A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It actually doesn't because we can't resolve (perfect word) the issue of the object having to be in range. This is not a cursory observation.

Empirically tested, well documented, verifiable scientific fact tells us that a blue object absorbs most wavelengths of light and reflects blue wavelengths. This is not something that is under debate. Any model of vision that denies this is false, verifiably false.

[LadyShea]

Seriously, peacegirl, we could replace every instance of your use of "efferent vision" with "Magic spell" and it would have the exact same explanatory power.

You need to do more explaining of mechanisms and less running around in meaningless word circles.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who the hell cares about Mr. Hawkin. He IS NOT GOD VIVISECUS SO DON'T USE THIS RIDICULOUS NOTION AS PROOF OF ANYTHING. YOU ARE VERY SNEAKY WITH YOUR RESPONSES.

If any light that is in our "field of view" is instantly at the retina "due to efferent vision" then we should let science know there is a hitherto unknown kind of force in the eyes that allows people to suck in light over enormous distances... at infinite speed! Because of mirror-images!!!

The implications for our notions on causality and time alone are amazing. It would mean time-travel is possible, for starters. And the amount of energy it brings to bear, especially when viewing the more distant stars boggles the mind. One look at a distant galaxy actually uses more energy than the sun itself! If we could tap into this awesome power, we would be able to travel across space with ease and have an abundant and everlasting source of energy!

Lessantology sure has breakthrough after breakthrough. Why has no-one rung NASA yet? Don't worry if they hang up on you, we can always sue them for it later.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the mountain picture, if light was traveling with the wavelength of the mountain, wouldn't the reflection of the mountain continue to show up in the water? And why do we never see images of mountains unless the mountain is actually present? I have never seen an image in the water coming from light without the actual object (in this case the mountain) right above it. This is a clue that we never see images of objects coming from light alone.

No, it's a clue that mountains don't move very fast. Duh.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seriously, peacegirl, we could replace every instance of your use of "efferent vision" with "Magic spell" and it would have the exact same explanatory power.

You need to do more explaining of mechanisms and less running around in meaningless word circles.

No LadyShea, you are not understanding what I'm trying to explain and, because of that, you are calling it a "magic spell."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

No, it's a clue that mountains don't move very fast. Duh.

You said it not me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A mirror image does not explain how the photons at the sun can also be at the camera film. If a mirror image is a duplication then the actual physical photons would also have to duplicated to be at the film interacting. The known properties of light and known properties of film and known requirements for them to chemically react do not allow this. How can the photons that are physically at the sun ALSO physically be at the film without traveling there, appearing there, being two places at once, or teleporting there.

You are not letting go of the afferent explanation which is why it appears magical that light interacts with the eye if we're viewing it efferently. I can't win here because you will keep saying that light is not intersecting with the eye. You fail to understand that based on the efferent model, the ballgame changes. You can't get past first base.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Let's look at it from the perspective of a single photon. That photon is emitted from the sun and is now traveling at 183 thousand miles per second and the camera film it must touch to form a photograph is 93 million miles away. How does that happen? Exactly. Explain the mechanism without changing the properties of light and without changing the properties of camera film, and without changing the requirements of the physical interaction between film and photon, and without invoking or mentioning the brain.

I'm trying to explain, but either you are listening with one ear or you're not listening at all.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea, you are not understanding what I'm trying to explain and, because of that, you are calling it a "magic spell."

So, does that mean that you're going to explain to us how the brain manages to "look out" through the eyes, even though the opaque sclera and choroid are in the way?

Because that sure sounds like magic. (For a lot of different reasons.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your reasoning is not answering the question. Your "reasoning" is not explaining a physical mechanism that makes this possible.

Read this again, and respond to it coherently and relevantly.

I mentioned nothing about blue wavelengths in this particular post you were responding to, but since you have stated that efferent vision does not require the properties of light to be changed, then you now also have to explain how light of a blue wavelength does not travel, when both wavelength and traveling are inherent properties of light.

