A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

For the record, I have checked the IP information in the Admin Control Panel and ThreeLawsSafe is not anyone's sock puppet, certainly not peacegirl's. He posts from three IPs (work, home, and mobile) resolving to the same area. Said area is thousands of miles from where peacegirl's IP resolves to.

I think that clears it up quite sufficiently. I'll take thedoc's silence as affirmation of that as well. Thank you, Livius Drusus.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Because as of right now, it's fairly obvious that you don't know jack shit, you little prick.

Uh-oh! It looks like our resident psychobabbler is right pissed off!

For anyone interested in this nonsense, I want to point out something interesting. This guy came here and lectured us all in his smarmy way about how we should not diagnose "mental illness" via the Internet. He says you have to meet these people in person, to give such a diagnosis. Yet here he is, diagnosing mental illness in five historical figures whom he never met in person, nor even corresponded with over the Internet.



Also, doc, learn the meaning of ad hominem, yeah?

Your psychobabble with respect to Van Gogh is just that, by your own admission. You have no idea what afflicted him; your claim that he created art due to "manic episodes" is unsubtantiated bullshit. Van Gogh described in his own letters how he created his art; never was there a more lucid, centered individual than him. Van Gogh's first episode of disabling illness came almost at the end of his career. By the time it happened, he had finished nearly all the great art for which he is renowned.

I never said what you claimed I said, and I notice that you did not retract. I never said that "mental illness" is wholly socially constructed. I said we must take care to understand that a large part of it may be so constructed, and, per Focault, we must be aware that "mental illness" is a social stigma that may (and very often has) been applied to out groups. As was done with gays.

Now you come here, and tell us not to diagnose people over the Internet. Within fewer than ten posts after advising that, you were telling Naturalist Athesist to see a psychatrist -- "seriously," as you put it. You were also telling people that your "only point" about Internet relations was that one should not "diagnose" others over the Interent; when it was very obvious from your own words, which I repeated back to you, that what you were actually saying was that no one should trust anyone as a friend on the Internet.

You really do make yourself look bad. I'm glad I'm not one of your patients!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

I think that clears it up quite sufficiently. I'll take thedoc's silence as affirmation of that as well. Thank you, Livius Drusus.

Ah, sorry about that I do have other things to do. but the IP doesn't prove anything, if you'd like to look back the thread several others have stated that there are ways around it. I really don't know why you are obsessing over something as unimportant as this. I really don't put much stock in anything Livius Drusus posts.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by davidm

Uh-oh! It looks like our resident psychobabbler is right pissed off!

For anyone interested in this nonsense, I want to point out something interesting. This guy came here and lectured us all in his smarmy way about how we should not diagnose "mental illness" via the Internet. He says you have to meet these people in person, to give such a diagnosis. Yet here he is, diagnosing mental illness in five historical figures whom he never met in person, nor even corresponded with over the Internet.



Also, doc, learn the meaning of ad hominem, yeah?

Your psychobabble with respect to Van Gogh is just that, by your own admission. You have no idea what afflicted him; your claim that he created art due to "manic episodes" is unsubtantiated bullshit. Van Gogh described in his own letters how he created his art; never was there a more lucid, centered individual than him. Van Gogh's first episode of disabling illness came almost at the end of his career. By the time it happened, he had finished nearly all the great art for which he is renowned.

I never said what you claimed I said, and I notice that you did not retract. I never said that "mental illness" is wholly socially constructed. I said we must take care to understand that a large part of it may be so constructed, and, per Focault, we must be aware that "mental illness" is a social stigma that may (and very often has) been applied to out groups. As was done with gays.

Now you come here, and tell us not to diagnose people over the Internet. Within fewer than ten posts after advising that, you were telling Naturalist Athesist to see a psychatrist -- "seriously," as you put it. You were also telling people that your "only point" about Internet relations was that one should not "diagnose" others over the Interent; when it was very obvious from your own words, which I repeated back to you, that what you were actually saying was that no one should trust anyone as a friend on the Internet.

