I'm just asking. Wouldn't that mean an image would not be recognizable? Can you recognize half a face? This is not a hologram.
Why would it be unrecognizable? When you are looking at someone face to face, can you see the back of their head? Does not being able to see the back half of their body render them unrecognizable?
We can only ever see one section of the moon, does our inability to see the dark side render it unrecognizable?
You are gibbering, seriously.
I'm gibbering?
Yes
I said that unobstructed light (light that has the full spectrum) will give us a true color of what object we are looking at. What is it you don't understand? If a shadow of one object falls on another object, the true color of the other object will be compromised by the shadow. So what? What are you trying to prove other than to try to show me up?
You are conflating the discussion of color with the discussion of collecting light from far away to create an image as the Hubble does. Your statement about half a face had nothing to do with color. So, you are still gibbering.
Light should not be bringing special effects when we don't want them.
Light gives a shit what humans want? LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am talking about daylight
You are aware that daylight is not constant when it comes to color, either? It is filtered through the atmosphere, and it is reflected off the ground and nearby objects, and the wavelengths received are dependent on our angle to the Sun (which is why Sunrise and Sunset are so colorful).
I've never seen the angle to the Sun or Sun that is filtered through the atmosphere change green grass to orange grass, although it can cast a shadow.
Light should not be bringing special effects when we don't want them.
Light gives a shit what humans want? LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am talking about daylight
You are aware that daylight is not constant when it comes to color, either? It is filtered through the atmosphere, and it is reflected off the ground and nearby objects, and the wavelengths received are dependent on our angle to the Sun (which is why Sunrise and Sunset are so colorful).
I've never seen the angle to the Sun or Sun that is filtered through the atmosphere change green grass to orange grass, although it can cast a shadow.
Nobody is saying grass would reflect orange instead of green. What are you talking about? If the full spectrum is not available, however, we will not see the colors the same as we do in daylight.
It still sounds very haphazard to me, but of course not to you since you've got an answer for everything
Quote:
Light should not be bringing special effects when we don't want them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Nature is well-designed. It is not haphazard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Er...what? Sorry peacegirl, but you don't get to dictate how nature is. The universe doesn't care if you find it strange or haphazard, or random or daft, or immoral.
Who is dictating anything? I am not placing a value on what nature does, but it does appear to be self-correcting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
The difference between you and the rest of us is that we go out an look at how the universe actually behaves, rather than assuming it behaves in a way we find pleasing, and trying to come up with conspiracy theories and a multitude of random extra beliefs to preserve an idealized notion of how the world works.
So if you find the way light behaves strange, or unpleasant? Tough. That's how it works, and we've checked it works this way. Welcome to science. Unlike you, and Lessans, who decided how it should work, and tried to ignore everything that contradicted you.
You checked and it works that way? Very scientific answer!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
You also never apologized for your blatant lie earlier, that you used to try and get out of a ridiculous contradictory statement you made. Are you going to?
Tell me which square is darker, the one marked A or the one marked B?
They are the same color. I cannot see it even knowing the truth, because my brain is seeing what it expects to see. I had to open a photo editor and use the color tool to get the value and verify that they are identical. This is the color of both squares
It is
Red 120
Blue 120
Green 120
I know the brain fills in things but I don't get how both squares are the same color because that's what we expect to see. I don't have any expectations.
Huh? Do you see one as darker than the other or not? Of course you have an expectation, an unconscious one, because of the checkerboard pattern and the shadow. If we did not have the technology to verify the exact color, would you believe they are the same color?
Even knowing, for a fact, that they are the same color (after having proven it to myself using imaging software) I cannot see them as the same color when I look at them in the context of the whole picture.
Light should not be bringing special effects when we don't want them.
Light gives a shit what humans want? LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am talking about daylight
You are aware that daylight is not constant when it comes to color, either? It is filtered through the atmosphere, and it is reflected off the ground and nearby objects, and the wavelengths received are dependent on our angle to the Sun (which is why Sunrise and Sunset are so colorful).
Quote:
I've never seen the angle to the Sun or Sun that is filtered through the atmosphere change green grass to orange grass, although it can cast a shadow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Nobody is saying grass would reflect orange instead of green. What are you talking about? If the full spectrum is not available, however, we will not see the colors the same as we do in daylight.
