A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course that's what it says. No one knows about this alternate claim. I never denied that photons travel, but that still doesn't change the fact that the intensity of light coming from the object is a necessary requirement for sight in this model because it allows the subject to be within optical range. This does not stop photons from traveling to Earth at the same time we see a faraway object.

This blanket statement of yours just shows me you don't want to consider that this alternate model is even possible, just like you don't want to believe that Lessans' observations regarding determinism are anything more than an assertion. Oh well LadyShea. It's your loss.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, I am asking you for your mechanism and explanations to demonstrate that it is possible at all, and so you talk about standard optics then add "real time" onto it as if that works. You got nothin'

If the Sun is turned on at Noon, and a camera takes a photograph of the Sun at noon, where did the photons inside the camera come from and how did they get there, since the light photons from the Sun won't reach Earth until 12:08?

If the eyes were afferent, then we would have to wait to see the image of the Sun because there would be a delay. That question does not apply in the efferent scenario yet you are, once again, thinking in terms of light traveling and reaching the camera when the light is already at the camera if the Sun is bright enough to be seen. These same photons are being emitted and are continually traveling but you have to look at this in reverse, which you aren't doing. That's why it would take 81/2 minutes for the light to reach Earth, yet it would take no time for us to see the Sun turned on if it met the conditions of efferent vision (which applies to cameras as well). I don't know what you're trying to draw out of me. The description of what is going on has been explained again and again. As long as you think in terms of light having to reach Earth (afferent, time delay, distance), you will not understand why the efferent account (the object seen) changes the function of light but not the properties of light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The word efferent means the brain sending signals out to another part of the body. As Artemis clearly stated "By a strict defintion of efference...." So no, it's not at all amazing or odd that someone would use the normal understanding of a word, because he/she is not familiar with Lessans use of idiosyncratic definitions of many, many words.

We've joked about a Lessans to English dictionary many times because of this.

And your jokes are unfounded LadyShea. There is no other word he could have used because these observations are unprecedented. He wasn't referring to nerve fibers but he was trying to distinguish why the eyes are different from the other senses. So what if he added a new definition. He also explained where the confusion is with the word "compulsion" and why people have never been able to reconcile the free will/determinism debate. As new technology changes our cultural landscape, new terms are being continually coined and added to the dictionary. You are being unfair.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes were afferent, then we would have to wait to see the image of the Sun because there would be a delay. That question does not apply in the efferent scenario yet you are, once again, thinking in terms of light traveling and reaching the camera when the light is already at the camera if the Sun is bright enough to be seen. These same photons are being emitted and are continually traveling but you have to look at this in reverse, which you aren't doing. That's why it would take 81/2 minutes for the light to reach Earth, yet it would take no time for us to see the Sun turned on if it met the conditions of efferent vision (which applies to cameras as well). I don't know what you're trying to draw out of me. The description of what is going on has been explained again and again. As long as you think in terms of light having to reach Earth (afferent, time delay, distance), you will not understand why the efferent account (the object seen) changes the function of light but not the properties of light.

The question does apply, and nothing you've said answers it. Weasel.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is the "something" the object and a person encloses, and how do they enclose it, and what do they enclose it with?

It is enclosed due to how the brain and eyes work. If you picture a celestial object and the viewer inside a big box, you will be able to picture the enclosure. Within that enclosure anyone gazing at the object will be within optical range (within the box) This means the nonabsorbed photons are instantly at the eye or film due to the fact that the OBJECT NOT THE DELAYED LIGHT can be seen. This means the requirements have been met of brightness and size which is the opposite of the belief that all we need is light to form an image (without the presence of the object). If you don't think about this in reverse, you will ask the same questions about how did the light get there and where is its location.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The question does apply, and nothing you've said answers it. Weasel.

Your understanding is lacking, not the validity of the claim.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is enclosed due to how the brain and eyes work. If you picture a celestial object and the viewer inside a big box, you will be able to picture the enclosure.

But there isn't a box, so it isn't enclosed. What do you think 'enclosed' means? And why is it relevant? Even inside a box, light can't get from one end to the other without traveling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This means the nonabsorbed photons are instantly at the eye or film...

Sure. The photons are at the film. Where did they come from?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This means the requirements have been met...