I can't believe you're saying this. I'll have to give everyone a quiz to see who was listening when I explained the efferent model.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't believe you're saying this. I'll have to give everyone a quiz to see who was listening when I explained the efferent model.

You explained nothing. You asserted.

There's an important difference.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea, you are not understanding what I'm trying to explain and, because of that, you are calling it a "magic spell."

You haven't explained anything. You've made a bunch of claims and statements, you've offered ZERO explanations.

I have to echo TLR, do you understand the difference between explaining and asserting?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I thought you claimed to understand me earlier. If an object is blue, it absorbs other light wavelengths and reflects blue light. There is a blue photon, and after it reflects off the blue object, it travels in a straight line until it hits something else and absorbed or reflected.

The theory of the blue photon reflecting off the blue object until it hits something else and taking on the new wavelength is just that, a theory.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Again, this is all very well empirically tested and verifiable. Again, any claim about vision that defies these facts are necessarily false.

When you say "There is no travelling blue photon." You are really telling me, "My statements are verifiably false."

Yes I am. You can't prove that this is what's happening. It's just a plausible explanation BASED ON THE PREMISE OF AFFERENT VISION.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You haven't explained anything. You've made a bunch of claims and statements, you've offered ZERO explanations.

I have to echo TLR, do you understand the difference between explaining and asserting?

No I haven't. The explanation that you're giving sounds perfect, but you can't prove that the blue wavelength travels. You can assert that idea based on what you think is happening, which is what you're accusing me of.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl. We are only following your statements to see if they are compatible with known science, as you insist efferent vision does not negate these known laws and principles. You can't invoke mysterious and completely redefined mechanisms like focusing and lenses and mirror imaging as if they are explanations unto themselves. You must explain HOW it works and HOW it is compatible.

So. How can a physically existing thing called a photon, that has a wavelength and travels at a finite speed per the properties of light, not travel with it's wavelength and instantly be 93 millions miles from its current location to interact with camera film through physical contact?

I told you that I'm disputing that light coming from the Sun has a wavelength and travels at a finite speed. Do you understand the difference between afferent and efferent vision? That's where your having a problem. So don't tell me I'm wrong because you can't understand the difference.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A mirror image does not explain how the photons at the sun can also be at the camera film. If a mirror image is a duplication then the actual physical photons would also have to duplicated to be at the film interacting. The known properties of light and known properties of film and known requirements for them to chemically react do not allow this. How can the photons that are physically at the sun ALSO physically be at the film without traveling there, appearing there, being two places at once, or teleporting there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not letting go of the afferent explanation which is why it appears magical that light interacts with the eye if we're viewing it efferently. I can't win here because you will keep saying that light is not intersecting with the eye. You fail to understand that based on the efferent model, the ballgame changes. You can't get past first base.

Just saying "mirror images" and "efferent vision" does not explain anything. And I am not talking about vision at all. I am talking about camera film, photons, and chemical interactions, all of which have been proven to have specific properties and follow specific natural laws

You are invoking magic, unless you can explain the physical mechanisms allowing two physically existing things to touch when they are physically separated. If efferent vision requires you change phyiscal principles and laws of nature, then explain those changes as well.

If you cannot explain the mechanism or principle of physics that allows this to happen, then you are speaking nonsense and spreading lies.

So explain it or don't, but quit weaseling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to explain, but either you are listening with one ear or you're not listening at all.

You haven't even attempted an actual explanation even once. No wonder you think Lessans arguments are more than assertion, you don't even know what a real explanation of principles and mechanisms is.

So how about you simply answer the question instead of berating me for my many faults and failures.

Let's look at it from the perspective of a single photon. That photon is emitted from the sun and is now traveling at 183 thousand miles per second and the camera film it must touch to form a photograph is 93 million miles away. How does that happen? Exactly. Explain the mechanism without changing the properties of light and without changing the properties of camera film, and without changing the requirements of the physical interaction between film and photon, and without invoking or mentioning the brain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, does that mean that you're going to explain to us how the brain manages to "look out" through the eyes, even though the opaque sclera and choroid are in the way?

