A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No he didn't. He never once said a single word about light being located "at the retina" or on camera film. That's all you.

And that light can be located somewhere without any explanation of how it is there.
And that only white light travels, and reflected light does something else entirely...hangs around objects waiting for us to direct our gaze at it, apparently.

No, it does not do something apparently different. Light is where it is as it travels through space/time. I have told you countless times (how many more times do I have to repeat this?) that the properties of light don't change. He made a discovery regarding the EYES, NOT LIGHT. WHY ARE YOU INSISTENT ON DISMISSING THIS? You are assuming the light is bringing the image to the brain, however you want to word it. This is the antithesis of the model I am sharing, so why can't you admit that you keep going back to "the image is in the light", which is the afferent position. Why can't you admit this?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And that only white light travels, and reflected light does something else entirely...hangs around objects waiting for us to direct our gaze at it, apparently.

You just said this 4 days ago!

Originally Posted by peacegirl on 6/6/14

No, the partial spectrum allows the object to be seen if one is looking in that direction, but this does not prove that the non-absorbed light gets reflected.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is where it is as it travels through space/time. I have told you countless times (how many more times do I have to repeat this?) that the properties of light don't change

You have also said countless times that non-absorbed light doesn't reflect and travel and that the partial spectrum doesn't travel...that only white light travels but non absorbed light "reveals" or "allows". So, which is it? Does light have different properties in the efferent model or not? If not, why do you keep positing these weird, made up properties that light doesn't have?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the antithesis of the model I am sharing, so why can't you admit that you keep going back to "the image is in the light", which is the afferent position. Why can't you admit this?

Because, dumbass, as has been explained to you 30,000 times, NO ONE says "the image is in the light." This was your stupid father's caricature of what science says.

Shall we once again bump up Spacemonkey's summary of all the logically possible circumstances of your "efferent" seeing, involving every possible condition of photons, to watch you refuse to answer it again because you know that you have no answer?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I won't learn something that isn't true.

Too late, that ship has already sailed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You just said this 4 days ago!

You have also said countless times that non-absorbed light doesn't reflect and travel and that the partial spectrum doesn't travel...that only white light travels but non absorbed light "reveals" or "allows". So, which is it? Does light have different properties in the efferent model or not? If not, why do you keep positing these weird, made up properties that light doesn't have?

What my father meant by "the image doesn't get reflected" still holds without changing the properties of light. However you want to analyze this, the claim remains valid IF it can be proven that the eyes and brain do not function as once believed. This would mean that light itself (or the partial spectrum) is not interpreted in the brain as normal sight. I hope you can see the reason why. I agree that the way I explained it made it seem that the partial spectrum is static. We all know that's light travels but, once again, we need to focus our attention on the eyes and brain. I know you believe science has proven that the eyes work exactly the same as the other senses. I don't think so. The brain is one of those unmapped territories where we don't have all the answers even though the conclusions drawn appear airtight. If it is true that the brain is looking through the eyes as a window to the external world, it makes it possible to see the world in real time without violating physics. Focusing on traveling photons is not going to disprove this model because it is starting out with the afferent perspective that light has to reach Earth first to utilize that light to see. I know you haven't grasped how it is possible to see matter instantly without light having to reach Earth, but that doesn't mean your lack of understanding at this point makes it impossible.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What my father meant by "the image doesn't get reflected" still holds without changing the properties of light. In whatever way you want to analyze this, the claim remains valid IF the image is not decoded in the brain. That means that light itself (or the non-absorbed spectrum) is not interpreted in the brain as normal sight. I agree that the way I explained it made it seem that the partial spectrum doesn't travel. We all know that's light travels, but, once again, we need to focus our attention on the eyes and brain and what it's doing. If he is right that the brain is looking through the eyes, as a window, to the external world, it makes it possible to see the world in real time without violating physics. I know you haven't grasped how this is possible, but that doesn't mean your understanding at this point makes it impossible.

YOU haven't grasped how it is possible yet, and you are steadfastly refusing to investigate the options. You simply aren't being honest or reasonable here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Because, dumbass, as has been explained to you 30,000 times, NO ONE says "the image is in the light." This was your stupid father's caricature of what science says.