How many times do we need to tell you that meeting requirements is not an explanatory mechanism?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you don't think about this in reverse, you will ask the same questions about how did the light get there and where is its location.

Not true. Asking these questions is the next step if you are actually serious about thinking in reverse.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your understanding is lacking, not the validity of the claim.

Your honesty is lacking. No-one can understand what you refuse to explain. You don't understand it either.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...the light is already at the camera if the Sun is bright enough to be seen.

How did the light get to the camera?

[davidm]

Meanwhile, in English Lit class….

[Artemis Entreri]

Ok I kinda feel bad jumping into this whole thing since there's no way I have the time to go back and read all the previous posts and I'm probably re-hashing stuff that's already been discussed.
In the "Lessan Vision" model ( I think that's a less confusing name for it) you are saying that you'd see the light, instantly, before its traveled the distance between the sun and Earth. You believe this is because the sun is so massive that it will be "in range" of your sight (sorry if I use the wrong terms there but I think that's the idea)
I can understand how you could say this if you don't believe that the eyes have to receive photons in order to see. It would seem that you're stating that eyes can see the protons of light while they are still millions of miles away at the sun the instant that the sun is turned on (in your scenario). It's an interesting concept but I think that all data on how eyes work says that it is wrong. It also seems near impossible to test.
The only way I could think would be to have two telescopes at two separate places in the solar system with synchronized clocks at vastly difference distances from the sun. If they both looked at the same spot on the sun and both saw a solar flare at exactly the same time then you'd have evidence. If not then the one closer to the sun would see the flare before the one further away. If your concepts with vision only apply to the human eye then both scopes would need to be manned. Maybe when we have people on Mars...
You might could do this on a smaller scale with extremely high speed and extremely accurate equipment but even then it would be hard to do without a huge differential in distance.
Am I at least somewhat understanding what you're trying to say, even if I don't agree?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes were afferent, then we would have to wait to see the image of the Sun because there would be a delay.

And that is what all the evidence and data point to, that we see objects after a delay depending on how far away the object is.

[Artemis Entreri]

Again, your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea that they eyes are not do not have afferent nerves. On what evidence is this based?
From all data I can find the optical nerve is afferent, sending signals from photo reactive cells in the eye to the brain.
If modern medical knowledge is true then the very basis of your argument is invalid.
Have you produced any evidence to the contrary?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

It's an interesting concept but I think that all data on how eyes work says that it is wrong. It also seems near impossible to test.

It's trivially easy to test. Every time we measure the speed of light, we observe a delay of the light reaching our eyes. We've been doing these sorts of tests for hundreds of years, since the moons of Jupiter. All of this has been explained to her about a million times.

The Lone Ranger, a biologist, wrote her a 33-page paper with color graphics explaining light and sight to the atomic level. She refused to read it.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

If your concepts with vision only apply to the human eye then both scopes would need to be manned. Maybe when we have people on Mars...

You could do it with astronauts on the Moon. They'd look for a bright laser shone at them from the night side of Earth: as soon as they saw the laser switched on, they'd switch on their own laser shining back at the Earth. The astronauts and the experimenters on Earth would both require telescopes to assist their vision but they would be using their eyes, not cameras.

If Lessans is right you'd expect to see a total delay of maybe a quarter of a second (the reaction time of the astronauts on seeing the laser added to the reaction time of the experimenters on Earth pressing the stopwatch when they see the Moon laser light up).

If science is right, then you'd expect to see the 'Lessans time' extended by an extra 2.5 seconds (the time light takes to make the round trip to the Moon and back).

Of course, this experiment has been done many times already using scientific instruments rather than eyes. To convince peacegirl, you'd need human eyes separated by enough distance from the light to give a significant time delay - but I expect even if you did this experiment, peacegirl would claim that it it was not valid for some reason and that further testing would be necessary to establish the correctness of Lessans' claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But there isn't a box, so it isn't enclosed. What do you think 'enclosed' means? And why is it relevant? Even inside a box, light can't get from one end to the other without traveling.

No one is saying light isn't traveling. I am using the analogy of a box because it is easier to picture what is happening and why distance is not a factor. What is a factor is that the object must be present which creates a closed system. Inside a box, or enclosure, it can be seen that the distance you are imagining light has to traverse (afferent model) when looked at in reverse, does not have to travel through space/time in order for there to be light at the film/retina. You seem to disregard how this is possible without violating any physical laws. Instead of arguing with me, you need to explore this phenomenon more thoroughly, which you're not doing. You are so sure you're right, that you are not considering this claim as being legitimate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This means the nonabsorbed photons are instantly at the eye or film...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sure. The photons are at the film. Where did they come from?

