I would not be surprised that Lessans did have a solution, and given the wording with which the puzzle is presented, it might be a con-artists trick question. Much like this little puzzle,
Start with 2 rows of coins one row of 4 and the other row of 3 arranged like a cross with one coin common to both rows. there are 6 coins total. Let me try to do a diagram.
0
000
0
0
Move one coin and make 2 rows with 4 coins in each row. If you've seen it before let others who have not seen it puzzle over it awhile.
Diagram isn't quite right but it will still work.
add a coin to the horizontal row. Adding a coin is not forbidden in the puzzle wording you listed here
Nice try, try again without adding a coin, I did state that there were 6 coins total, sort of a rule? There is a solution.
I don't remember seeing this one before. Here's my guess (but don't look if you want to carry on working it out for yourself).
If you move the lowest coin so it is resting on top of the one in the centre of the +, then you have two rows of four coins. They are only rows with three positions, but the centre position is occupied by two coins at once.
'Bingo' you got it and do you see what I ment about the trick?
I reckon it is willing ignorance of the religious flavor. The same type that you see in young-earthers and other fundamentalists. They start with the idea that what they believe is the whole and undeniable truth and then just work back from that.
Fundies like to say things that Peacegirl could have said, such as "Not enough research has been done to establish that the Bible us literally true", "There is an anti-Christian bias in science" or "Science is too locked into an old-earth narrative that it is missing the evidence in favor of a young earth".
The problem is that to admit that there are some quite whopping mistakes in the book means giving up on the idea of her father as a ground-breakingly wise philosopher and self-taught genius, as well as on the certainty of being reincarnated into a world were everything is sorted out and the both of them are totally vindicated.
It's very easy to make a case against me using fundamentalist jargon, but that's not what is happening here. Could it be that you are a fundamentalist of a different kind? You are holding on so tight to your beliefs that you can't even entertain the possibility that science may not have gotten it right. Isn't this just the other side of the pendulum but no different than the fundies you mock? Even the word "fundie" is intended to belittle.
There is no absolute proof that the eyes are afferent (even with all of the studies done so far); only circumstantial evidence which could very well be wrong.
Again, you're very clearly indicating that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Quote:
And do you actually think that calling my behavior "peculiar" is objective, or could it be that it is YOU who is peculiar for seeing me this way?
Since your inflexible position is that you and Lessans are absolutely and unquestionably correct (despite the fact that you've so far produced exactly zero evidence to support that claim), and that essentially all of modern science is wrong (as has been explained to you ad nauseum, pretty-much all of modern science would be invalidated if Lessans' claims were true) -- "peculiar" is the kindest descriptor I can think of for your behavior, and is quite an understatement, really.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
Lessans did not dispute anything other than afferent vision.
1. If efferent vision is true, as Lessans described, instantaneous transfer of information is possible via vision
Wrong.
2. The Theory of Relativity states instantaneous information transfer is not possible by any means
I have said that you can't compare efferent sight with transfer of anything so that premise is not valid. I have also said that definitions mean diddly squat as far as reality is concerned unless it reflects what is going on in reality. That's why definitions can be dangerous because people get stuck on the definition, and can't get beyond an inaccurate one (e.g., what is happening with the definition of determinism).
3. Several technologies only work if the Theory of Relativity is accurate
Okay.
4. These technologies do in fact work
I am not arguing with this, but to say that SR and efferent vision are incompatible because of this doesn't make sense to me. Please don't start a conversation about "time being relative."