Shall we once again bump up Spacemonkey's summary of all the logically possible circumstances of your "efferent" seeing, involving every possible condition of photons, to watch you refuse to answer it again because you know that you have no answer?

YOU ARE GUILTY OF ACCUSING ME OF A STRAWMAN WHEN I KNOW THE IMAGE ISN'T BEING CARRIED IN LIGHT. FOR LACK OF A BETTER WAY TO EXPLAIN IT, THAT IS HOW IT WAS EXPRESSED. STOP PIDDLING OVER LANGUAGE WHICH HAS BEEN CLARIFIED COUNTLESS TIMES. IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE CLAIM THAT THE PARTIAL SPECTRUM (WITHOUT THE ACTUAL OBJECT SOMEWHERE IN ONE'S FIELD OF VIEW WHETHER USING A CAMERA, THE NAKED EYE, OR A TELESCOPE) DOES NOT TRAVEL MILLIONS OF MILES WHERE IT STRIKES THE EYE AND IS INTERPRETED IN THE BRAIN AS AN IMAGE. GET IT? OF COURSE NOT.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

YOU haven't grasped how it is possible yet, and you are steadfastly refusing to investigate the options. You simply aren't being honest or reasonable here.

You don't either and until scientists recognize that the brain and eyes function completely opposite of what they have concluded, we won't make any progress. I am not interested in talking about photons because it is diverting attention away from where his observations originated.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

YOU ARE GUILTY OF ACCUSING ME OF A STRAWMAN WHEN I KNOW THE IMAGE ISN'T BEING CARRIED IN LIGHT. FOR LACK OF A BETTER WAY TO EXPLAIN IT, THAT IS HOW IT WAS EXPRESSED. STOP PIDDLING OVER LANGUAGE WHICH HAS BEEN CLARIFIED COUNTLESS TIMES. IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE CLAIM THAT THE PARTIAL SPECTRUM (WITHOUT THE ACTUAL OBJECT SOMEWHERE IN ONE'S FIELD OF VIEW WHETHER USING A CAMERA, THE NAKED EYE, OR A TELESCOPE) DOES NOT TRAVEL MILLIONS OF MILES WHERE IT STRIKES THE EYE AND IS INTERPRETED IN THE BRAIN AS AN IMAGE. GET IT? OF COURSE NOT.

Are you the same poster who only 24hrs ago posted this complaint?:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your yelling at me with your LARGE FONT isn't going to get me to discuss this any further.

Also, you can rail against the standard explanation of vision all you want - you still haven't offered any plausible alternative.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't either and until scientists recognize that the brain and eyes function completely opposite of what they have concluded, we won't make any progress. I am not interested in talking about photons because it is diverting attention away from where his observations originated.

Of course I don't understand how it is plausible. It quite obviously isn't. Talking about the brain and eyes is also a completely pointless weasel-move, given that you need cameras to be able to do the same thing without any brain or eyes. Your father never addressed this massive and obvious problem because he was too clueless to even be aware of it. YOU need to address the photon problem, because you are half a step ahead of your father by at least recognizing that vision requires light to be present at the retina - and this means you need to explain where the light came from and how it got there.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

we need to focus our attention on the eyes and brain.

If we do that you can't explain cameras, which is where the topic of light and its location came from.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Focusing on traveling photons is not going to disprove this model because it is starting out with the afferent perspective that light has to reach Earth first to utilize that light to see. I know you haven't grasped how it is possible to see matter instantly without light having to reach Earth, but that doesn't mean your lack of understanding at this point makes it impossible.

Even if I accepted it for arguments sake about the eyes, it is completely impossible for cameras.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not interested in talking about photons because it is diverting attention away from where his observations originated.

His "observations" completely ignored cameras, which require the immediate physical presence of photons on the surface of film or a sensor in order to work, meaning it was not a well thought out idea with regards to optics. That's the problem you are stuck with.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

if the camera is within optical range of the object, it works in the same way as the eyes.

How can a camera work the same as eyes, if Lessans was correct and the eyes are merely windows for the brain to look through? Seriously, think about Lessans exact words, and try to apply them to a camera. It cannot be done.

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then you need to abandon the claim that light photons are physically located at the retina and on camera film in efferent vision (which Lessans didn't believe and never mentioned), and especially in the case of the Sun on at noon scenario, or you need to account for how light is located there and where it came from without changing the known properties of light and laws of physics.

