A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Was looking at this and I was wondering if Peacegirls swings from hostility to almost condecending careing could be signs of this condition?

Bipolar disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nah, she is just trying different ways to get the kind of response she wants. This is fairly common, even expected, when trying to persuade people to change their minds.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing that contradicts causality if you understand the basic model, which you obviously don't. And the fact that you bring determinism up as if you have completely forgotten the definition he is proposing, makes me think that my explanation of this knowledge has fallen on two deaf ears.

Au contraire. Something having an effect on something that is far away instantly, without anything travelling, is the very definition of something that contradicts causality.

And Lessans half-baked version of it also very much relies on it: if causality did not hold, then thoughts could occur at random, uncaused, which destroys the whole idea that we must choose what is most desirable or least undesirable to us.

There is a pair of deaf ears involved all right, but they are located on either side of your wilfully ignorant head.

[Spacemonkey]

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.

You are a liar.

Your question has been answered repeatedly. You just keep ignoring the answers.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Your present answers to my questions do posit stationary light. You told me you understood that this is the case, and yet chose not to change those answers. At the moment you have light hitting the ball and staying there stationary at the ball's surface, and you have light at the film which has been sitting there stationary at the surface of the film.

If you don't want to be positing stationary light then you need you give different answers to my questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

There are two ways you might avoid the prediction problem, but you haven't chosen either with your above response which just flatly denies the problem. One solution is to have the same photons floating there stationary at the film the whole time, but constantly changing their wavelengths to match the real-time qualities of the object. The other is to have the light previously at the film be a different set of photons from those there now such that the photons at the film are constantly being refreshed and replaced by new photons.

Which of these two options are you choosing? (The second option avoids stationary light, but requires different answers to my questions from what you've previously given.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope this post clears things up for you.

Not yet.

[Vivisectus]

"And I think it's about time you answered my questions" - "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

I only just got that one

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nah, she is just trying different ways to get the kind of response she wants. This is fairly common, even expected, when trying to persuade people to change their minds.

Thank you LadyShea!!!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

Thank you. With this response it at least looks like you've now read what you are replying to. But you appear to be applying the analogy to the wrong place. I'm not suggesting that the sunlight hitting the object is constantly refreshing like the river (although we can both agree this is happening). I'm talking about the (P)reflected light forming the image at the film constantly refreshing itself. Do you agree or disagree with this?

And as per my previous post, there are two ways this light at the film might be constantly refreshing itself. The same light might be sitting there stationary at the film and constantly changing wavelengths to match the object. Or the light itself might be constantly being replaced such that the light at the film is always different light to what was there just before. This latter case is what I was suggesting with the analogy. Which option do you prefer?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nah, she is just trying different ways to get the kind of response she wants. This is fairly common, even expected, when trying to persuade people to change their minds.

I had also thought of 'multiple personalities' but as single minded as Peacegirl is about the book I decided there wasn't room in her mind for more than one, and a very narrow one at that.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

That response doesn't answer or even address either question you were here replying to.

You've said that under efferent vision, something can stay in one place without being stationary. But that can't be right, as this is not an optional part of physics, but a simple matter of meaning. It's like saying that under efferent vision bachelors can be married, or circles can be squares. No model can make such things true, as they are false by definition.

The same goes for your claim that part of the spectrum of light hitting the object gets absorbed while all of the spectrum bounces off. This is simply a contradiction and cannot be true on any model. You can't subtract something and still have all of it left. (And absorption is the subtraction of light.) You need to correct these mistaken claims instead of repeating them.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong, 100% wrong Spacemonkey. I don't know whether I can break through this learned ignorance that everyone in here is conditioned by. I really don't know. I may be barking up the wrong tree in trying to share this knowledge with you people. To think this was all a waste of time makes me cringe.

Don't be silly.

If you agree that: (i) The object and film are in different places; and (ii) that the film cannot interact with anything not at the same place as the film; and (iii) that light cannot be in two different places at once... then you were wrong to say that the light surrounding the object is what interacts with the film.

So either acknowledge the mistake or tell me which of the above three clauses you want to reject.

But don't try to blame your mistakes on the alleged ignorance of your audience.

[peacegirl]

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.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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.

According to efferent vision, the full visible spectrum stays intact even when it bounces off of objects. But, of course, until it's proven that efferent vision is true, anything that depends on efferent vision for its validity, will also be suspect.

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.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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

Of course. That's why I said it depends on the location of the observer. If they're closer to the object than someone else, it will obviously appear bigger in comparison.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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?