That's what we have been talking about: daylight. This whole conversation started when I asked what happens when light bounces off of an object that has absorbed blue, and the next object the light strikes reflects blue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Under standard light
Under a street lamp
Other than casting shadows, sunlight gives us the most authentic color. Even if the sun is filtered through the atmosphere --- and even when it strikes objects at different angles resulting in shadows --- does not cause the color of grass to look blue, for example.
I'm just asking. Wouldn't that mean an image would not be recognizable? Can you recognize half a face? This is not a hologram.
Why would it be unrecognizable? When you are looking at someone face to face, can you see the back of their head? Does not being able to see the back half of their body render them unrecognizable?
We can only ever see one section of the moon, does our inability to see the dark side render it unrecognizable?
You are gibbering, seriously.
I'm gibbering?
Yes
And you're not (?), which question seemed to go right over your head?
How about you answer my questions about your statement?
This doesn't apply because the moon actually exists. We only can see the hemisphere that is facing us as the moon orbits the earth.
Actually, if sight works efferently, then the colour of the light should not matter: light is only a condition, and does not change the colour of the object... so why do we see a difference? Why does a white ball look red under red light?
And since light does change the way we see an object, it cannot be happening instantly: the light requires time to get there, and then to reach the eye.
You are looking at this the wrong way round: since light does cause "special effects", sight cannot work the way you say it does.
Red photons would be at the eye if the object were red Vivisectus. Light can create special effects, but in order to see these images (in real time), the photons have to be at the film/retina, so I don't know where you're coming from when you say that this negates efferent vision.
Right - so red photons would appear at the eye instantly, when a red object comes into view? They would just appear at the retina?
Tell me which square is darker, the one marked A or the one marked B?
They are the same color. I cannot see it even knowing the truth, because my brain is seeing what it expects to see. I had to open a photo editor and use the color tool to get the value and verify that they are identical. This is the color of both squares
It is
Red 120
Blue 120
Green 120
I know the brain fills in things but I don't get how both squares are the same color because that's what we expect to see. I don't have any expectations.
Huh? Do you see one as darker than the other or not? Of course you have an expectation, an unconscious one, because of the checkerboard pattern and the shadow. If we did not have the technology to verify the exact color, would you believe they are the same color?
Even knowing, for a fact, that they are the same color (after having proven it to myself using imaging software) I cannot see them as the same color when I look at them in the context of the whole picture.
I can't either. Very interesting how the brain works.
I'm just asking. Wouldn't that mean an image would not be recognizable? Can you recognize half a face? This is not a hologram.
Why would it be unrecognizable? When you are looking at someone face to face, can you see the back of their head? Does not being able to see the back half of their body render them unrecognizable?
We can only ever see one section of the moon, does our inability to see the dark side render it unrecognizable?
You are gibbering, seriously.
I'm gibbering?
Yes
And you're not (?), which question seemed to go right over your head?
How about you answer my questions about your statement?
This doesn't apply because the moon actually exists. We only can see the hemisphere that is facing us as the moon orbits the earth.
Huh? Why does something have to be shot out of the eyes?
From two and a half weeks ago:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Efferent means conveyed outward.
And yet nothing at all is conveyed outward in your own account of 'efferent' vision.
You never replied.
Nothing shoots out Spacemonkey. This is beginning to sound like a bad science fiction movie.
Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain.
Nobody is saying grass would reflect orange instead of green. What are you talking about? If the full spectrum is not available, however, we will not see the colors the same as we do in daylight.
That's what we have been talking about: daylight. This whole conversation started when I asked what happens when light bounces off of an object that has absorbed blue, and the next object the light strikes reflects blue.
You are acting like there is not enough blue light to go around to multiple objects. In daylight conditions that does not happen, there is more than enough light of every wavelength to allow many, many, many objects to reflect any or all of them.
Blue light absorbing objects are not vacuums that suck up all the blue light for miles around leaving none for objects that reflect blue light. They only absorb the blue light that directly strikes that object.
Only if the second object that reflects blue is completely blocked from receiving blue light from the source daylight will the color be unrecognizable as blue. Say, for example, a blue ball is in a box that blocks the blue wavelength but transmits all others, like blue blocker glass. You would not see the ball as blue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by webmd
It is important that you realize how 100% blue-blockers will distort other colors. For this reason, you should not drive with them on. You will also find that your color perception will be out of kilter after removing them (yellow school busses will be a beautiful pink, for example). Don't worry, you will return to normal in a few minutes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Under standard light
Under a street lamp
Daylight (the full spectrum) gives us the most authentic color.
