A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If the lens is within the light then either the lens has traveled in order to enter the light or the light has traveled in order to encompass the lens. If the lens remains stationary and the light has not crossed the distance between the lens and the object then the lens is not yet within the light.

Angakuk, that's a good question. In efferent vision it is the brain that is looking out through the eyes, which allows the eyes to see the object, not the object to travel to the eyes. But that doesn't mean light isn't necessary. It's the essential link that connects the internal to the external world.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In efferent vision it is the brain that is looking out through the eyes, which allows the eyes to see the object, not the object to travel to the eyes. But that doesn't mean light isn't necessary. It's the essential link that connects the internal to the external world.

Light is both necessary and sufficient for vision to work. "Efferent vision" adds an additional unexplained, seemingly magical, utterly unobservable component which does not improve on the scientific model.

It is false, and all your explanations are either confused or factually incorrect.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you keep singling out photography when light has to interact with the retina also? I told you that if the object is reflecting a mirror image of itself, then when a picture is taken of the OBJECT, or we're viewing the OBJECT (which seems to be completely forgotten), it is only because the reflected light is interacting.

You have made positive claims about photography in your attempts to explain your model, which means you need to be able to support those claims.

We know exactly how camera film works ; The photochemical reaction that occurs during film photography requires the absorption of photons at the surface of the camera film. Photons that are not physically touching the surface of the camera film cannot be absorbed.

What is the mechanism by which photons come to be located at the surface of camera film in your model?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, you are basing your entire position on what light does and are forgetting the requirements of efferent vision by the very fact that you say it doesn't matter if the object is even there. You are only thinking in terms of light which presupposes that it is entering the brain and being interpreted through signals. Can't you see this? How else could light bring the pattern if you weren't thinking in terms of afferent vision?

Please at least try to follow what is being said. I am only asking about what you have agreed is a part of YOUR account. The object is always there in this example. There is no brain involved at all. And I'm not mentioning any pattern either. I am only asking for the location of photons which YOU AGREE must exist and have a location at the times I am asking about. I am not insisting that the behaviour of light alone is sufficient. I'm only insisting that you must be able to provide a consistent account of what the light is doing, regardless of whatever else is going on. So far you can't do it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true, they must have a location. This is not magic Spacemonkey.

Right. So please answer my questions by providing the locations that these two sets of photons must have.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not recognizing, once again, the importance of the object which reflects the mirror image due to this phenomenon. You are not working this problem backwards, which is to assume that the object is necessary for sight; the efferent premise. You are still assuming that all that is necessary is light, so red would come before blue because location of those "traveling" photons determines what we see. This is the afferent position.

Utter bullshit, Peacegirl. Complete and utter codswallop. I'm not even discussing vision or sight. I AM working backwards, as I have accepted that you think the object must remain present, and that more than light is necessary. All I'm doing here is asking you, given all of the above, where the photons are on your account at the times I am asking about. Why won't you answer? You agree that the two sets of photons I am asking about exist at the times concerned, and that they must have locations at those times on your account. So what are those locations?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you see what you're doing, or you still don't have a clue?

Yes, I see what I'm doing. I'm asking you a simple question about the location of the photons on your account which you have agreed must exist and have a location. Why won't you answer?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't do this anymore.

It's a simple question, concerning only your own account, and you've agreed that it must have an answer. So stop weaseling and answer.

[Spacemonkey]

All the two questions below are asking you for is the locations of these two sets of photons at the times concerned. You have agreed that both sets of photons exist at these times, and that they must have locations at these times. And that is all the questions presuppose. They say nothing at all about whether or not an object has to be present, what brains or lenses do, what else other than light may be necessary, changing distances, or instant mirror images. For the purposes of these two questions you can assume that your own answers concerning such matters are all accepted. All I'm asking for is the location of these photons at the times concerned according to your own model. That's it. Nothing else. You can take all the rest of your model as a given, and use it to provide the answers which you have agreed these two questions must have. No more excuses. Stop being such a big baby and just answer the questions already.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, here's a very simple disproof of efferent vision and real-time photography. Both require a camera to be able to record the color change of a distant object in real-time. So when a distant ball changes from blue to red, a camera must be able to photograph it as red as soon as it has become red. But if the camera is inside the range where the traveling non-absorbed light has yet to return to 'white full-spectrum' light, then all that light will be blue before the color change. And at the very moment the ball changes to red (i.e. has turned into a ball that absorbs all but red photons) there are no red photons at the camera. They were previously all being absorbed by the ball, and are only now free to bounce off the ball and begin traveling towards the camera. So none of them can be at the camera yet. But the camera cannot produce a red image on film without any red photons there to chemically interact with the film. So the camera cannot produce a real-time image of the newly red ball, and real-time photgraphy and efferent vision are thereby disproved. QED.