You really do make yourself look bad. I'm glad I'm not one of your patients!

You failed to notice that I referred to a peer-reviewed professional journal summarizing hundreds of experts in diagnosis of Van Gogh's diseases, including experts who diagnosed him during his life. The documentation is well-substantiated, and I provided you the link. You call it "unsubstantiated bullshit." I call it good, well-documented research. I'm entitled to a professional opinion based upon established data collected and summarized by experts. That's what we do in the sciences, in case you hadn't noticed. I'm being tentative anyway in not offering up a full agreement on the diagnosis, except to say that we know he had bouts of hypomania.

So how again am I being inconsistent regarding diagnoses?

Now you're splitting hairs over the social-construction business. You say mental-illness is "mostly" socially-constructed. That's bullshit. You have no evidence for that, except that you've read a little Foucault. Wow, we're very impressed that you've read Foucault. So have we all - postmodern was fun. Get over it and read something from the last three decades.

And, by the way, you did use an ad hominem, in the precise meaning of the term. You implied that my opinion didn't matter because my entire profession depended on diagnosing mental illness. That's the essence of ad hominem. Perhaps you should read some informal logic as well.

You have no argument here.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Ah, sorry about that I do have other things to do. but the IP doesn't prove anything, if you'd like to look back the thread several others have stated that there are ways around it. I really don't know why you are obsessing over something as unimportant as this. I really don't put much stock in anything Livius Drusus posts.

lol.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still missing the entire concept of efferent vision which is exactly why the space between the object and the eye (i.e., the space between the Sun and the Earth does not require the photons to travel to Earth in order to see the Sun if it was just turned on). I know this sounds magical but it's really not.

Any answer that talks about eyes or vision is a weasel.

Film photography requires there be a photon absorbed by camera film which requires the film and photon to be in the same location in spacetime. How do the photon and camera film come to be in the same location of space at noon if one is at the newly ignited Sun at noon and the other is on Earth at Noon if neither one travels or teleports or comes into duplicate existence 93 million miles away?

If it doesn't allow hand shaking, it can't allow this kind of interaction

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously it is the efferent model of vision that allows us to see in real time (i.e., getting a mirror image on the film/retina), and obviously once people can see that this is a plausible model, more empirical testing will need to be done to prove that this model is valid. Then slowly the old model will be replaced by the new if it turns out that there is substance to Lessans' claim.

You made a specific claim about a specific property of light. Do you, or do you not, have any empirical evidence to support that claim. If you don't have any such evidence you should not be making such a claim. That is dishonest and unscientific.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Regardless of how far away the observer is from the object, that non-absorbed wavelength is still an instant mirror image on the film/retina as long as it's still within visual range. The object just gets smaller and smaller as it gets further and further away, which means that less photons are interacting with the film/retina.

I trust that you do realize that the object does not actually get smaller. It just appears to be smaller.

Given that the actual object remains the same size, regardless of its distance from the film/retina, is there any reason to suppose that the number of photons emitted or reflected by the object changes? If the number of photons emitted or reflected by the object does not change, and they do not have to travel in order to interact with the film/retina why, according to efferent vision, should there be fewer photons interacting with the film/retina simply because the object is further away?

In other words, if, as you have frequently claimed, distance is not a factor with regard to efferent vision, just so long as the object is visible, then why should the distance of the obect from the film/retina affect the number of photons interacting with the film/retina? For that matter, why, according to efferent vision, should it be the case that the further away the object is the smaller it appears to be?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you're retracting your earlier repeated claims that light is always in motion and never stationary?

I don't think you've fully appreciated the problem yet. You have stationary photons at two places - at the film/retina and at the object. And for light to ever be stationary directly conflicts with the basic physical properties of light which you've claimed you are not challenging. For starters, stationary light cannot possibly have any wavelength or frequency, as these are properties which require motion.