Yes, because all wavelengths are available to be reflected. DUH! This is a given.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Other than casting shadows, I have never seen Sunlight alter the color of an object?
Nobody said direct sunlight would or should alter the color of the object. The color will be different in direct daylight then it will be under different light sources or in indirect light. That's all I've said.
Why are you even making this point when nobody is claiming anything different?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Even if the sun is filtered through the atmosphere, and even the sun strikes at different angles resulting in shadows, does not cause the color of grass to look blue.
I'm just asking. Wouldn't that mean an image would not be recognizable? Can you recognize half a face? This is not a hologram.
Why would it be unrecognizable? When you are looking at someone face to face, can you see the back of their head? Does not being able to see the back half of their body render them unrecognizable?
We can only ever see one section of the moon, does our inability to see the dark side render it unrecognizable?
You are gibbering, seriously.
I'm gibbering?
Yes
And you're not (?), which question seemed to go right over your head?
How about you answer my questions about your statement?
This doesn't apply because the moon actually exists. We only can see the hemisphere that is facing us as the moon orbits the earth.
Huh? Of course it applies. The moon is recognizable though we can only see it partially and it is not a hologram.
So what's your point? We are able to see the hemisphere of the moon that is facing us due to light.
What was your point when you asked/stated "Wouldn't that mean an image would not be recognizable? Can you recognize half a face? This is not a hologram."
I have been trying to get you to explain that questions/statements about "partial" images from this post http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...ostcount=28284. I have no idea what you were getting at, and neither do you apparently now that you seem to agree that we can recognize things that we can only see parts of. Therefore you were gibbering.
Actually, if sight works efferently, then the colour of the light should not matter: light is only a condition, and does not change the colour of the object... so why do we see a difference? Why does a white ball look red under red light?
And since light does change the way we see an object, it cannot be happening instantly: the light requires time to get there, and then to reach the eye.
You are looking at this the wrong way round: since light does cause "special effects", sight cannot work the way you say it does.
Red photons would be at the eye if the object were red Vivisectus. Light can create special effects, but in order to see these images (in real time), the photons have to be at the film/retina, so I don't know where you're coming from when you say that this negates efferent vision.
Right - so red photons would appear at the eye instantly, when a red object comes into view? They would just appear at the retina?
They would be at the retina because our eyes would be in optical range. If we're in optical range, we will see the object exactly how one would see an object in the afferent account. The only difference is that there is no time involved.
I'm just asking. Wouldn't that mean an image would not be recognizable? Can you recognize half a face? This is not a hologram.
Why would it be unrecognizable? When you are looking at someone face to face, can you see the back of their head? Does not being able to see the back half of their body render them unrecognizable?
We can only ever see one section of the moon, does our inability to see the dark side render it unrecognizable?
You are gibbering, seriously.
I'm gibbering?
Yes
And you're not (?), which question seemed to go right over your head?
How about you answer my questions about your statement?
This doesn't apply because the moon actually exists. We only can see the hemisphere that is facing us as the moon orbits the earth.
Huh? Of course it applies. The moon is recognizable though we can only see it partially and it is not a hologram.
So what's your point? We are able to see the hemisphere of the moon that is facing us due to light.
What was your point when you asked/stated "Wouldn't that mean an image would not be recognizable? Can you recognize half a face? This is not a hologram."
I have been trying to get you to explain that questions/statements about "partial" images from this post Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought. I have no idea what you were getting at, and neither do you apparently now that you seem to agree that we can recognize things that we can only see parts of. Therefore you were gibbering.
So you believe that hundreds of years after an event has taken place, all we would need is to gather enough light from that event to make out a partial image? In other words, we might see half a ship, or half of Columbus' face, or half of his 90 men, because those particular wavelengths happened to strike our telescopes? And this doesn't sound flaky to you?
So you believe that after hundreds of years after an event has taken place, all we would need is to gather enough light gathered from that event to make out a partial image? So we might see half a ship, or half of Columbus' face? And this doesn't sound fundie to you?
Weasel, you are acting purposefully obtuse. I guess you'd rather appear stupid than admit that you are wrong.
Nobody is talking about ships or Columbus. The technology doesn't exist for that, nor has anyone said we can see that or should see it, nor has anyone said anything about us here on Earth seeing events from Earth's distant past.
I am talking about the images we can get right now from collecting enough light to create them, using the technology that actually exists, such as the images of galaxies from the Hubble.