Because that sure sounds like magic. (For a lot of different reasons.)

Do we look through a lens of a camera? Looking through the lens of the eye is no different. So where's the magic?

The camera focuses by looking through a window in the camera,

Looking through the lens allows you to know exactly what is in focus and exactly what will be where in the picture.

How to take good pictures with the camera you have - Illustrated tips and tutorials

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl. We are only following your statements to see if they are compatible with known science, as you insist efferent vision does not negate these known laws and principles. You can't invoke mysterious and completely redefined mechanisms like focusing and lenses and mirror imaging as if they are explanations unto themselves. You must explain HOW it works and HOW it is compatible.

So. How can a physically existing thing called a photon, that has a wavelength and travels at a finite speed per the properties of light, not travel with it's wavelength and instantly be 93 millions miles from its current location to interact with camera film through physical contact?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that I'm disputing that light coming from the Sun has a wavelength and travels at a finite speed.

What about light that is not from the sun, or which has been reflected one or 100 or 1000 times? Your statements all seem to indicate that reflected light has different properties than emitted light. You talked about no traveling blue light, for example.

Is that the case? Does blue light that was reflected off a balloon an hour ago (that popped 30 minutes ago) cease to exist? Stop traveling? Stop having a blue wavelength?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Just saying "mirror images" and "efferent vision" does not explain anything. And I am not talking about vision at all. I am talking about camera film, photons, and chemical interactions, all of which have been proven to have specific properties and follow specific natural laws

You are invoking magic, unless you can explain the physical mechanisms allowing two physically existing things to touch when they are physically separated. If efferent vision requires you change phyiscal principles and laws of nature, then explain those changes as well.

If you cannot explain the mechanism or principle of physics that allows this to happen, then you are speaking nonsense and spreading lies.

So explain it or don't, but quit weaseling.

You haven't even attempted an actual explanation even once. No wonder you think Lessans arguments are more than assertion, you don't even know what a real explanation of principles and mechanisms is.

So how about you simply answer the question instead of berating me for my many faults and failures.

Because the light is touching the eye if you can envision what is happening. You can't understand why the light does interact with the film because you don't understand how efferent vision works. And please don't tell me you do. You can't get beyond the idea that light travels, and something 93 million miles away can therefore not interact with the eye. I agree that light travels, but when we are looking out, through the eyes, what is happening is completely opposite than what has been theorized.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, does that mean that you're going to explain to us how the brain manages to "look out" through the eyes, even though the opaque sclera and choroid are in the way?

Because that sure sounds like magic. (For a lot of different reasons.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do we look through a lens of a camera? Looking through the lens of the eye is no different. So where's the magic?

There is an opaque (meaning solid, non transparent) structure between the brain and the lens of an eye. So the brain cannot look through the lens.

Can you look through a camera lens with the opaque lens cap on? Looking through the lens cap would be magical, wouldn't it?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm just trying to work out what it is that you're imagining here. So now at the moment the photograph is taken there's a mirror image at the camera film consisting of photons at the film which are not duplicates of the unabsorbed light at the object. Yes?

What happens to the unabsorbed light? When we say that some of the light is unabsorbed we mean it bounces off the surface instead and continues to travel away from the object. What do you mean? Are you saying that a blue object will absorb all but the blue light from the sunlight, and that the remaining blue light will cease to exist as it hits the object and will instantly reappear at the film without ever bouncing off the object?

How is that not faster-than-light teleportation of photons?

If you're not saying that, then what are you saying? Do you even know?

Well I'm sorry, but I don't know how else to describe what you are saying.