"Eyes and brain" doesn't explain cameras. and neither does this:

According to this statement, the brain is irrelevant to seeing. But Lessans thought it was the most important thing...in fact he said we wouldn't see anything with our eyes without the stimulation of our brain from the other senses. How does a camera fit into that at all?

Then you go right back to the brain, which doesn't explain cameras

How does that fit with a camera?

As long as you make these contradictory and nonsensical claims, you are going to be challenged to explain and defend them, which you can't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

YOU ARE GUILTY OF ACCUSING ME OF A STRAWMAN WHEN I KNOW THE IMAGE ISN'T BEING CARRIED IN LIGHT. FOR LACK OF A BETTER WAY TO EXPLAIN IT, THAT IS HOW IT WAS EXPRESSED. STOP PIDDLING OVER LANGUAGE WHICH HAS BEEN CLARIFIED COUNTLESS TIMES. IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE CLAIM THAT THE PARTIAL SPECTRUM (WITHOUT THE ACTUAL OBJECT SOMEWHERE IN ONE'S FIELD OF VIEW WHETHER USING A CAMERA, THE NAKED EYE, OR A TELESCOPE) DOES NOT TRAVEL MILLIONS OF MILES WHERE IT STRIKES THE EYE AND IS INTERPRETED IN THE BRAIN AS AN IMAGE. GET IT? OF COURSE NOT.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you the same poster who only 24hrs ago posted this complaint?:

Yes I am the same poster. This post was directed to David, not you. You accused me of using caps when you used huge fonts, so I responded to YOU that size 30 font in bold isn't going to get me to respond any quicker. I usually use caps for a reason such as highlighting something important. I used it in the book a lot.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Also, you can rail against the standard explanation of vision all you want - you still haven't offered any plausible alternative.

I actually do, but your mind is completely blocked as it is with understanding why compatibilism is just another way to define free will so you can blame and punish without resorting to contra-causal free will. You can't see that it's still a big fat contradiction because free will and determinism are incompatible concepts; polar opposites.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

right back to the same question over and over and over again regarding traveling photons. It doesn't even apply in this account, which is why I can't answer you. I'm not ignoring you and I"m not weaseling. I can't fit your thought system into mine. They are mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then you need to abandon the claim that light photons are physically located at the retina and on camera film in efferent vision (which Lessans didn't believe and never mentioned)

First of all, you really don't know what he believed LadyShea. Just because he didn't mention something in the book does not mean he didn't understand that light must strike the eye in order to see. You have very little grasp of the principles yet you still come off like you are more knowledgeable than he was, which you are not. He was not resorting to magic or teleportation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

, and especially in the case of the Sun on at noon scenario, or you need to account for how light is located there and where it came from without changing the known properties of light and laws of physics.

Only if you are thinking in terms of the afferent model (that the eyes are a sense organ) which involves distance, time, and of the belief that the object can be long gone yet the non-absorbed light will still produce an image, which IS the afferent model and the very thing that is being contested.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"Eyes and brain" doesn't explain cameras. and neither does this:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

According to this statement, the brain is irrelevant to seeing. .

Huh? Obviously, the brain is irrelevant where cameras are concerned, but the observation he made regarding the eyes is what helps us to understand why cameras work in the same way: we can compare the lens of a camera to the eyes, and the film to the retina. If we see in real time, as Lessans claimed, then it follows that the same conditions exist for cameras as well. The object has to be within the camera's field of view for a picture to show up on film.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But Lessans thought it was the most important thing...in fact he said we wouldn't see anything with our eyes without the stimulation of our brain from the other senses. How does a camera fit into that at all?

Without stimulation from the other senses, an infant would not be stimulated to focus the eyes to see what he or she is experiencing. That is why neglected babies that don't have enough physical (touch) and verbal stimulation (a sterile environment void of human interaction) often develop strabismis (they can't focus).

Can research on Romanian orphans be ethical? – Virginia Hughes – Aeon

A camera uses the same exact light as the eyes, therefore the light is at the film in the same way the light is at the retina. I already explained this. If we are looking at something in real time, and we clicked a camera, the camera would develop the same photograph as what we were seeing since the object must be in the field of view in both cases. If the lens is focused on the object, and the object is bright enough and large enough to be seen through the lens, the light will be at the film and a photograph can be taken. A photograph cannot be taken if there is no object that can be seen through the lens. This is not teleportation.