Bump.

How do red photons get to be at the camera film when at the immediately preceding moment there were no red photons anywhere near the camera?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But we're working backwards Spacemonkey.

The problem is that you're not. You're only working backwards so far as to say that the light must be at certain places at certain times if real-time photography is to be possible. And then you stop, concluding that it just must be so. We're asking you to continue working backwards to work out how light must be behaving if this is indeed to be possible. We want you to work with us to work out how the light could get to be were you assume it must manage to be, and how it can do what you think it must be able to do. But you keep refusing. You are refusing to continue to work backwards to see exactly what your account requires of light. I hypothesize that despite your apparent cognitive dysfunction and memory impairment, you know enough to know that working these things out will reveal the absurdities your account requires.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am frustrated beyond imagination, which is why I react by saying I have to move on. Eventually I will find a better home for this discussion. It's definitely not here.

There is no home for this discussion. There might have been a home 200 years ago, but not anymore. If you like being frustrated, if you like being called crazy, if you like to completely waste you time and bring ridicule upon the house of Lessan, then keep it up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Light is both necessary and sufficient for vision to work. "Efferent vision" adds an additional unexplained, seemingly magical, utterly unobservable component which does not improve on the scientific model.

It is false, and all your explanations are either confused or factually incorrect.

Where in this book did Lessans ever say that light was not necessary? To say that light is sufficient for vision to work is begging the question. You are very tricky specious_reasons, because you've hated me all along, but it won't work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The problem is that you're not. You're only working backwards so far as to say that the light must be at certain places at certain times if real-time photography is to be possible. And then you stop, concluding that it just must be so. We're asking you to continue working backwards to work out how light must be behaving if this is indeed to be possible. We want you to work with us to work out how the light could get to be were you assume it must manage to be, and how it can do what you think it must be able to do. But you keep refusing. You are refusing to continue to work backwards to see exactly what your account requires of light. I hypothesize that despite your apparent cognitive dysfunction and memory impairment, you know enough to know that working these things out will reveal the absurdities your account requires.

It is your reasoning that is absurd and if I follow it to the conclusion it will also be absurd. Absurdity will win the day but scientists don't want to see it. That's why I refuse to continue on this path of discussion. I do not mean to be disrespectful to you Spacemonkey because I know you're trying very hard to get to the truth. You are very determined to prove him wrong (which is a problem) just because you want to be right at all costs. This is the crux of the problem for you have NO tolerance for anyone who would dare to disagree with science. It's ashame because you absolutely have intellectual ability, but you're not using your gift of reason to give Lessans a fair chance.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is your reasoning that is absurd and if I follow it to the conclusion it will also be absurd. Absurdity will win the day but scientists don't want to see it. That's why I refuse to continue on this path of discussion. I do not mean to be disrespectful to you Spacemonkey because I know you're trying very hard to get to the truth.

Real-time vision and photography requires some consistent account of the behavior of light. As long as you keep refusing to work backwards with us to work out what your account requires of light, efferent vision will remain impossible. If you can't account for the location of the photons at the film just before the photograph is taken, then efferent vision is refuted. If you can't account for the location of the nonabsorbed photons just after they hit the object, then efferent vision is refuted. I'm not asking you to accept my reasoning. I'm asking you to reason it out for yourself and consider what light must be doing to achieve what you say it must be able to do. That you refuse to do so shows that you have no interest in the truth, and are merely trying to protect your delusional beliefs from reality and their own inconsistency.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are very determined to prove him wrong (which is a problem) just because you want to be right at all costs. This is the crux of the problem for you have NO tolerance for anyone who would dare to disagree with science. It's ashame because you absolutely have intellectual ability, but you're not using your gift of reason to give Lessans a fair chance.