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Therefore efferent vision contradicts the Theory of Relativity and would "negate proven technology" if it were true
How? How does the Theory of Relativity (please don't bring up the relativity of time because this is not proven) contradict efferent vision? Show me where a successful technology that is dependent on the Theory of Relativity (e.g., the making of atomic bombs) is also dependent on afferent vision to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Additionally: Unless you can offer a valid working definition or explanation of "seeing/sight" that is NOT circular and does not include the transfer/detection/gain of information then 1. holds as a valid premise and the rest follow
Efferent vision does not require a transfer of information, therefore your premise is invalid, and the rest doesn't follow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The fact that you can't even consider anecdotal evidence as suggestive (e.g., dogs not being able to recognize their masters on a computer screen even though they acknowledge their master's voice) which is, in my view, more accurate than some of the unreliable empirical studies that have been done, indicates to me that you are just as biased as those you criticize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What is with you and the focus on the damned dogs? As I pointed out at least 6 times
Because that's what he used in his book, that's all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
According to Lessen's, dogs can't recognize people by only their facial features, and humans can. For the sake of this explanation let's assume he was correct.
If vision is efferent: dogs cannot do what humans do (recognize someone by facial features alone) even though humans also have efferent vision.
If vision is afferent: dogs cannot do what humans do (recognize someone by facial features alone) even though humans also have afferent vision.
So if the premise "Dogs cannot recognize people by only their facial features" is true, and the premise "Humans can recognize people by only their facial features" is also true, then whether sight is afferent or efferent doesn't seem to be the cause of the difference.
In both cases the difference would be seem to be related to differences in how the dog brain processes information, not in how they see.
You've stated:
The premise is this: If afferent vision is true, dogs should be able to recognize their master from a picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Yet you've never explained why afferent vision should lead to this recognition. Recognition involves all sorts of interpretation and processing of what is seen (regardless of the mechanism of sight) which we both agree is an activity of the brain.
I answered you in the last post, so I hope it makes more sense to you that the brain is different in dogs in that they cannot acquire language, but you would think that afferent vision would allow them to recognize their masters from incoming stimuli just as the other senses would allow them immediate recognition of what they are smelling or hearing or tasting or feeling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So your holding on to that completely unexplained and unsupported assumption of what you think is a necessary consequence of afferent sight (dog's recognizing faces), in the face of comprehensively explained and supported necessary consequences of efferent sight-like the negation of the Theory of Relativity- is mind boggling.
I hope it is less mind boggling now that I cleared things up.
What is the Hubble focusing on if not the images that are emitting said light?
It was not focusing on anything at all. That's why the picture was such a surprise. Neither the Hubble, nor observers on Earth, could detect ANYTHING to focus on "in real time". It was aimed at a seemingly empty part of the sky.
It took 10 full days to collect enough photons to create that image.
Had it tried to "snap" a picture in a single minute, hour, or even a full day's exposure, it would have returned a blank image of seemingly empty, black space. This is evidence against real time seeing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am not disputing that Hubble is decoding photons that have been emitted from these stars, and that these photons have traveled a finite distance. The question remains: Are these stars (the gases --- the hydrogen and helium and other elements that make up these constellation of stars) seen in real time or are they part of the distant past?
Those aren't stars in that image, nor constellations, nor solar systems...they are entire galaxies. Many bigger than the Milky Way by several orders of magnitude.
And, they are necessarily part of the distant past, because the Hubble is detecting photons that have been traveling for trillions of miles away at a finite speed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If efferent vision is true, the Hubble telescope has been able to send clear pictures back to Earth because it has reached this section of the sky (without a lot of interference from other stars) due to its relative proximity and magnification potential.
Remember, the Hubble was aimed at a seemingly empty part of the sky. If you were looking at a monitor from a video camera on Hubble, showing you what Hubble "sees' like the viewfinder on a camera, you would see black, empty space.
Only the long exposure time allowed it to collect enough photons to create an image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It is doing exactly what a CCD does. It is able to convert photons into a digital value, but where did the photons come from?
They came from the distant (in spacetime) galaxies you see in the final image
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
They came from a light source, which is in view of the lens.
The galaxies emit light, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Photons didn't arrive at the speed of light and strike the lens without the source of that light being within the view of the Hubble (I am speaking in terms of efferent vision so please don't get confused).
"Within view", in this case, simply means the Hubble was aimed in their direction. The Hubble couldn't detect any of that in "real time".