Peacegirl, are you happy to leave efferent vision as a big fat contradiction that no-one in their right mind could ever take seriously? Does it not bother you at all that you are positing photons at the retina without being able to explain where they came from or how they got there? Why do you keep pretending that this problem doesn't exist? Do you think that if you ignore it, it will just go away? Do you think other people might be so stupid as to not consider it a problem either?
This does not violate physics, nor does it mean that photons have teleported from one point to another. No matter how you reason this out, it's going to seem contradictory as long as your premise begins with the idea that light bounces and travels with the pattern before it strikes another object (which involves time) instead of trying to understand that the pattern reveals the object (which does not involve time). Does this sound like a broken record to you? I know you will continue to ask me what time was the photon at the sun, and what time was it at the eye? You keep going back to the afferent account because you are thinking in terms of traveling photons. Remember, light travels, but in the efferent account, light brings no pattern to the eye through space/time; it reveals what's out there in real time if we're in optical range of that object.
So you believe that hundreds of years after an event has taken place, all we would need is to gather enough light from that event to make out a partial image? In other words, we might see half a ship, or half of Columbus' face, or half of his 90 men, because those particular wavelengths happened to strike our telescopes? And this doesn't sound flaky to you?
You're almost as unintentionally funny as your father. Did you receive your diploma from kindergarten, or are you still working on the requirements of eating cookies and taking a noon nap?
This does not violate physics, nor does it mean that photons have teleported from one point to another. No matter how you reason this out, it's going to seem contradictory as long as your premise begins with the idea that light bounces and travels with the pattern before it strikes another object (which involves time) instead of trying to understand that the pattern reveals the object (which does not involve time). Does this sound like a broken record to you? I know you will continue to ask me what time was the photon at the sun, and what time was it at the eye? You keep going back to the afferent account because you are thinking in terms of traveling photons. Remember, light travels, but in the efferent account, light brings no pattern to the eye through space/time; it reveals what's out there in real time if we're in optical range of that object.
Like a broken record. Dishonest, empty-headed, pathetic.
This does not violate physics, nor does it mean that photons have teleported from one point to another.
For light photons to be located somewhere there must be a mechanism explaining how the light became located there. You have stated light photons are located at the retina.
You must explain where they came from and/or how they became located at the retina within the laws of physics and in accordance with the known properties of light, or your model is proven impossible as it violates physics.
"They just are there" is not a mechanism or explanation, it is a baseless assertion with zero information
So you believe that after hundreds of years after an event has taken place, all we would need is to gather enough light gathered from that event to make out a partial image? So we might see half a ship, or half of Columbus' face? And this doesn't sound fundie to you?
Weasel, you are acting purposefully obtuse. I guess you'd rather appear stupid than admit that you are wrong.
Nobody is talking about ships or Columbus. The technology doesn't exist for that, nor has anyone said we can see that or should see it, nor has anyone said anything about us here on Earth seeing events from Earth's distant past.
I am talking about the images we can get right now from collecting enough light to create them, using the technology that actually exists, such as the images of galaxies from the Hubble.
Obviously, if you believe that light that has been emitted from a star that no longer exists, travels forever and ever with the pattern of that star or galaxy, then there is no way I can dispute this, just like I cannot dispute Spacemonkey when he says that photons have to travel from point A to point B, and therefore we cannot see an object instantly. So there really isn't any purpose in this discussion. Just remember science does not always get it right.
This does not violate physics, nor does it mean that photons have teleported from one point to another.
For light photons to be located somewhere there must be a mechanism explaining how the light became located there. You have stated light photons are located at the retina.
You must explain where they came from and/or how they became located at the retina within the laws of physics and in accordance with the known properties of light, or your model is proven impossible as it violates physics.
"They just are there" is not a mechanism or explanation, it is a baseless assertion with zero information
It is not LadyShea. The space between an object and the eye in the efferent account is the same regardless of how far away the object is. It does not require photons to travel long distances in order to see it, as long as that object is large enough and bright enough. The brain interprets the actual distance, therefore we know when we're looking at an object that is far away, like the moon, and when we're looking at an object that is right outside our window, like a tree, but the requirements for sight are the same. We're going to keep going in circles and there will never be a resolution. Lessans will continue to be looked at as a crackpot, so I don't want to continue with the conversation because it's not in his best interest.