Stop whining and making excuses, and just answer my questions. They are perfectly fair and reasonable questions, and you have no rational excuse for not addressing them.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where in this book did Lessans ever say that light was not necessary? To say that light is sufficient for vision to work is begging the question. You are very tricky specious_reasons, because you've hated me all along, but it won't work.

No, it's been proven sufficient, and the only person not satisfied with the answer is you.

I never hated you (or Lessans).
At first I was amused, then I was frustrated.
Now I just pity you. I can only read Lessans' works for the black humor.

The reason why you can't answer Spacemonkey's, LadyShea's or anyone else's questions clearly or consistently is because the model makes no sense. You can't bring yourself to be pinned down to answering a question because every time you answer a question, it makes some or part of Lessans' ideas impossible or inconsistent.

That's because Lessans' ideas about vision are false.

There are dozens of better, more productive things towards promoting Lessans' book you can be doing with your time, but you continue here, where the only people who are willing to hold any conversation with you are absolutely convinced you're wrong, and are trying to get you to admit it.

I don't think it's healthy for you to continue this discussion, and I am actively discouraging you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Light is both necessary and sufficient for vision to work. "Efferent vision" adds an additional unexplained, seemingly magical, utterly unobservable component which does not improve on the scientific model.

It is false, and all your explanations are either confused or factually incorrect.

I understand that's how you feel, and I also understand the anger you feel for upsetting the apple cart, but what am I supposed to do specious, give up what I know to be true? Tell me what should I do?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that's how you feel, and I also understand the anger you feel for upsetting the apple cart, but what am I supposed to do specious, give up what I know to be true? Tell me what should I do?

It's not a matter of how I feel. Lessans is simply wrong. Provably and proven wrong, 100 years before Lessans even came up with his ideas.

Coming from a position that Lessans is wrong, I think you should give up this Quixotic dream of publishing his work.

Given that you don't think it's wrong, I think you should stop posting here and do what work you think is best to promote Lessans work, because it certainly isn't doing Lessans' legacy any justice by being ripped apart by people who actually understand why it's so fucking wrong.

Even if there's nothing to edit or fix in Lessans' work, you could be improving your ability to market the work by learning how to promote the book better - just one idea.

The only thing that will happen if you continue to post is that people will continue to frustrate you by demanding clear and consistent answers to questions you neither have the ability nor willingness to answer clearly or consistently.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that's how you feel, and I also understand the anger you feel for upsetting the apple cart, but what am I supposed to do specious, give up what I know to be true? Tell me what should I do?

No-one's angry with you, you're not upsetting anything, and what you don't want to give up is faith, not knowledge. What you should do is stop posting and seek treatment (I'm quite serious). Failing that, you should try honestly answering people's questions, and following the obvious implications of your own claims, instead of weaseling and evading whenever you think your faith is at risk.

[davidm]

Peacegirl, you're a prating fool. And your father's work is wrong from first to last. Why does NASA factor in delayed-time seeing to send spacecraft to Mars and other bodies? If they used Lessans' ideas, they'd miss their targets every single time. How do you explain that, peacegirl? Oh, that's right, you won't answer the question, because in addition to being a prating fool, you're incorrigibly dishonest.

[LadyShea]

Tell me what should I do?

Answer the questions you are being asked

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Answer the questions you are being asked

She knows perfectly well that if she were to answer the questions honestly, the answers would show Lessans to be wrong. Since she can't have that be the case, she has chosen a strategy of dishonesty.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please at least try to follow what is being said. I am only asking about what you have agreed is a part of YOUR account. The object is always there in this example. There is no brain involved at all. And I'm not mentioning any pattern either. I am only asking for the location of photons which YOU AGREE must exist and have a location at the times I am asking about. I am not insisting that the behaviour of light alone is sufficient. I'm only insisting that you must be able to provide a consistent account of what the light is doing, regardless of whatever else is going on. So far you can't do it.

Right. So please answer my questions by providing the locations that these two sets of photons must have.