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There has to be an image that is emitting those photons.
What do you mean "image"? Those are galaxies in that image, entire galaxies each containing millions or even billions of stars, all of which are emitting electromagnetic radiation, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Once the photons are absorbed, they can be manipulated. This doesn't prove that those images are from the past.
Where are they from then? If the light/photons is what the CCD detects, and the light/photons have been traveling at a finite speed from trillions of miles away, how can they be from anywhere but the past?
Again, this boils down to whether the stars were large enough, close enough, or bright enough (however faint) for the Hubble to take pictures, or whether the light just happened to arrive over many light years away within that 10 day period.
They aren't stars, and yes, all the Hubble did was spend 10 days collecting light coming from a seemingly empty part of the night sky.
And what on Earth do you mean "just happened to arrive" like that is some odd coincidence?
Remember light (which is energy) keeps traveling until/unless it is absorbed and/or the form converted. It doesn't disappear, or fade away, or die or anything....you don't understand the Laws of Thermodynamics, either, I take it?
The other space waster on this thread is the puzzle, currently being discussed again
I think the puzzle is about the best thing to come out of this thread. This assumes that there is a solution, of course. And it would be even better if there is a unique solution.
But it needs to be restated in the language of puzzles, so as to make it more interesting:
A teacher has fifteen pupils in her class; their names are: Ann, Barbara, Claire, Danny, Enid, Frank, Gail, Harry, Irene, Jack, Katie, Larry, Monica, Neville and Oscar.
The school has a few pet animals: hamsters, gerbils and tropical fish. The teacher has arranged a rota so that the children can feed and care for the animals each day; one child will feed the hamsters, one the gerbils and one the fish.
During each term of seven weeks, the children have to feed the animals Monday through Friday. The school caretaker and his family look after the animals at weekends and during school holidays,
The children are all keen to do this task, so to try and make it as fair as possible, the teacher has arranged that each pupil will get to feed the animals seven times during each term. She's also cleverly arranged the rota so that no two children are paired with each other more than once.
The first week's rota looks like this:
Monday
Ann
Barbara
Claire
Tuesday
Danny
Enid
Frank
Wednesday
Gail
Harry
Irene
Thursday
Jack
Katie
Larry
Friday
Monica
Neville
Oscar
Unfortunately the teacher has misplaced the rotas for the following six weeks. Can you help her recreate them?
I have also said that definitions mean diddly squat as far as reality is concerned unless it reflects what is going on in reality. That's why definitions can be dangerous because people get stuck on the definition, and can't get beyond an inaccurate one (e.g., what is happening with the definition of determinism).
That's very convenient for you. You can't define the terms you, yourself, are using so you just declare definitions meaningless? Without clearly defined terms we can't communicate using a common language. Definitions aren't dangerous, they are necessary. If you need to re-define something to make your meaning clear, great, DO SO. Offer your definition. Without some kind of definition you are talking gibberish. I meted the rolly gardening at anchor!
Also, whenever I ask you to define or explain a term, you respond with an explanation "reflecting what is going on in reality" if you're more comfortable with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Lessans did not dispute anything other than afferent vision.
1. If efferent vision is true, as Lessans described, instantaneous transfer of information is possible via vision
Wrong.
You must offer a valid working definition or explanation of "seeing/sight/vision" that is NOT circular and does not include the transfer/detection/gain of information otherwise you are wrong
Quote:
2. The Theory of Relativity states instantaneous information transfer is not possible by any means
I have said that you can't compare efferent sight with transfer of anything so that premise is not valid.
You must offer a valid working definition or explanation of "seeing/sight/vision" that is NOT circular and does not include the transfer/detection/gain of information otherwise you are wrong
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
3. Several technologies only work if the Theory of Relativity is accurate
Okay.
4. These technologies do in fact work
I am not arguing with this, but to say that SR and efferent vision are incompatible because of this doesn't make sense to me. Please don't start a conversation about "time being relative."
