A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are completely ignoring his claim, for if the object has to be within optical range (which is the polar opposite of your account), it becomes a closed system where only the reflected light is necessary for the film to be in range as long as the requirements of brightness and size are met. Remember, if we see the object this means that the nonabsorbed photons are already at the film, as explained in the analogy with the block. The lens is already within the object's field of view. There is no waiting time. I guess I'll have to repeat this another hundred times. P.S. This IS the third option.

What part of that was meant to be a third option for how the light at the film got there from the Sun? (Saying it is already there when the photograph is taken does not explain how it previously got there from the Sun.)

Obviously the light at the film either did or did not travel through the intervening space (between the Sun and the film on Earth). Correct?

But I can see that I have not made myself as clear as I could have done. What I was asking for was a third option FOR THE LIGHT. What you have given me is a third option FOR PEACEGIRL. You can say that the light traveled there, or you can say that it teleported there, or you can take a third option, as you have done here, of weaseling and ignoring the problem entirely. Unfortunately this 'third option' of yours is not an honest one, and it certainly isn't a third option FOR HOW THE LIGHT GOT FROM THE SUN TO THE FILM, because nothing you have said here or anywhere else even begins to address that particular issue.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Let's try this another way, Peacegirl. Let's start by assuming that the photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Assumption #1: The photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Now lets define traveling and teleporting. Traveling is getting from A to B by passing through all intervening points. Teleporting is getting from A to B without passing through all intervening points. Clearly these are jointly exhaustive - if you get from A to B you must do so either by passing through the intervening points or by not passing through them. So...

Conclusion #1: If the photons came from the Sun then they either traveled there or teleported there.

Now you insist that they neither traveled there nor teleported, so we can conclude via modus tollens (If A then B, not B, therefore not A) that these photons cannot have come from the Sun.

Assumption #2: The photons at the film/retina did not travel or teleport there.

Conclusion #2: The photons at the film/retina did not come from the Sun.

So now the million-dollar question: Where the fuck did these photons come from? We can note also that the exact same reasoning as above will still apply for any location other than the Sun - as long as the photons are getting from A to B, they have to either travel there or teleport there - so we can know that...

Conclusion #3: The photons at the film/retina did not get there from anywhere else.

That leaves two remaining possibilities: (i) These photons were always there, i.e. sitting stationary at the film/retina surface; or (ii) They did not previously exist, and instead came into existence at the film/retina. But of course neither of these are plausible either, as photons cannot be stationary, and they do not pop into existence in our eyes or on film. But unless you accept one of these options we are forced to conclude that...

Conclusion #4: Assumption #2 was bollocks.

Basically, what we have proven is that you have only four options for the photons at the film/retina:

(i) Traveling photons.
(ii) Teleporting photons.
(iii) Stationary photons.
(iv) Newly existing photons.

So which is it going to be? (Remember, weaseling and fake-conceding are not honest responses.)

Bump.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, and it is an excellent argument - and one that you have completely failed to address.

"Your entire argument," she says … as if the argument were trivially disposed of!

Yes, peacegirl, try to think for a moment. It is impossible for light to be where it has not traveled. In just the same way, it is impossible for you to be in China, if you have not traveled to China.

What part of this eludes you?

Oh, I know! Sure, it's impossible for peacegirl to be in China if she has not traveled there -- but that is only under the afferent account of peacegirl traveling to China! Under the efferent account of peacegirl traveling to China, all the conditions of peacegirl being in China are met, even though she has not traveled there, and, ergo, voila! Peacegirl is in China!



Seriously, peacegirl, everyone posting here for the last three years has been trying to help you, not hurt you. We are earnestly trying to get you to give up this delusion and live in reality.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why don't you explain how you used the term and I'll try to elaborate on that. Even if I didn't use the term in the conventional way, it helped to explain what I was trying to get across.

How can it help explain anything if you don't even know what you meant by the term?

When I used closed system in describing the spectrography set up, which is apparently where you got the term, I meant that the light source, reflective surface, and sensor were the only elements in the enclosed apparatus and therefore were under controlled parameters...also it was in an actual box not your imaginary box. Outside light could not get in, and light produced and reflected within the apparatus could not escape to travel indefinitely. When I used closed system I meant there were measurable and objective barriers and parameters.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I took out that post because the word "extend" is confusing and you'll accuse me of changing the properties of light.