The entire mechanism as to why we are able to see in real time has more to do with the understanding of the eyes than of light, but you are stuck on photons traveling when photons alone do not bring any image to the eye.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This means the requirements have been met...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How many times do we need to tell you that meeting requirements is not an explanatory mechanism?

Yes I am, but you're not paying attention. All you are doing is thinking in terms of the afferent account and that light has to travel from point A to point B or else it's teleportation or magic. That's inaccurate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you don't think about this in reverse, you will ask the same questions about how did the light get there and where is its location.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Not true. Asking these questions is the next step if you are actually serious about thinking in reverse.

It is YOU that is going to have to risk being a little uncomfortable and think in terms of Lessans' claim (that the eyes are not a sense organ), and why this changes the function of light which reveals, not reflects, otherwise we are at a total standstill with no progress in sight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

I was writing a long response but you summed that part up nicely. I was using strict definition of the two words in "efferent vision" since there is no other reference to that term on the whole of internet (atleast the part that google searches) that didn't originate from peacegirl.
Also it seemed to fit with the quote from Lessans "...this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ." Which I believe is incorrect, if it is true then I'd love to see some evidence and studies about that.
If the there is no afference from the eyes to the brain then what we preceive as vision would have to be created by the brain. Strictly speaking what we preceive as vision is created by the brain but it's formed from the signals from our eyes.

I'm not sure why she's using an funtional antonym to prefix vision. Now I'm going to go regurgitate my lunch, in order to take in it's life giving nutrients.

There has to be stimulation to awaken the brain to see, so in that sense impulses are coming in. The optic nerve serves as a necessary connection between the external world to the internal, but the light that causes these impulses does not carry with it (no strawman intended) nonabsorbed photons that are transduced and decoded within the brain itself.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one is saying light isn't traveling.

You are, every time you say the light at the film or retina didn't travel to get there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am using the analogy of a box because it is easier to picture what is happening and why distance is not a factor. What is a factor is that the object must be present which creates a closed system. Inside a box, or enclosure, it can be seen that the distance you are imagining light has to traverse (afferent model) when looked at in reverse, does not have to travel through space/time in order for there to be light at the film/retina.

Distance is still a factor inside of a box. You aren't making a word of sense here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You seem to disregard how this is possible without violating any physical laws.

You haven't shown it to be possible without violating physical laws. You are violating them every time you say the photons can be somewhere without traveling there or being emitted there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Instead of arguing with me, you need to explore this phenomenon more thoroughly, which you're not doing.

That is the exact opposite of what has actually happened. WE have all investigated the claim and explained to you why it fails, while YOU are refusing to investigate it or face up to any of the problems involved.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The entire mechanism as to why we are able to see in real time has more to do with the understanding of the eyes than of light, but you are stuck on photons traveling when photons alone do not bring any image to the eye.

Weasel. We are discussing photography. Again: Sure. The photons are at the film. Where did they come from?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I am, but you're not paying attention. All you are doing is thinking in terms of the afferent account and that light has to travel from point A to point B or else it's teleportation or magic. That's inaccurate.

It's perfectly accurate. If the light gets from A to B then it must either pass through the intervening space or not pass through it. And "Yes I am" isn't even a grammatically appropriate response to anything I said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is YOU that is going to have to risk being a little uncomfortable and think in terms of Lessans' claim (that the eyes are not a sense organ), and why this changes the function of light which reveals, not reflects, otherwise we are at a total standstill with no progress in sight.

We remain at the same standstill you've been at for years now because you refuse to honestly answer questions, or address any of the problems your account faces.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are a liar. You are lying right now. The forum did allow you to edit post #36642. No new post was created with the edit you made. You did not have an original post and a nearly identical edited copy. None of what you just said is even remotely true. What happened is that you regretted making a daft comment about extending brightness, so you went back and successfully deleted the post, calling it a duplicate when it was not. You even told us that this is what you'd done! If your above account were true then there'd still be an edited copy of the now deleted post #36642 remaining in the thread. But there is not. So stop lying about it.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I haven't said there is an image in the light itself, I haven't used any faulty logic, and I have not reverted back to any afferent position. YOU have said there will be light at the film that came from the Sun 93 million miles away. That means YOU have a very relevant distance to deal with, and a 93 million mile change in the location of light that you are refusing to even try to explain.