Time is relative, though, that is a major point you are willfully being ignorant about
Also, you must offer a valid working definition or explanation of "seeing/sight/vision" that is NOT circular and does not include the transfer/detection/gain of information otherwise you are wrong
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Therefore efferent vision contradicts the Theory of Relativity and would "negate proven technology" if it were true
How? How does the Theory of Relativity (please don't bring up the relativity of time because this is not proven) contradict efferent vision? Show me where a successful technology that is dependent on the Theory of Relativity (e.g., the making of atomic bombs) is also dependent on afferent vision to work.
Time is relative, otherwise GPS doesn't work. That's one big easy one. Also, we know time is relative due to our communications with our probes and Rovers
Also, you must offer a valid working definition or explanation of "seeing/sight/vision" that is NOT circular and does not include the transfer/detection/gain of information otherwise you are wrong
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Efferent vision does not require a transfer of information
You must offer a valid working definition or explanation of "seeing/sight/vision" that is NOT circular and does not include the transfer/detection/gain of information otherwise you are wrong
And so is a preponderance of evidence in a court of law that often puts an innocent person in prison for life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Yep, it's not perfect, but we can't have perfect because there are too many factors.
Regardless of the number of factors involved, the point being made is that a preponderance of evidence does not always give us the right answers.
Quote:
So at this point there is no reason for me to refute what you believe gives "undisputed evidence" that the brain reconstructs an image from the neurons that are coming from the optic nerve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I didn't say undisputed evidence at all, I said "clear" evidence. I also posted a video made from a similar experiment on humans. Two very easy for anyone to see sets of findings that I find quite convincing, myself.
You said this:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
As for absolute proof, how many times have we had to tell you that proof is not used in science nor is it something most of us science minded folks even consider possible let alone seek? Evidence, a preponderance of evidence, all current evidence, so far undisputed evidence, etc. are all acceptable terms.
I don't even see where you used the phrase "clear" evidence. The evidence does seem convincing, but it is not conclusive. People treat me as if I'm a leper because I am waiting for more conclusive tests to be run. It's easy for you because you have everyone on your side. I don't, but that just makes me more determined to find out the truth.
Does "with the same letter" mean in the same group of three or adjacent and in the same group of three? Is, for example, AEC allowed in the second line?
From my understanding the last time we tried to clarify the puzzle's rules, AC can never be used again in any group of 3 on any line. so AEC would not be allowed if ABC was already used
So if you had
ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO
as the first line, you can never use any of those letter combinations in a group of 3 again. So no AC, BC, or AB, no DE, DF, or EF etc. but you could use ADG once
Peacegirl, is this the puzzle statement:
Arrange 7 identical groups of 15 unique letters in groups of 3 letters to produce 35 rows of three letters such that the first two letters in each row, irrespective of order, are not repeated in any other row of three.
I don't know what you mean by 7 identical groups. It's 7 lines, 3 letters in each group and 5 groups in each line. So it's 35 groups of 3.
I don't even see where you used the phrase "clear" evidence. The evidence does seem convincing, but it is not conclusive. People treat me as if I'm a leper because I am waiting for more conclusive tests to be run. It's easy for you because you have everyone on your side. I don't, but that just makes me more determined to find out the truth.
In over 400 pages now, you've shown exactly zero evidence that you have any interest whatsoever in "finding out the truth." You have, however, provided quite a lot of counterevidence.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
You are trying to prove that we can't be seeing the actual star because it is too many light years away to be seen. But is it? This goes back to the basic question: Are we seeing a past image of a star as the light reaches our eyes, or are we seeing the actual image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by natural.atheist
What do you mean by "image of a star"? How are you defining "actual image"? This sounds like nonsense so you really need to define your terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It is confusing because people view images as old light and therefore the past. An image, according to Lessans, is the actual light source, so if I see an image of a star with a telescope, I am seeing the actual star. Obviously, the light that is being emitted is what the telescope uses to take a picture, but the image of the star has to be in view for a photograph to turn out. I am getting the feeling that the more I talk, the angrier people are getting, so maybe it's time to call this discussion quits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by natural.atheist
Science says we are seeing/detecting the light only, and not an "image of a star" whatever that even means. Since the light had to travel here, and it travels at a finite speed, it is necessarily aged during the trip so we are detecting light that was emitted in the past.