You have obviously failed to understand the point that peacegirl is trying to make. Light is always in motion, it is only the photons that can sometimes be stationary. It is quite clear to me that she means to say that light and photons are not the same thing, if efferent vision is true.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Angakuk, I did not make this discovery, okay? I only added examples where I felt it would clarify the concept, but in no way, shape, or form did I make changes to the original concepts. That would not be good stewardship, and that was my biggest worry as I was compiling his 7 books.

How is that not an example of you having written some substantial portion of the book?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So should I leave?

That is, of course, for you to decide. Personally, I would find it a significant inconvenience if you were to quit posting here. I would have to find something else to do with the time that I now use reading this thread while avoiding doing tasks that I ought to be doing. If you serve no other useful purpose you have at least provided valuable assistance in helping me to procrastinate. For that I thank you.

[Kael]

The side fight with thedoc, ThreeLawsSafe, and davidm is cute. "OMG INTERNETZ DIAGNOSER!!!" "NO UR TEH SOCk PAPPET!!!"

So precious.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's in keeping with afferent vision too. For some reason you keep bringing it up like this is an unexplained aspect in optics, or like it somehow isn't compatible with the standard model of vision. So, now what?

This has not been cleared up by any means. No one has answered the question as to why light alone never brings an image to our eyes when the object itself is not in range. This is exactly what Lessans claimed: That an object must be large enough or bright enough to be seen.

[LadyShea]

No one has answered the question as to why light alone never brings an image to our eyes when the object itself is not in range.

We have answered it, over and over and over again. You are simply refusing to accept the answers in order to hold on to your faith position. The bright enough, and large enough to be seen part is the same thing optics states, it's just that the optics model defines and explains and qualifies "enough" and Lessans didn't define or explain it.

Hint: enough for the sensor in question to resolve

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump. Why we can't see things we can't see

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has not been cleared up by any means. No one has answered the question as to why light alone never brings an image to our eyes when the object itself is not in range. This is exactly what Lessans claimed: That an object must be large enough or bright enough to be seen.

It does happen all the time, even on Earth, when an object is taken away or disapears from sight we see the image for a brief fraction of a second after the object is no longer in range. Its just that the length of time that the image is still visable is very short so the effect is not obvious and difficult to measure. As soon as the object is no longer in range the last photon reflected is traveling but gets here very quickly.

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Any answer that talks about eyes or vision is a weasel.

Film photography requires there be a photon absorbed by camera film which requires the film and photon to be in the same location in spacetime. How do the photon and camera film come to be in the same location of space at noon if one is at the newly ignited Sun at noon and the other is on Earth at Noon if neither one travels or teleports or comes into duplicate existence 93 million miles away?

If it doesn't allow hand shaking, it can't allow this kind of interaction

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you're retracting your earlier repeated claims that light is always in motion and never stationary?

I don't think you've fully appreciated the problem yet. You have stationary photons at two places - at the film/retina and at the object. And for light to ever be stationary directly conflicts with the basic physical properties of light which you've claimed you are not challenging. For starters, stationary light cannot possibly have any wavelength or frequency, as these are properties which require motion.

Maybe I haven't been clear enough but you can't blame my presentation on Lessans. I just have to keep chugging away to make this concept better understood. You do not have stationary photons at two places. You have an object that absorbs specific wavelengths and as the lens focuses on the object, the mirror image (which is the flip side, so to speak, of the object) shows up on the film/retina instantly. This in no way conflicts with the basic physical properties of light since light is constantly streaming from the Sun. Moreover, it doesn't change the fact that the absorbed light allows the lens of a camera, when focused on the object, to get an instant image on film.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And the problems get worse. Say the ball is now blue, but a moment ago was red. This means that right now there are blue photons in existence at the film forming the mirror image interacting with that film. But you say those blue-wavelength photons have been stationary and were also at the same place (i.e. at the film) a moment ago when the ball was red. That means the mirror image at the film is predicting in advance what color the ball will be in the future. There will be a blue mirror image at the film before the ball is even blue.