The fact that the object has to be within our field of view, along with the brain looking through the eyes to see that object, creates a closed system

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does that fit with a camera?

I just went over it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As long as you make these contradictory and nonsensical claims, you are going to be challenged to explain and defend them, which you can't.

Says Ms. Bigger Than Her Britches! You said his claims were assertions too, and they aren't. You really don't know what you're talking about.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A camera uses the same exact light as the eyes, therefore the light is at the film in the same way the light is at the retina. I already explained this.

You never explained how light is "at" the retina or camera film without requiring light to have different properties and follow different laws than are known, so this is just a faith based assertion on your part. Repeating it doesn't make it an explanation. You also keep going back to "the brain" which doesn't apply to cameras.

The problems you need to solve, in a nutshell:

1. If a brain is required for efferent vision to work, as Lessans claimed, then it can't work for cameras. If cameras can work the same way, then no brain is required at all, contrary to Lessans statements.

2. If you insist that light is located somewhere, you must explain how it is there and where it came from.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course I don't understand how it is plausible. It quite obviously isn't. Talking about the brain and eyes is also a completely pointless weasel-move, given that you need cameras to be able to do the same thing without any brain or eyes. Your father never addressed this massive and obvious problem because he was too clueless to even be aware of it. YOU need to address the photon problem, because you are half a step ahead of your father by at least recognizing that vision requires light to be present at the retina - and this means you need to explain where the light came from and how it got there.

Wrong on all levels. I am not going to focus my attention on photons and how they got there. You just can't get outside of the frame of thought that you're in to even contemplate why efferent vision is a closed system that does not violate any physical laws.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A photograph cannot be taken if there is no object that can be seen through the lens.

This is just demonstrably wrong. How many times do you need to see the Hubble Deep Field Image? Do I need to post it again? Do I need to explain yet again that the point in space that Hubble was directed at for over a million minutes appeared empty when seen through a telescope or camera lens? Nothing could be "seen through the lens" at all.

Additionally, infrared imaging is capable of creating an image when nothing can be "seen through the lens" due to lack of light

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You never explained how light is "at" the retina or camera film without requiring light to have different properties and follow different laws than are known, so this is just a faith based assertion on your part. Repeating it doesn't make it an explanation. You also keep going back to "the brain" which doesn't apply to cameras.

The problems you need to solve, in a nutshell:

1. If a brain is required for efferent vision to work, as Lessans claimed, then it can't work for cameras. If cameras can work the same way, then no brain is required at all, contrary to Lessans statements.

2. If you insist that light is located somewhere, you must explain how it is there and where it came from.

Oh my goodness LadyShea, why can't you get this? A brain does not have to be involved with cameras. The knowledge regarding the brain and eyes (if it turns out to be true, which I believe it will) helps us to understand cameras and why the photograph always turns out to be exactly the same as what someone is seeing in real time. The lens of the camera is within the field of view of the object, just like the eyes. It's no different yet you are imagining us here on Earth waiting for light to arrive. That's why you are right back to asking me the same old question, "how it is there and where did it come from?"

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong on all levels. I am not going to focus my attention on photons and how they got there. You just can't get outside of the frame of thought that you're in to even contemplate why efferent vision is a closed system that does not violate any physical laws.

He can't contemplate what you are unable to explain in any way. You just keep asserting that physical laws aren't broken while offering scenarios where they clearly are broken.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my goodness LadyShea, why can't you get this? A brain does not have to be involved with cameras. The knowledge regarding the brain and eyes (if it turns out to be true, which I believe it will) helps us to understand cameras and why the photograph always turns out to be exactly the same as what someone is seeing in real time. The lens of the camera is within the field of view of the object, just like the eyes. It's no different yet you are imagining us here on Earth waiting for light to arrive. That's why you are right back to asking me the same old question, "how it is there and where did it come from?"

I can't "get" what you refuse to meaningfully explain.

If light is on the surface of camera film, regardless of how we see, it has to be there by some mechanism and had to have come from somewhere.