This is really quite simple, what part are you not understanding?
I think the part that is missing is that a lens is required to form an image. The eye has a lens and so do all cameras (except the pin hole camera, camera obscura, or holographic methods).
There is more than simply detecting photons needed in order to detect an image but it has nothing to do with efferent vision.
Quote:
I never said it did, although in all cases where a photograph is taken, the object or image of that photograph is present (the photograph is not taken from detecting light alone),
Quote:
Originally Posted by natural.atheist
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are trying to say here. What is an "image of that photograph"? It sounds like a photo of a photo?
And if a "photograph is not taken from detecting light alone", then other than a lens forming an image, what else is involved?
Quote:
even if the image is not completely in view such as the case when we see the image in a mirror.
We see an image because the photons are being reflected back to us.
When a smooth flat pane of glass is coated with a shining metal like mercury or silver, then the mirror is formed.
The light follows the laws of reflection in that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of refection. Thus an image is formed, which can be seen by the observer.
This reflected light comes from an object or light source. If there is no light source or object, there can be no image in the mirror. That's why it's difficult to accept that we would be seeing Columbus discovering America when the event is no longer there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by natural.atheist
This especially doesn't make any sense. We don't actually see an image in the mirror. We form an image with the lens in our eye that happens to include reflected light from a mirror if a mirror is present. But mirror or no, if our eye is not capable of forming an image, then we don't see one. Thus a reflected image of a featureless, no contrast area will not form an image whether we look at it directly or in a mirror. Not only do you not not see anything but you might actually think you are tilting or upside down. Pilots experience this whenever they fly in fogged or whiteout conditions and must be trained to ignore their senses and use instruments alone.
I believe that's what happened to John F. Kennedy Jr. When you say we form an image, you are speaking in terms of afferent vision. Efferent vision would say we see an image. There has to be contrast which is why there is reflection and absorption. Positioning has a lot to do with visual orientation and contrast as well. Without a point of reference to establish your position, it's very easy to get disoriented.
I don't even see where you used the phrase "clear" evidence.
You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you think this (the cat's vision video) is absolute proof that we have afferent vision, you're sadly mistaken.
I responded:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
They decoded impulses in the cat's brain and came up with a video that closely mimicked the video the cat was watching.
OMG I can't imagine any clearer evidence than that indicating that brains use impulses to create images.
As for absolute proof, how many times have we had to tell you that proof is not used in science nor is it something most of us science minded folks even consider possible let alone seek? Evidence, a preponderance of evidence, all current evidence, so far undisputed evidence, etc. are all acceptable terms.
I was saying nobody here is ever presenting anything they are labeling "absolute proof", because we don't use that.
And you missed the qualifier when you tried to quote me, the entire term I suggested is "so far undisputed evidence". This leaves room for valid refutations and even disproving...which is all acceptable and encouraged in science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The evidence does seem convincing, but it is not conclusive.
The whole world is full of ultimately inconclusive evidence of everything. We might be brains in vats creating our lives from pure thought...it is unconvincing to most people, but it can't be conclusively disproved. There is a lot of convincing evidence that an asteroid strike wiped out the dinosaurs, but that's not conclusive
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
People treat me as if I'm a leper because I am waiting for more conclusive tests to be run.
It's your unwillingness to understand and research the current evidence, and review the tests that have already been run, that is causing the backlash. It makes you look willfully and purposefully ignorant. Like you seemed to think the Hubble was a traveling space craft, rather than in Earth orbit. This info takes 30 seconds to learn.
Why should we trust you know enough to know that more needs to be done? You don't know what has been done or what is already available!