Is that the post where you deleted the content and replaced it with the word 'duplicate'? If that is the post you are talking about and it was not an actual duplicate of a previous post, then calling it a duplicate is dishonest. It is an attempt to deceive the reader regarding the original content of the post. It is, in short, a lie.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even if I didn't use the term in the conventional way, it helped to explain what I was trying to get across.

No, it didn't help to explain anything, not even a little bit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How can it help explain anything if you don't even know what you meant by the term?

I do know what I meant by the term, but the definition that I read online may not define what I am talking about. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. Definitions can be added if the present definitions are incomplete. I believe a closed system in the case I'm describing by definition is perfectly acceptable.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When I used closed system in describing the spectrography set up, which is apparently where you got the term, I meant that the light source, reflective surface, and sensor were the only elements in the enclosed apparatus and therefore were under controlled parameters...also it was in an actual box not your imaginary box.

I am not positing an imaginary box LadyShea. That's in your imaginary head so you can discount anything I say.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Outside light could not get in, and light produced and reflected within the apparatus could not escape to travel indefinitely. When I used closed system I meant there were measurable and objective barriers and parameters.

Bingo!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Is that the post where you deleted the content and replaced it with the word 'duplicate'? If that is the post you are talking about and it was not an actual duplicate of a previous post, then calling it a duplicate is dishonest. It is an attempt to deceive the reader regarding the original content of the post. It is, in short, a lie.

No, it didn't help to explain anything, not even a little bit.

According to you Mr. Preacher, I am condemned, a sinner, and not worthy of explaining what I know to be true because the crucifix has already been set. No further comment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

"Your entire argument," she says … as if the argument were trivially disposed of!

Yes, peacegirl, try to think for a moment. It is impossible for light to be where it has not traveled. In just the same way, it is impossible for you to be in China, if you have not traveled to China.

What part of this eludes you?

Oh, I know! Sure, it's impossible for peacegirl to be in China if she has not traveled there -- but that is only under the afferent account of peacegirl traveling to China! Under the efferent account of peacegirl traveling to China, all the conditions of peacegirl being in China are met, even though she has not traveled there, and, ergo, voila! Peacegirl is in China!



Seriously, peacegirl, everyone posting here for the last three years has been trying to help you, not hurt you. We are earnestly trying to get you to give up this delusion and live in reality.

The afferent model of sight IS David's defense. There is nothing new here. He has not invested in this thread to understand what Lessans was even talking about, or what brought him to these conclusions. Like everyone else, he is thinking in terms of the finite speed of light which logically leads him to the false conclusion that we see in delayed time. He can't even contemplate the possibility of real time vision, so he is vehemently and continually opposes anything I say. This has been going on since day 1, so it is no surprise to me that he continues with the same old pattern. He has done everything in his power to get people to leave this thread, but it hasn't happened. Doesn't that tell you something?

[Spacemonkey]

Any chance of an honest answer from you today, Peacegirl?

Do you think you should apologize for lying by calling your edited post a 'duplicate' when it was not?

[LadyShea]

bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't say anything about seeing the Sun. I only mentioned photographing it...which you know full well Weasel.

It's noon, and the Sun is turned on right now. We can see it at noon, according to Lessans. The question is, can we photograph the Sun at noon peacegirl? Yes, or no?

[LadyShea]

Present day science believes the lens is aimed at delayed light --- not the actual object --- which produces the photograph.

Light produces the photograph. The lens focuses that incoming light onto the film or sensor. In your account where does that light come from and how does it get there?

I never said lenses are magical. Who is saying that lenses can make light teleport? Is this how far we've come? The only problem is in how I'm explaining it. There is no problem with this model if it's fully understood.

You are saying lenses are magical if merely pointing them at something can create an image. How does this occur in your model? Where did the photons come from, and how do they get to film or sensor?

How can anybody "understand" your model that makes zero sense and can't explain the most basic mechanisms behind light and photography without invoking magical properties?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Any chance of an honest answer from you today, Peacegirl?