Yes, there would be less photons interacting with the film/retina. Optics explains this very clearly, and it supports Lessans' claim. Remember, when the lens of the film/camera focuses on the object, it will be an exact mirror image on the film/retina regardless of how small or large the object is in relation to the observer.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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?

This has to do with optics. The further away an object is from the film/retina, the less photons are interacting with it. No surprise here. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[LadyShea]

This has to do with optics. The further away an object is from the film/retina, the less photons are interacting with it. No surprise here. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Because in optics the cause of the reduction in the desnity of photons is due to divergence while traveling from the object being reflected from to the sensor (retina or film)

Lessans stated that traveling photons are not a factor in efferent vision so why are you stating they are a factor?

[peacegirl]

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.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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

I wouldn't say that. The majority of the book was written by Lessans. Why do I sense hostility in you Angakuk?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So should I leave?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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.

I feel the same way. I'm looking at that pile of clothes that need washing getting higher and higher.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because in optics the cause of the reduction in the desnity of photons is due to divergence while traveling from the object being reflected from to the sensor (retina or film)

Whether the eyes are afferent or efferent, it wouldn't matter. In both models the photons that are at the film/retina depend on the proximity or intensity of the object in relation to the observer. As the object gets smaller due to divergence, the (P) light will reflect that in the mirror image until it becomes a dot on the film/retina and then completely disappears, in which case we will only have white light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans stated that traveling photons are not a factor in efferent vision so why are you stating they are a factor?

As I said to Spacemonkey, photons are always traveling, but the problem is that (N) reflection is not the same as (P) reflection. (P) reflection only means that the lens must be focused on the object for the image of the object to show up on the film/retina. (N) reflection just means that the constant light energy from the Sun travels at 186,000 miles per second and is no different than the non-visible portion of the light spectrum.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nah, she is just trying different ways to get the kind of response she wants. This is fairly common, even expected, when trying to persuade people to change their minds.

She doesn't have much imagination. She is in rut she is rapidly turning into a canyon.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.

Show me where optics explains this phenomenon or did you just make this up?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to efferent vision, the full visible spectrum stays intact even when it bounces off of objects.

Then efferent vision flatly contradicts itself when it further claims that a part of that spectrum stays at the surface of the object, or that objects have light-absorptive properties.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whether the eyes are afferent or efferent, it wouldn't matter. In both models the photons that are at the film/retina depend on the proximity or intensity of the object in relation to the observer. As the object gets smaller due to divergence, the (P) light will reflect that in the mirror image until it becomes a dot on the film/retina and then completely disappears, in which case we will only have white light.

As I said to Spacemonkey, photons are always traveling, but the problem is that (N) reflection is not the same as (P) reflection. (P) reflection only means that the lens must be focused on the object for the image of the object to show up on the film/retina. (N) reflection just means that the constant light energy from the Sun travels at 186,000 miles per second and is no different than the non-visible portion of the light spectrum.

As I've already pointed out, you cannot appeal to divergence. Only travelling light can diverge, and you've said (P)reflected light is at the film/retina instantly without travelling the intervening distance. If it doesn't travel the intervening distance, then it can't diverge (again, by definition).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

You still don't get it and I'm losing hope that you will in this thread. If light is coming from an object, no matter how far away, it provides a mirror image on the film instantly. The eyes and film work the same way due to how the lens works in either case. The photons from the Sun do not have to travel to Earth for there to be a mirror image of the photograph that is being taken. This has nothing to do with teleportation or magic of any kind.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still don't get it and I'm losing hope that you ever will. If light is coming from an object, no matter how far away, it provides a mirror image on the film. The eyes and film work the same way in regard to light, the object, the distance. The photons from the Sun do not have to get to Earth first for there to be a mirror image on film, which provides the interaction. This has nothing to do with teleportation or magic of any kind.

So where did the photons at the Earthbound camera film comprising this mirror image come from, if they didn't teleport there or magically appear there?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still don't get it and I'm losing hope that you will in this thread. If light is coming from an object, no matter how far away, it provides a mirror image on the film instantly. The eyes and film work the same way due to how the lens works in either case. The photons from the Sun do not have to travel to Earth for there to be a mirror image of the photograph that is being taken. This has nothing to do with teleportation or magic of any kind.