So you believe that after hundreds of years after an event has taken place, all we would need is to gather enough light gathered from that event to make out a partial image? So we might see half a ship, or half of Columbus' face? And this doesn't sound fundie to you?
Weasel, you are acting purposefully obtuse. I guess you'd rather appear stupid than admit that you are wrong.
Nobody is talking about ships or Columbus. The technology doesn't exist for that, nor has anyone said we can see that or should see it, nor has anyone said anything about us here on Earth seeing events from Earth's distant past.
I am talking about the images we can get right now from collecting enough light to create them, using the technology that actually exists, such as the images of galaxies from the Hubble.
Obviously, if you believe that light that has been emitted from a star that no longer exists, travels forever and ever with the pattern of that star or galaxy, then there is no way I can dispute this, just like I cannot dispute Spacemonkey when he says that photons have to travel from point A to point B, and therefore we cannot see an object instantly. So there really isn't any purpose in this discussion. Just remember science does not always get it right.
I must appologize, I can see that I was useing 'design' in the sense of adapting adequately to the environment, which is what you were saying and I agree. It was a poor choice of words on my part. I understand that nature does not intentionally 'design' anything, organisms adapt to the environment and that adaptation is how it fits into that environment.
Yes. So for example, one would think an intelligent designer would have given humans the ability to synthesize Vitamin C, since it is necessary for survival and other organisms have this ability. But, we have to acquire it from our diet... which we've adapted to, but that makes no sense from an optimal design standpoint.
Oh, it gets even better. Most mammals can synthesize Vitamin C just fine; but a knockout mutation has disabled the gene in anthropoid primates. (As an aside, a different knockout mutation has rendered guinea pigs unable to synthesize Vitamin C.)
We still have the gene for Vitamin C synthesis, like all mammals, but it doesn't function. Some suspect that the mutation was a significant driving force in primate evolution, as it forced that primate lineage to rely on a more fruit-based diet. (Selection for the ability to distinguish ripe from unripe fruit is widely thought to explain why anthropoid primates -- almost uniquely among mammals -- have trichromatic color vision. That itself is an interesting story, as the third cone type appears to have originated from a gene duplication and subsequent mutation.)
Anyway. Yeah, biologists tend to be very leery of any use of the word "designed" when referring to organisms, because of the teleological implications.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
If you read the book you will find she really doesn't have much of a choice. If her ideas about free will are even slightly tempered, the whole teetering edifice comes crashing down: this is a text-book example of an entire system being built on extremely narrow foundations.
We already offered an explanation that allows sight to be normal while not conflicting with the book as she shared it. However, she herself has intimated that this would have consequences for the the ideas about not-reincarnation as described in the part of the book that is missing from my version.
The entire cloud-castle is so lacking in robustness that smallest change would bring the whole thing crashing down, and then where is she? No eternally happy afterlife, no Brave New World, ten years wasted, and stacks and stacks of what has now suddenly become the worlds most expensive toiletpaper in stead of the Bible, Part 2.
I don't really disagree with any of that but I think that she absolutely already knows that sight doesn't work in the way that her father believed that it did, she knows that this isn't science or formal philosophy even by lay understandings of the terms and I don't think she's at all as befuddled as she appears. I think that she just has an extreme case of daddy-worship, some very weird ideas about relationships that no one would have been shocked at 100 years ago,she's stubborn as hell, has nothing much else to do with her time and as she says, this is her social life. Maybe I'm just a meanie but it doesn't ring true to me anymore.
And when you consider that she has been on the very BRINK of really starting to market this book for at least a year and a half on this board alone, and possibly for about a decade elsewhere, then I can certainly see what you mean.
But I think she truly believes in the book, and that she believes it is 100% correct. It is just that it occupies a different kind of space in her mind than ordinary everyday reality, in the same way that people compartimentalize their religious beliefs and treat them different than any other kind of belief.
I wish people would stop psychoanalyzing me. I am not treating this discovery differently than any other kind of belief. The things people come up with in order not to take this book seriously is a study in itself.
This has nothing to do with psychoanalysis: it is simply the conclusion of our little examination into the different standards that you apply to your ideas and to other claims. We saw that when you apply the standards that you require for your ideas, we cannot come to the conclusion that fairies do not exist, or that the earth is not flat.
And yet you have no problem dismissing these two ideas as implausible.
Because they're not the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
This is because you use different standards for whatever is int he book than you use for everyday reality.
Re: A revolution in thought
Linear Mode