Do you think you should apologize for lying by calling your edited post a 'duplicate' when it was not?

I wanted to edit the post but it wouldn't let me. It took the edited page to a completely new post, so I took the old post out and put the word duplicate in, so that people don't have to read the same post twice. What is your problem Spacemonkey?

[peacegirl]

Present day science believes the lens is aimed at delayed light --- not the actual object --- which produces the photograph.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light produces the photograph. The lens focuses that incoming light onto the film or sensor. In your account where does that light come from and how does it get there?

Oh my god, you haven't heard a thing I have said. You are imitating Spacemonkey. It's no wonder we've gotten nowhere.

I never said lenses are magical. Who is saying that lenses can make light teleport? Is this how far we've come? The only problem is in how I'm explaining it. There is no problem with this model if it's fully understood.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are saying lenses are magical if merely pointing them at something can create an image. How does this occur in your model? Where did the photons come from, and how do they get to film or sensor?

You are missing this entire account. You will never understand it as long as you look at traveling photons without the object.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How can anybody "understand" your model that makes zero sense and can't explain the most basic mechanisms behind light and photography without invoking magical properties?

It makes absolute sense if you are looking at it in terms of a closed system. What I mean by that is there ARE parameters to this: the object itself + the viewer (assuming for a moment that efferent vision is true) + light = real time vision or photography.

[davidm]

Nixon in China
As Explained by Peacegirl, with Questions From LadyShea Spacemonkey


From left: peacegirl, Nixon, LadyShea and Spacemonkey































So it goes …

[Artemis Entreri]

I've been away for a bit, thank you david for summing up the 1400 pages in one post.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What part of that was meant to be a third option for how the light at the film got there from the Sun? (Saying it is already there when the photograph is taken does not explain how it previously got there from the Sun.)

Obviously the light at the film either did or did not travel through the intervening space (between the Sun and the film on Earth). Correct?

But I can see that I have not made myself as clear as I could have done. What I was asking for was a third option FOR THE LIGHT. What you have given me is a third option FOR PEACEGIRL. You can say that the light traveled there, or you can say that it teleported there, or you can take a third option, as you have done here, of weaseling and ignoring the problem entirely. Unfortunately this 'third option' of yours is not an honest one, and it certainly isn't a third option FOR HOW THE LIGHT GOT FROM THE SUN TO THE FILM, because nothing you have said here or anywhere else even begins to address that particular issue.

Again, you are missing the entire concept of efferent vision which extends into photography. Let me repeat: Light does the same thing it has always done, but what changes is the fact that it is the object we are looking at or taking a snapshot of, not the light. You keep saying what happened to the light in the intervening spaces. What spaces are you talking about? In this account, there are no spaces, no time, and no distance to traverse. Remember: If we can see the object as we turn our gaze toward it, that means that we are within the field of view of the object. Distance and time have no place in this model, even though light travels at 186,000 miles a second. I don't think you have come close to thinking this through in a serious and intentional manner.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Nixon in China
As Explained by Peacegirl, with Questions From LadyShea Spacemonkey


From left: peacegirl, Nixon, LadyShea and Spacemonkey































So it goes …

Unfortunately, you can't seem to get away from the idea that light, without the object, does not bring an image to a camera or retina. You are the last person who would ever admit that you don't understand this concept at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light produces the photograph. The lens focuses that incoming light onto the film or sensor. In your account where does that light come from and how does it get there?

I never said lenses are magical. Who is saying that lenses can make light teleport? Is this how far we've come? The only problem is in how I'm explaining it. There is no problem with this model if it's fully understood.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are saying lenses are magical if merely pointing them at something can create an image. How does this occur in your model? Where did the photons come from, and how do they get to film or sensor?

Pointing the lens at something is only part of the answer. Why did you leave out the other requirements if not to make it appear magical?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How can anybody "understand" your model that makes zero sense and can't explain the most basic mechanisms behind light and photography without invoking magical properties?

If you used my example with the box, you would see that if we see the object it is only because enough light was present to put our eyes or sensor in the field of view of that object. It isn't magical. It is difficult to grasp because all of your life you were taught that light alone is all that is necessary to create an image. This is a big stumbling block.