You're weaseling again. The question I have asked for weeks now involves Lessans claims and your subsequent claims regarding the Sun being newly turned on at noon and photographing the sun. Not seeing the sun

1. Lessans claims if the Sun was turned on at noon, we would be able to see the Sun with our efferent vision at noon. We would have to await the photons to arrive on Earth 8.5 minutes later to see each other though. So 12:08

2. You claim that we would be able to PHOTOGRAPH the Sun at noon, the same time we could see it, meaning we would not have to await the arrival of the photons at 12:08 to photograph the Sun

3. We know, for a fact, and you have agreed, that in order to take a photograph, photons and camera film must be in the same location. ETA: Lenses have nothing to do with this process. Photosensitive camera film and photons can interact without a lens

So, how can the photons and camera film be in the same location at noon, if the photons have not yet arrived on Earth from the newly ignited Sun and the camera film has not traveled to the Sun

Will you or won't you answer this question?

Additionally: Where does this "mirror image" physically exist in space and how do the photons get to the physical location of this mirror image? What does the mirror image consist of?

[peacegirl]

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.

Detecting (N) light (or neutrinos) from a supernova event, and seeing images of a past event such that we would see Columbus discovering America if we were on a star and a telescope happened to detect this light, are two different animals.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If light is coming from an object, no matter how far away, it provides a mirror image on the film instantly. The eyes and film work the same way due to how the lens works in either case. The photons from the Sun do not have to travel to Earth for there to be a mirror image of the photograph that is being taken. This has nothing to do with teleportation or magic of any kind.

How does the 'mirror image' get from the object or Sun to the film or retina?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still don't get it and I'm losing hope that you will, at least in this thread. If light is coming from an object, no matter how far away, it provides a mirror image on the film instantly. The retina and film work exactly the same way due to how the lens works in both cases. The photons from the Sun do not have to travel to Earth for there to be a mirror image of the photograph that is being taken. This has nothing to do with teleportation or magic of any kind.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're weaseling again. The question I have asked for weeks now involves Lessans claims and your subsequent claims regarding the Sun being newly turned on at noon and photographing the sun. Not seeing the sun

I AM NOT WEASELING. How many times have I said that the brain, looking through the eyes, uses the same light, as the light that is at the film instantly. Both work the same way.

1. Lessans claims if the Sun was turned on at noon, we would be able to see the Sun with our efferent vision at noon. We would have to await the photons to arrive on Earth 8.5 minutes later to see each other though. So 12:08

Right.

2. You claimed that we would be able to PHOTOGRAPH the Sun at noon, the same time we could see it, meaning we would not have to await the arrival of the photons at 12:08 to photograph the Sun

Right.

3. We know, for a fact, and you just now agreed, that in order to take a photograph, photons and camera film must be in the same location

But the light IS intersecting with the film. Obviously, light is not intersecting with the film where there is darkness. If the Sun was turned on, a picture could only be taken of the Sun and nothing else. Until the Sun's photons arrive on earth, we could not see each other, nor could we take a picture of each other no matter close to each other we were. Remember, all that is necessary in the efferent model is for there to be light around the object, not around the observer.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, how can the photons and camera film be in the same location at noon, if the photons have not yet arrived on Earth from the newly ignited Sun and the camera film has not traveled to the Sun

Will you or won't you answer this question?

Additionally Where does this "mirror image" physically exist in space and how do the photons get to the physical location of this mirror image?

If we're looking out at the world, through the eyes, the mirror image is at the retina instantly, as it is at the film. The object and the mirror image are one and the same. The mirror image is the (P) light that is present the moment a lens (whether it be the eye or a camera) is focused on the object. Try to remember that the space from the object to the observer is unimportant in efferent vision as long as the object you're looking at is in visual range. The visual cortex interprets the actual distance.

[Spacemonkey]

ThreeLawsSafe, without offering any diagnosis, could you explain why it would be unreasonable to think that the following might be applicable here, given the evidence presented within these threads?:

Delusional disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Wikpedia

The following can indicate a delusion:

1. The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
2. That idea appears to exert an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
3. Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
4. The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
5. There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
6. An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
7. The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural and religious background.
8. The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.
9. The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
10. Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.

If an online poster were to regularly display such indicators over a period of several years whilst giving every indication of being genuine and not a troll or poe, would it not be reasonable to think that this person might benefit from psychiatric treatment of some sort?

ETA:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

When delusional disorders occur late in life they suggest a hereditary predisposition. Researchers also suggest that these disorders are the result of early childhood experiences with an authoritarian family structure. According to other researchers, any person with a sensitive personality is particularly vulnerable to developing a delusional disorder.