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I don't, but that just makes me more determined to find out the truth.
You think you'll find the truth by refusing to look at the evidence available? By burying your head in the sand going "I don't see the evidence? I don't see how this is a consequence of that"?
I don't even see where you used the phrase "clear" evidence. The evidence does seem convincing, but it is not conclusive. People treat me as if I'm a leper because I am waiting for more conclusive tests to be run. It's easy for you because you have everyone on your side. I don't, but that just makes me more determined to find out the truth.
In over 400 pages now, you've shown exactly zero evidence that you have any interest whatsoever in "finding out the truth." You have, however, provided quite a lot of counterevidence.
That's why I'm asking everyone to let's end this part of the discussion. Nothing is going to come from it. Only time will tell and it may take years. If bionic eyes are eventually perfected by allowing signals to be interpreted in the visual cortex and sight being restored, then Lessans would have been wrong. This is going to require patience which I know is difficult, but it's all part of the scientific process.
Well, since his claims regarding sight and time and light are completely unconvincing to the point of seeming to be utterly wrong, there's no reason to think he was onto anything or right about anything
You are trying to prove that we can't be seeing the actual star because it is too many light years away to be seen. But is it? This goes back to the basic question: Are we seeing a past image of a star as the light reaches our eyes, or are we seeing the actual image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What do you mean by "image of a star"? How are you defining "actual image"? This sounds like nonsense so you really need to define your terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It is confusing because people view images as old light and therefore the past. An image, according to Lessans, is the actual light source, so if I see an image of a star with a telescope, I am seeing the actual star. Obviously, the light that is being emitted is what the telescope uses to take a picture, but the image of the star has to be in view for a photograph to turn out. I am getting the feeling that the more I talk, the angrier people are getting, so maybe it's time to call this discussion quits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Science says we are seeing/detecting the light only, and not an "image of a star" whatever that even means. Since the light had to travel here, and it travels at a finite speed, it is necessarily aged during the trip so we are detecting light that was emitted in the past.
This is really quite simple, what part are you not understanding?
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
I think the part that is missing is that a lens is required to form an image. The eye has a lens and so do all cameras (except the pin hole camera, camera obscura, or holographic methods).
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I never said it did, although in all cases where a photograph is taken, the object or image of that photograph is present (the photograph is not taken from detecting light alone),
Quote:
Originally Posted by natural.atheist
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are trying to say here. What is an "image of that photograph"? It sounds like a photo of a photo?
And if a "photograph is not taken from detecting light alone", then other than a lens forming an image, what else is involved?
Quote:
even if the image is not completely in view such as the case when we see the image in a mirror.
What is the Hubble focusing on if not the images that are emitting said light?
It was not focusing on anything at all. That's why the picture was such a surprise. Neither the Hubble, nor observers on Earth, could detect ANYTHING to focus on "in real time". It was aimed at a seemingly empty part of the sky.
It took 10 full days to collect enough photons to create that image.
Had it tried to "snap" a picture in a single minute, hour, or even a full day's exposure, it would have returned a blank image of seemingly empty, black space. This is evidence against real time seeing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am not disputing that Hubble is decoding photons that have been emitted from these stars, and that these photons have traveled a finite distance. The question remains: Are these stars (the gases --- the hydrogen and helium and other elements that make up these constellation of stars) seen in real time or are they part of the distant past?
Those aren't stars in that image, nor constellations, nor solar systems...they are entire galaxies. Many bigger than the Milky Way by several orders of magnitude.
And, they are necessarily part of the distant past, because the Hubble is detecting photons that have been traveling for trillions of miles away at a finite speed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If efferent vision is true, the Hubble telescope has been able to send clear pictures back to Earth because it has reached this section of the sky (without a lot of interference from other stars) due to its relative proximity and magnification potential.