Lessans discussion of the brain and eyes doesn't help us understand anything at all about cameras or light.

It's no different yet you are imagining us here on Earth waiting for light to arrive

Yes, because a camera cannot utilize light that is not on Earth, specifically on the camera film or sensor

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is just demonstrably wrong. How many times do you need to see the Hubble Deep Field Image? Do I need to post it again? Do I need to explain yet again that the point in space that Hubble was directed at for over a million minutes appeared empty when seen through a telescope or camera lens? Nothing could be "seen through the lens" at all.

I also said that this actually may not contradict efferent vision at all. We all know light travels and we all know that if it hasn't arrived, it will be dark. The Hubble Telescope allowed us to see galaxies that traveled through space/time. It also would take 8 minutes for us to see light coming from the Sun if it was just turned on, because it's not here yet. When I talk about efferent vision, I am referring to detecting matter, not just light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Additionally, infrared imaging is capable of creating an image when nothing can be "seen through the lens" due to lack of light

I'm sure that's true with advanced technology using heat. I am referring specifically to the visual spectrum and what we are normally capable of seeing through a telescope, camera, or eye.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I can't "get" what you refuse to meaningfully explain.

If light is on the surface of camera film, regardless of how we see, it has to be there by some mechanism and had to have come from somewhere.

Think of a "closed system". Object + lens = photograph. You are still thinking that the image comes from light. The image would not show up on film without the object. The only reason I am referring to distant objects is because it is assumed light travels so fast on Earth we wouldn't recognize the delay, but far away we would. Not so in the efferent account. I will be happy when you recognize the futility of discussing traveling photons.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans discussion of the brain and eyes doesn't help us understand anything at all about cameras or light.

Yes it does. You just don't yet see how the two work exactly the same.

It's no different yet you are imagining us here on Earth waiting for light to arrive

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, because a camera cannot utilize light that is not on Earth, specifically on the camera film or sensor

Wrong. A camera would not be able to snap a picture if there was no light around the subject but it could snap a picture of the moon at night since the moon is large enough in size and is reflecting light that is bright enough.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I also said that this actually may not contradict efferent vision at all. We all know light travels and we all know that if it hasn't arrived, it will be dark. The Hubble Telescope allowed us to see galaxies that traveled through space/time.

What are you talking about? This is word salad.

The light has arrived and continues to arrive from those galaxies, but must be collected by a sensor over very long periods of time because it is so faint. Our eyes cannot do this, but the Hubble can. Therefore they don't work the same way.

It also would take 8 minutes for us to see light coming from the Sun if it was just turned on, because it's not here yet. When I talk about efferent vision, I am referring to detecting matter, not just light.

If we have to wait for the photons to arrive to see the light, then we would have to wait 8 minutes for the light to arrive for the camera to utilize the light to create an image. Therefore, even if Lessans were right, and we could SEE the newly ignited Sun at noon with our brains looking through our eyes, we couldn't photograph it. Cameras require light photons to be "here" (wherever the camera is).

I'm sure that's true with advanced technology using heat. I am referring specifically to the visual spectrum and what we are normally capable of seeing through a telescope, camera, or eye.

These cameras use infrared light. Infrared works the same as all light does. So, if a camera can detect the object, but the eyes cannot, they don't, in fact, work the same way...correct?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Think of a "closed system". Object + lens = photograph.

An object and a lens cannot create a photograph. If that was all that was required, eyeglasses and magnifying lenses etc would be constantly taking photographs.

You are still thinking that the image comes from light.

Because camera film and sensors use light, and only light, to create images. That's how they work

You just don't yet see how the two work exactly the same.

Because they don't. You can't even explain it yourself so keep making nonsense assertions like this crazy stuff about the moon (which, by the way, I just disproved with my sons night vision goggles and an iPhone video camera)

A camera would not be able to snap a picture if there was no light around the subject but it could snap a picture of the moon at night since the moon is large enough in size and is reflecting light that is bright enough.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE CLAIM THAT THE PARTIAL SPECTRUM DOES NOT TRAVEL MILLIONS OF MILES WHERE IT STRIKES THE EYE

What happened to

I agree that the way I explained it made it seem that the partial spectrum is static. We all know that's light travels but, once again, we need to focus our attention on the eyes and brain.