I never said that the blue-wavelength photons were at the film a moment ago when the ball was red. We are not predicting anything in advance Spacemonkey. As the ball changes color, so does the image that is seen on film. There is absolutely no difference between the object and the light that it reflects. They are just two sides of the SAME imaginary coin.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I know this is not what you are trying to say. But it is a direct consequence of the answers you have given positing stationary light at the film.

I hope this post clears things up for you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

Speaking your language, the Sun's light and the retina do shake hands due to efferent vision. We could not shake hands if this was not how the brain actually worked.

[thedoc]

Also once the object is not in a straight line of sight we can't see it because light goes in a straight line except for a reflection which bends the path of the light but then it continues in another straight line.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What does this have to do with my post? Did you even read what you were replying to?

Added to previous post:

I agree with your analogy in the sense that the light is constantly refreshing itself due to the stream of light from the Sun being constantly in motion. It is moving over the object where that light is continually being absorbed by the object. When we view the object, it's a new set of photons but we get the same image on film, and we see the same object with our eyes in real time. Does that make sense?

[LadyShea]

Film doesn't work that way.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Speaking your language, the Sun's light and the retina do shake hands due to efferent vision. We could not shake hands if this was not how the brain actually worked.

Any answer that talks about eyes or vision is a weasel. So are you too stupid to understand the question or are you weaseling on purpose?

No retinas, no brain, no vision. Just light and camera film

Film photography requires there be a photon absorbed by camera film which requires the film and photon to be in the same location in spacetime. How do the photon and camera film come to be in the same location of space at noon if one is at the newly ignited Sun at noon and the other is on Earth at Noon if neither one travels or teleports or comes into duplicate existence 93 million miles away?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has not been cleared up by any means. No one has answered the question as to why light alone never brings an image to our eyes when the object itself is not in range. This is exactly what Lessans claimed: That an object must be large enough or bright enough to be seen.

peacegirl, they haven't answered the question because it is a crazy question. Everyone knows, not thinks, they know that images form from light alone. And they have told you this hundreds of times, but because you are crazy you are completely unable to process this. Your delusions won't let you.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, they haven't answered the question because it is a crazy question. Everyone knows, not thinks, they know that images form from light alone. And they have told you this hundreds of times, but because you are crazy you are completely unable to process this. Your delusions won't let you.

Actually that WAS answered. The answer is: that happens all the time, but you do not notice it much, since even the moon is only about a light-second and a half away.

We watch supernovas that are long gone. And we KNOW they are long gone, because we do not just detect the light of a supernova event: we detect neutrinos as well, roughly in the same timeframe, despite the fact that the supernova is many thousands of lightyears away.

This has been well-covered, but Peacegirl just conveniently forgets it at random intervals.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually that WAS answered. The answer is: that happens all the time, but you do not notice it much, since even the moon is only about a light-second and a half away.

We watch supernovas that are long gone. And we KNOW they are long gone, because we do not just detect the light of a supernova event: we detect neutrinos as well, roughly in the same timeframe, despite the fact that the supernova is many thousands of lightyears away.

This has been well-covered, but Peacegirl just conveniently forgets it at random intervals.

I think another term is 'willful ignorance', in political language it would be 'Plausible deniability'.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

But most of these people went about their business and created works of brilliance which were recognized in their life times as brilliant. They didn't try to convince the world they were brilliant by idiotic repetition of incoherent nonsense.

Mental illness can be overlooked if there is genius involved but if all it does is prance in the public square spouting gibberish then it needs help.

Fuck off!!!!! If anyone is mentally ill, IT IS YOU Natural.atheist, but you've chosen me as to be your scapegoat. EVERYONE CAN SEE THROUGH YOU!!!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Also, if some of the sunlight stays at the object when it hits it, how can all of the sunlight bounce off and keep travelling? If the blue part of the spectrum stays at the ball, how can the full spectrum still bounce off?

Because the object has nothing to do with full spectrum visible light traveling in a constant stream. Again, if we have to be looking at the object to get the mirror image, our seeing the object in real time has absolutely nothing to do with the Sun's constant emission of white light.