What do you mean "it has reached"? Do you think the Hubble is traveling through space? It's in a low orbit around the Earth, it's not an explorer craft. HubbleSite - Hubble's Orbit
Remember, the Hubble was aimed at a seemingly empty part of the sky. If you were looking at a monitor from a video camera on Hubble, showing you what Hubble "sees' like the viewfinder on a camera, you would see black, empty space.
Only the long exposure time allowed it to collect enough photons to create an image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It is doing exactly what a CCD does. It is able to convert photons into a digital value, but where did the photons come from?
They came from the distant (in spacetime) galaxies you see in the final image
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
They came from a light source, which is in view of the lens.
The galaxies emit light, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Photons didn't arrive at the speed of light and strike the lens without the source of that light being within the view of the Hubble (I am speaking in terms of efferent vision so please don't get confused).
"Within view", in this case, simply means the Hubble was aimed in their direction. The Hubble couldn't detect any of that in "real time".
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There has to be an image that is emitting those photons.
What do you mean "image"? Those are galaxies in that image, entire galaxies each containing millions or even billions of stars, all of which are emitting electromagnetic radiation, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Once the photons are absorbed, they can be manipulated. This doesn't prove that those images are from the past.
Where are they from then? If the light/photons is what the CCD detects, and the light/photons have been traveling at a finite speed from trillions of miles away, how can they be from anywhere but the past?
It all makes logical sense so I'm going to leave it at that. I know I'm getting people peeved and the longer I talk the worse it's going to get, so I want to end this discussion. I just want to say, once again, that I have never seen a camera detect light being reflected off of an individual and have that light made into a photograph without the individual (the object) being in view of the camera's lens.
You are trying to prove that we can't be seeing the actual star because it is too many light years away to be seen. But is it? This goes back to the basic question: Are we seeing a past image of a star as the light reaches our eyes, or are we seeing the actual image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What do you mean by "image of a star"? How are you defining "actual image"? This sounds like nonsense so you really need to define your terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It is confusing because people view images as old light and therefore the past. An image, according to Lessans, is the actual light source, so if I see an image of a star with a telescope, I am seeing the actual star. Obviously, the light that is being emitted is what the telescope uses to take a picture, but the image of the star has to be in view for a photograph to turn out. I am getting the feeling that the more I talk, the angrier people are getting, so maybe it's time to call this discussion quits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Science says we are seeing/detecting the light only, and not an "image of a star" whatever that even means. Since the light had to travel here, and it travels at a finite speed, it is necessarily aged during the trip so we are detecting light that was emitted in the past.
This is really quite simple, what part are you not understanding?
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
I think the part that is missing is that a lens is required to form an image. The eye has a lens and so do all cameras (except the pin hole camera, camera obscura, or holographic methods).
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I never said it did, although in all cases where a photograph is taken, the object or image of that photograph is present (the photograph is not taken from detecting light alone),
Quote:
Originally Posted by natural.atheist
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are trying to say here. What is an "image of that photograph"? It sounds like a photo of a photo?
And if a "photograph is not taken from detecting light alone", then other than a lens forming an image, what else is involved?
Quote:
even if the image is not completely in view such as the case when we see the image in a mirror.
Well, since his claims regarding sight and time and light are completely unconvincing to the point of seeming to be utterly wrong, there's no reason to think he was onto anything or right about anything
I never imagined that this discussion would be convincing. In fact I knew it wouldn't be. That's why I said more empirical evidence must be provided. I realize that everyone here believes this would be a complete waste of time.
I just want to say, once again, that I have never seen a camera detect light being reflected off of an individual and have that light made into a photograph without the individual (the object) being in view of the camera's lens.
Really? Then you haven't spent much time looking.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
According to her the mirror reflection is the" object". Even if we reflected it again and again over 100 miles and around corners it is still okay because the subject has to be there in real time to be reflected.
Last edited by LadyShea; 09-14-2011 at 04:32 AM.