[peacegirl]

dupe

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

bump

Yes. Picture the box again and the Sun has just been turned on at noon. Obviously photons are being emitted; they aren't static. If the Sun is bright enough when first being turned on, then it could be seen (we are working this backwards) if Lessans' claim regarding efferent vision is correct. This means the lens of the camera would automatically be within the field of view of the Sun because this is a closed system, just like with the eyes. The camera and the retina work the same in both cases but you're having a hard time understanding how the light could be at the sensor without the light traveling to Earth. All that is necessary in this account (which extends to cameras) is that the object (in this case the Sun) be bright enough and large enough which meets the requirements of this model whether it's a person taking a picture in real time or a person seeing the object in real time. Remember, the purpose of light is to reveal matter in the external world, and the Sun is made up of matter. I wonder how many more times will I have to repeat this?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wanted to edit the post but it wouldn't let me. It took the edited page to a completely new post, so I took the old post out and put the word duplicate in, so that people don't have to read the same post twice. What is your problem Spacemonkey?

You are lying again. There was no completely new post. There was never any duplicate. We are talking about post #36642. You have not prevented people from reading the same post twice - you've stopped them from reading it even once. You just admitted in post #36649 that you went back and took that post out because you had said something you thought was confusing. Deleting an original post and calling it a duplicate is not honest. That is lying.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, you are missing the entire concept of efferent vision which extends into photography.

You are missing the concept. You've said the light at the film came from the Sun. I explained that there are only two options for how it gets from the Sun to the film on Earth - it does so by either traveling through the intervening space, or by not traveling through the intervening space. You insisted (contrary to all logic) that there is a third option (beyond P and not-P), but you won't tell me what it is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let me repeat: Light does the same thing it has always done, but what changes is the fact that it is the object we are looking at or taking a snapshot of, not the light.

What light has always done is travel. You change this whenever you claim the light at the film got there from the Sun without traveling there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep saying what happened to the light in the intervening spaces. What spaces are you talking about?

The 92 million miles between the film and the Sun you said the light now at the film originally came from.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In this account, there are no spaces, no time, and no distance to traverse.

Yes, there is. Unless you are claiming our eyes and cameras to be literally in physical contact with the surface of the Sun, there is 92 million miles of intervening space between them. Any photons from the Sun now present at the camera film had to have either traveled through that intervening space (travel) or not traveled through it (teleportation).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember: If we can see the object as we turn our gaze toward it, that means that we are within the field of view of the object.

Objects don't have fields of view.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Distance and time have no place in this model...

Yet distance and time exist in reality, so your model is plainly flawed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think you have come close to thinking this through in a serious and intentional manner.

You obviously haven't. Taking your model seriously means honestly facing up to the photon problem instead of dishonestly evading it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes. Picture the box again and the Sun has just been turned on at noon. Obviously photons are being emitted; they aren't static. If the Sun is bright enough when first being turned on, then it could be seen (we are working this backwards) if Lessans' claim regarding efferent vision is correct. This means the lens of the camera would automatically be within the field of view of the Sun because this is a closed system, just like with the eyes. The camera and the retina work the same in both cases but you're having a hard time understanding how the light could be at the sensor without the light traveling to Earth. All that is necessary in this account (which extends to cameras) is that the object (in this case the Sun) be bright enough and large enough which meets the requirements of this model whether it's a person taking a picture in real time or a person seeing the object in real time. Remember, the purpose of light is to reveal matter in the external world, and the Sun is made up of matter. I wonder how many more times will I have to repeat this?

This post, most if not all of Peacegirl's posts, and Lessans 500+ page book, are just so much meaningless word salad. For 3 + years Peacegirl has been unable to explain any of it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are missing the concept. You've said the light at the film came from the Sun. I explained that there are only two options for how it gets from the Sun to the film on Earth - it does so by either traveling through the intervening space, or by not traveling through the intervening space. You insisted (contrary to all logic) that there is a third option (beyond P and not-P), but you won't tell me what it is.

According to Lessans in the book, when the Brain looks out through the eyes it is somehow in direct contact with the object and the non absorbed photons (molecules of light) that surround it, (just sort of hanging around?). Of course none of this makes any sense in relation to what we already know about light and sight.