I didn't say anything about the neutral light from the Sun. I spoke only of reflected light which, according to your present answers, is never in motion. By our definition of 'reflection' it never even gets reflected. It never bounces off an object to continue travelling (which incidentally means that there can be no such thing as 'angle of reflection' in optics). Whenever sunlight strikes an object, some of it gets absorbed and the rest disappears and instantly reappears at any nearby films or retinas. So the sunlight travels, but reflected light never travels at all, and only ever exists momentarily at the surface of films and retinas.

If this is not what you are trying to convey to me, then please correct this description. Tell me what happens to unabsorbed light if it is not what I've just said.

Not according to me, but it seems to be exactly what you are describing.

If the unabsorbed photons never existed, then how can their not being absorbed explain their presence at the film or retina? If the object is being struck by sunlight, then that sunlight will contain blue-wavelength photons, right? If the object is blue, then it absorbs all but the blue photons, yes? So the unabsorbed blue photons did exist, and were part of sunlight arriving at the blue object. (If not, then they weren't there to not be absorbed.) So what happens to them?

You seem to have been saying that they disappear as they hit the object and instantaneously reappear at the nearest films and retinas. Is that wrong?

If so, then what does happen to them?

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the light is touching the eye if you picture what is happening. You have to take the entire field of view turn it into a mirror image. You will see that the light does, in fact, interact with the film.

HOW does it come in contact with the film if there is physical distance between the photons and film?

What you are asserting is not explaining a physical mechanism that makes this possible.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you can't prove that the blue wavelength travels.

So, now you are asking for proof that light has the properties light is known to have?

Light travels unless/until it is absorbed.
Light has a wavelength, some light has a blue wavelength.

Do you dispute either of these statements? Yes or no?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The theory of the blue photon reflecting off the blue object until it hits something else and taking on the new wavelength is just that, a theory.

Yes, it's a empirically proven, well verified theory, i.e. a scientific fact.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I am. You can't prove that this is what's happening. It's just a plausible explanation BASED ON THE PREMISE OF AFFERENT VISION.

I wrote that, not The Lone Ranger (although I'm sure he would agree).

Of course I can prove it, or I have the capability to prove it, and if need be, I can point you to scientific studies that verify what I'm saying. More specifically, I work on a product that has optical interfaces, and if light did not work exactly the way I described, the product wouldn't work. Period.

The technology exists to detect wavelengths of light. However, you can make or buy a spectroscope for ~$10 and prove it for yourself.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the mountain picture, if light was traveling with the wavelength of the mountain, wouldn't the reflection of the mountain continue to show up in the water? And why do we never see images of mountains unless the mountain is actually present? I have never seen an image in the water coming from light without the actual object (in this case the mountain) right above it. This is a clue that we never see images of objects coming from light alone.

No, it is not. This just shows that you still don't understand optics at all. There is no "wavelength of the mountain". Mountains tend not to instantly disappear. They change incredibly slowly, while light travels incredibly quickly. On the afferent model, would you really expect a mountain to somehow disappear faster than light could travel from it to the water and then our eyes? And even if it did, you wouldn't expect to see a difference on the afferent model, because the direct appearance of the mountain (as opposed to its reflected image) is also due to travelling light and will be dated. Imagine the mountain just disappeared. Yet the light which just left its surface continues. Some of it goes straight to your eyes. Some of it hits the water and then gets to your eyes. Both have basically the same travel time, so you would see both the direct image and the reflected image disappear at the same time - just after it happened.

That's on the afferent model. On the efferent model, no-one has the faintest idea of how it works, least of all the person who is meant to be explaining it.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is an opaque (meaning solid, non transparent) structure between the brain and the lens of an eye. So the brain cannot look through the lens.

Can you look through a camera lens with the opaque lens cap on? Looking through the lens cap would be magical, wouldn't it?

As LadyShea points out, you can only look through the lens of a camera if there is nothing opaque between your eye and the camera lens.

There are opaque things between your eye and your brain -- plenty of them. The sclera and choroid of the eye, for example. Not to mention plenty of adipose tissue -- and bone.