Reason: Changed terms to match peacegirl's
Listen peacegirl. If the photons left a star 20 minutes ago, and then the star was sucked into a black hole 5 minutes ago and can longer emit light and no longer can be seen, the photons still exist and are still traveling and can still be detected when they reach Earth in however many years. Does that make really not make sense to you?
Just because the star is not there emitting light "now" doesn't mean those photons disappeared. They were already on their way.
But it is. Lessans'/peacegirl's claim is that vision is efferent (i.e. that the brain looks out at the world through the eyes as opposed to interpreting data that enters the brain from the eyes) despite the fact that the optic nerve, the sole connection between the brain and the retina, is composed of afferent nerve fibers and allows for the transmission of signals in one direction only, from the eyes to the brain. She has yet to propose a mechanism for efferent vision, other than the fact that the eyes and brain are really close to each other.
The ruckus has to do with the shake up of the scientific community if efferent vision actually turned out to be true. ...
I'm not sure there will be much of a shake up in the scientific community because they use the term efferent in a very different way from how you use it. So they are likely to say that you are speaking a different language and not the language of neurology. They will see your statements to be the equivalent of saying that a food tastes triangular. As if geometry applies to the taste of food, which is gibberish. So Lessans work will be seen as gibberish.
Whether it is a combinatorics problem or not, if it's that easy, I'm asking people to figure it out. I don't know what else to do to convince people that this man had amazing insight into human nature. BTW, you can't be serious LadyShea that you don't see why it is important that he has strong credentials. Everyone and his brother is judging him by certain standards. They want to know what gave him the right to claim such an important discovery (when he didn't go through formal training), which is understandable, but don't act like it doesn't matter. It matters very much. If they have a little bit of confidence in him (as I do) because they see that he had unusual mathematical ability, they might think twice before throwing this knowledge into a scrap heap.
I agree, you don't know what to do. Because writing down one combination as a solution to a combanatorics problem does not a mathematician make. A mathematician would not write the solution, they would prove there is a solution using mathematics, they would use mathematics to show how to compute all possible solutions, and they would leave the actual solution as an exercise for the reader. That is what mathematicians do. Finding combinations by hand is what clerks and accountants do.
And if he did have "amazing insight into human nature" then the last person I would expect to have that would be a mathematician. Mathematicians usually have amazing insights into numbers, fields, sets, geometries, shapes and things very abstract, perfect, symmetrical and precise. And that pretty much means they know close to nothing about people.
So insisting that he was a mathematician as some sort of qualification for deep human insight is kinda stupid peacegirl. It is the mistake I would expect from someone that is way over their head. I suspect you've had the same kind of education as Lessans. You appear to be very sure of things you haven't actually learned about from others.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by natural.atheist
At this point it is hard for me to figure out what in the world peacegirl is trying to accomplish. She either has nothing or is unwilling to supply the backup for Lessans claims. She seems to think critical thinking is important but as far as I can tell she expects everyone to just bow down to Lessans for no other reason than she thinks Lessans is fabulous.
Peacegirl, this has got to be a very elaborate and belabored joke or you just use a different language from the rest of us.
Which is it?
It has nothing to do with putting Lessans on a pedestal, or making him the center of attention. You should know that by now. If I am using a different language than the rest of you, then somehow the language barrier has to be rectified, or else this thread will end up being nothing more than sheer entertainment.
Over 5 thousand posts ago I told you that you were not using the same language as everyone else. Now you finally figure it out. But what in the world did you expect. Science is a social activity, groups of researchers get together at conferences on a regular basis, send each other's students back and forth, read each other's papers, send each other mail, email and call each other. Over time they form a consensus over what the words they use mean so that they can understand each other.
If you are self taught and have no contact at all with this social group, and only a very limited contact with published work you are very likely to misinterpret the meanings of words and there will be no one to correct you. This alone is one of the major reasons why if you are serious about working in a field you need to get a decent education, otherwise you are pretty much in the dark. There is a lot of specific jargon used in scientific/technical fields that you must get from your peers.
Re: A revolution in thought
Linear Mode
