used with the efferent model if you don't accept or even understand the explanation optics provides?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

ANNOUNCEMENT:

I will not tolerate anymore name calling. If someone calls me ignoramous, pig-head, bird-brain, buffoon, blockhead, asshat, stupid, or anything else, you will be immediately put on ignore. I don't deserve this treatment regardless of what you think about these claims. You are not entitled to talk down to me. If there is only one person left, that person is who I will talk to. If there is no one left, that is when I will leave permanently. Do you all get the rules now? I hope so. Whomever doesn't understand whether they have crossed the line, they will know soon enough!!! Like I've been saying for months now, and no one has taken me seriously --- ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

Do you think these periodic tantrums are effective at behavior modification?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it still doesn't answer the question as to why an object (a physical entity) must be within visible range every time a photograph is taken. Even if the density of rods and cones were tripled does not change the fact that once the object is slightly out of range, we can't get a photograph from the light that is reflected off of that object. The inverse square law is the reason that the intensity of light diminishes from the object or sensor, which also supports efferent vision. Light fades out the farther it travels away from the object which makes sense. Efferent vision is not inconsistent with optics at all.

Here is where you told me that optics doesn't explain visual range at all. When it totally does.

So, does optics offer explanatory and prediction power in the efferent model? If so, then why did you say your question wasn't answered?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Some hostility??? You've been hostile from day one. This isn't about your becoming hostile. You have been lying and telling everyone that I'm here for a meal ticket over and over again. How dare you! I don't need to talk to you anymore to get my points across. You are scratched off the list as NA is and Davidm are. You made your bed. NOW LIE IN IT!!!

Another lie? You are very thin-skinned, you can't tolerate any thing except total acceptance of what you say. 'Day One' was on Dissident Philosophy and there was no hostility there except that you didn't handle other people's ideas very well, or have you chosen to forget and ignore this too?

[LadyShea]

peacegirl, in the course of these threads we have offered you several experiments you can easily do at home to demonstrate various things to yourself (like using a lens to scorch a piece of paper). Have you done any of them?

You can demonstrate the inverse square law to yourself with a flashlight, a wall in a dark room, and a post-it note. If I describe it will you do it, just so you understand what I am trying to say and what you are trying to refute?

[thedoc]

According to efferent vision, if an object is 'in visual range' can we see it?

LadyShea, Peacegirl has taken offence to something I said, will you ask this for me?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In optics the visual range (what we can see, and why and when and from how far away) is determined by the factors I have given to you twice now, and you told me it didn't explain why we can't see something we can't see (which it perfectly explains)

How can it be used with the efferent model if you don't accept or even understand the explanation optics provides?

I do understand the explanation, but you have to understand the explanation in terms of efferent vision, which you're not doing. You say you are not coming from the afferent position, but you are which is why you can't get past the idea that light is all that is necessary to detect an image of a past event.

[LadyShea]

I do understand the explanation, but you have to understand the explanation in terms of efferent vision

Then please, using optics, explain how visual range is determined and measured in your efferent vision model.

Explain, don't just state "Exactly the way it is measure by optics" because that's a cop out.