Utter bullshit, Peacegirl. Complete and utter codswallop. I'm not even discussing vision or sight. I AM working backwards, as I have accepted that you think the object must remain present, and that more than light is necessary. All I'm doing here is asking you, given all of the above, where the photons are on your account at the times I am asking about. Why won't you answer? You agree that the two sets of photons I am asking about exist at the times concerned, and that they must have locations at those times on your account. So what are those locations?

Yes, I see what I'm doing. I'm asking you a simple question about the location of the photons on your account which you have agreed must exist and have a location. Why won't you answer?

It's a simple question, concerning only your own account, and you've agreed that it must have an answer. So stop weaseling and answer.

Just stop it Spacemonkey. You are trying to add logic to something that is not proof. That's the reason you are so discombobulated. I see it and I feel sad because not only are you going to be confused, but no one else is going to get if you don't, at least not at the moment.

[davidm]

Yes, Spacemonkey, stop subjecting the prating fool's asinine gabble to the scalpel of logic, that is so discombobulating for you her.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

It's not a matter of how I feel. Lessans is simply wrong.

You don't know that.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Provably and proven wrong, 100 years before Lessans even came up with his ideas.]

That is not proof AT ALL. It just adds whatever is needed to fit the premise. Can't you see this? Of course not.

Originally Posted by Specious_reasons

Coming from a position that Lessans is wrong, I think you should give up this Quixotic dream of publishing his work.

Seriously? I didn't realize that I was talking to God himself.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Given that you don't think it's wrong, I think you should stop posting here and do what work you think is best to promote Lessans work, because it certainly isn't doing Lessans' legacy any justice by being ripped apart by people who actually understand why it's so fucking wrong.

You are so angry which is disproportionate from the discussion. It makes me wonder what your agenda is specious.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Even if there's nothing to edit or fix in Lessans' work, you could be improving your ability to market the work by learning how to promote the book better - just one idea.

True, but this has nothing to do with the content. Dangggggggg or should I just let it out: DAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM. I am so frustrated you have no idea.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

The only thing that will happen if you continue to post is that people will continue to frustrate you by demanding clear and consistent answers to questions you neither have the ability nor willingness to answer clearly or consistently.

Don't go there, ok? I have been answering to the best of my ability but the conclusions that are drawn make me realize that I was not as clear as I could be. I won't give up.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just stop it Spacemonkey. You are trying to add logic to something that is not proof. That's the reason you are so discombobulated. I see it and I feel sad because not only are you going to be confused, but no one else is going to get if you don't, at least not at the moment.

No, I won't stop it. I'm asking you very simple questions about your own account that presuppose nothing other than what you have explicitly agreed to. You have no rational grounds whatsoever for not answering, and everyone can see that the only reason you won't answer is that you know the answers will show Lessans to be wrong and your own account to be inconsistent.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have been answering to the best of my ability...

Don't lie to us. Answers like "I give up" or "I can't do this anymore" are not the best you can do. (Or if they are then you are quite seriously in need of psychiatric treatment.)

[davidm]

Originally Posted by pratingfool

That is not proof AT ALL. It just adds whatever is needed to fit the premise. Can't you see this? Of course not.

The prating fool, who knows NOTHING about the history or content of science, thinks that for the last several hundred years, scientists studying light and sight have added "whatever is needed to fit the premise." Simply uncanny that anyone could be this ill-informed and plain stupid. But althought she is stupid, she isn't quite THAT stupid. She knows that she is talking bilge, but she desperately hopes to sell a book. That's what this is all about, at the end of the day. Fortunately I'd wager she has never sold a single copy and never will.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so angry which is disproportionate from the discussion. It makes me wonder what your agenda is specious.

True, but that's not the most important thing. It's a major effort at this point to get people to see that he has something MAJOR to offer humanity. Dammmmmmmmm it. I am so frustrated you have no idea.

I'm not angry at all. You'd like me to be, but at this point, I'm just really sad for you. Seriously, it's like listening to my Grandma tell me that my dead Grandpa's just stepped out for a while, but will be back soon. You don't seem half that dysfunctional, but it's still depressing.

You've failed to convince anyone here, and if you're playing to the lurking public, you've probably failed to convince them, too. I can't even get into my head why you think posting here has any merit above learning how to promote Lessans' work better, or any number of unrelated things, like writing a letter to your children, or just going outside for a walk.