Before we jump straight to the answer, let’s take a look at our own Sun for a sense of scale. Our familiar star is a mighty 1.4 million km across (870,000 miles). That’s such a huge number that it’s hard to get a sense of scale. The Sun accounts for 99.9% of all the matter in our Solar System. In fact, you could fit one million planet Earths inside the Sun.

Read more: What is the Biggest Star in the Universe?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There has to be stimulation to awaken the brain to see, so in that sense impulses are coming in. The optic nerve serves as a necessary connection between the external world to the internal, but the light that causes these impulses does not carry with it (no strawman intended) nonabsorbed photons that are transduced and decoded within the brain itself.

And yet strawman achieved.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Before we jump straight to the answer, let’s take a look at our own Sun for a sense of scale. Our familiar star is a mighty 1.4 million km across (870,000 miles). That’s such a huge number that it’s hard to get a sense of scale. The Sun accounts for 99.9% of all the matter in our Solar System. In fact, you could fit one million planet Earths inside the Sun.

Read more: What is the Biggest Star in the Universe?

How the hell is that relevant?????

Again: YOU have said there will be light at the film that came from the Sun 93 million miles away. That means YOU have a very relevant distance to deal with, and a 93 million mile change in the location of light that you are refusing to even try to explain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

I saw two posts, one that I edited and one that was the original. I will look back to see if the post was deleted entirely, which I didn't want. I just looked back but I can't remember what was said in the original post. I'm sure it will happen again, and when it does I will give you the original post number and the edited one. That being said, if you keep calling me a liar Spacemonkey, I'm going to take time off from responding to you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Ok I kinda feel bad jumping into this whole thing since there's no way I have the time to go back and read all the previous posts and I'm probably re-hashing stuff that's already been discussed.
In the "Lessan Vision" model ( I think that's a less confusing name for it) you are saying that you'd see the light, instantly, before its traveled the distance between the sun and Earth. You believe this is because the sun is so massive that it will be "in range" of your sight (sorry if I use the wrong terms there but I think that's the idea)
I can understand how you could say this if you don't believe that the eyes have to receive photons in order to see. It would seem that you're stating that eyes can see the protons of light while they are still millions of miles away at the sun the instant that the sun is turned on (in your scenario). It's an interesting concept but I think that all data on how eyes work says that it is wrong. It also seems near impossible to test.
The only way I could think would be to have two telescopes at two separate places in the solar system with synchronized clocks at vastly difference distances from the sun. If they both looked at the same spot on the sun and both saw a solar flare at exactly the same time then you'd have evidence. If not then the one closer to the sun would see the flare before the one further away. If your concepts with vision only apply to the human eye then both scopes would need to be manned. Maybe when we have people on Mars...
You might could do this on a smaller scale with extremely high speed and extremely accurate equipment but even then it would be hard to do without a huge differential in distance.
Am I at least somewhat understanding what you're trying to say, even if I don't agree?

That would be one way to verify that we see in real time, but there are other ways to verify this without having to go to these extremes. No one has even tried to verify this claim because it's a new claim that no one has heard of. Everyone thinks it's a fact that the eyes are a sense organ.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I saw two posts, one that I edited and one that was the original.

No, you didn't. Not with respect to the post we are discussing. There were never two posts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will look back to see if the post was deleted entirely, which I didn't want.

Posts cannot be deleted entirely. You will not find a second post because there was never any duplicate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That being said, if you keep calling me a liar Spacemonkey, I'm going to take time off from responding to you.

But you did lie. The evidence is quite conclusive.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How the hell is that relevant?????

Again: YOU have said there will be light at the film that came from the Sun 93 million miles away. That means YOU have a very relevant distance to deal with, and a 93 million mile change in the location of light that you are refusing to even try to explain.

Not if the Sun is large enough to be within our field of view. This is very relevant. If the Sun takes up most of the solar system, it is possible for the Sun, not just the light, to be seen in the way Lessans' described, even though it's at such a great distance.