A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Vivisectus]

So, to sum up:

- Efferent vision does not explain any phenomena that cannot be explained by real sight.
- Efferent vision has no explanation for many phenomena that can be explained by real sight
- Efferent vision does not have any mechanism - nobody knows how it works, if it works at all
- Efferent vision contradicts causality
- Efferent vision contradicts relativity

And the cherry on the cake: since it contradicts causality, that means it contradicts the core idea of the book, which is a version of determinism (albeit a fallacious one) which cannot be upheld without causality.

It is completely untenable. It has to be changed, or no-one will ever consider the rest of the book. Not now, not ever!

[LadyShea]

A pinhole camera does not have an actual lens but it acts like a lens. And it also meets the requirements because the object is present. It's no different than a camera with an actual lens. Other than this, what camera does not have a lens, or what higher organism doesn't have a lens?

Camera film and photosensitive papers can interact with photons simply lying flat on a counter, or even in a canister or box, if someone accidentally exposes it to any light.

I had to learn to remove film from the small canister (that goes into the camera) and put it on a spindle and insert it into another light-tight canister in total darkness, not even a red light could be turned on for that step of the process, because the photons would have chemically reacted with the unprocessed film and ruined the pictures.

What do higher organisms have to do with anything? Do lower organisms not have efferent vision because they don't have lenses?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So, to sum up:

- Efferent vision does not explain any phenomena that cannot be explained by real sight.
- Efferent vision has no explanation for many phenomena that can be explained by real sight
- Efferent vision does not have any mechanism - nobody knows how it works, if it works at all
- Efferent vision contradicts causality
- Efferent vision contradicts relativity

And the cherry on the cake: since it contradicts causality, that means it contradicts the core idea of the book, which is a version of determinism (albeit a fallacious one) which cannot be upheld without causality.

It is completely untenable. It has to be changed, or no-one will ever consider the rest of the book. Not now, not ever!

You're just repeating the same refutation that does not hold up in reality Vivisectus, but you're hanging on for dear life. How many times do I have to say, for you to hear me, that Lessans' observations have nothing to do with a violation of physics. Your repeating this again and again does nothing to prove Lessans wrong. It's just an effort to make it appear that Lessans is wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Camera film and photosensitive papers can interact with photons simply lying flat on a counter, or even in a canister or box, if someone accidentally exposes it to any light.

Yes, the photosensitive papers interact with photons, but show me where those photons turn into an actual picture of something other than light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I had to learn to remove film from the small canister (that goes into the camera) and put it on a spindle and insert it into another light-tight canister in total darkness, not even a red light could be turned on for that step of the process, because the photons would have chemically reacted with the unprocessed film and ruined the pictures.

What do higher organisms have to do with anything? Do lower organisms not have efferent vision because they don't have lenses?

Higher organisms have lenses which is essential for seeing. Lower organisms only detect light. They do not see objects. Do you understand at all what I'm talking about?

[LadyShea]

Many science and kids discovery museums have photo-sensitive walls that photographically freeze your shadow. No lenses, no object surrounded by light allowing us to see it. You stand in front of the wall, a bright light flashes, you step away and there's your shadow still on the wall. My son has done this several times. Have you never been anyplace or seen anything?

Exhibits: Children's Museum at Holyoke Exhibits
Reuben H. Fleet:: Discover Your 'Inner Inventor' at "Tinkering"
Discover learn-by-doing science fun - Morning Call

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, the photosensitive papers interact with photons, but show me where those photons turn into an actual picture of something other than light.

The whole point is that they use the controlled exposure to light to create pictures. That's what they do. Without actual photons actually touching the film or paper, there can be no picture of anything, no photo-chemical reaction of any kind.

So, Using Lessans own example

1. The Sun is turned on at noon. Photons from the Sun will take 8.5 minutes to reach Earth. There are no photons on Earth at this time
2. You stated you can take a photograph of the Sun at noon with a film camera on Earth. Film cameras require photons to be located on the surface of the film to be absorbed.
3. HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?


HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

Actual photons have to actually strike the actual film to be absorbed by the silver halid molecules. HOW DO THE PHOTONS GET THERE in the above example out of Lessans book?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That is of course the very best way to "quote" clarify "unquote" a concept.

You're right, and that's exactly what he did.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

1. You are lying again. You want to run away from this topic because you have no answers for the questions. How do you explain that the moons of Jupiter are proven to be seen in delayed time, when Lessans predicted they would be seen in real time? How do you explain the fact that NASA depends on delayed-time calculations of other celestial bodies to send their space craft to them?

How do you explain these things?

Efferent vision.

Originally Posted by davidm

"The only requirement is for the light to be surrounding the object." And what everyone has been asking you is, how do we see that light, which is surrounding the object? By what physical mechanism?

But, your non-explanations don't matter. What matters is, we don't actually see in real time.

The only thing anyone should really ask you from now on, is about traveling to Mars and the moons of Jupiter.

Doesn't make a difference. If the brain works the way Lessans' described it is a very plausible model which is in opposition to the standard model of sight. This needs to be taken seriously if scientists are interested in the truth.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just repeating the same refutation that does not hold up in reality Vivisectus, but you're hanging on for dear life. How many times do I have to say, for you to hear me, that Lessans' observations have nothing to do with a violation of physics. Your repeating this again and again does nothing to prove Lessans wrong. It's just an effort to make it appear that Lessans is wrong.

Then I am sure you can point out what is wrong about those statements! So far you have been unable to do so. All you can manage is what you do here: make an empty, unsupported claim. I can back every one of these statements up with logic and data.

[LadyShea]

Back to faith-based assertions, peacegirl. You have no model. Without a model no plausibility, and certainly no credibility. There is nothing for science to take seriously because all you are offering is claims of magic.

[Vivisectus]

On a side-note, how are the book sales? Have you seen any significant interest so far, gotten any feedback from other people? How many have been sold so far?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Many science and kids discovery museums have photo-sensitive walls that photographically freeze your shadow. No lenses, no object surrounded by light allowing us to see it. You stand in front of the wall, a bright light flashes, you step away and there's your shadow still on the wall. My son has done this several times. Have you never been anyplace or seen anything?

Exhibits: Children's Museum at Holyoke Exhibits
Reuben H. Fleet:: Discover Your 'Inner Inventor' at "Tinkering"
Discover learn-by-doing science fun - Morning Call

LadyShea, what does this have to do with what I'm offering? Srsly, are you kidding me?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

On a side-note, how are the book sales? Have you seen any significant interest so far, gotten any feedback from other people? How many have been sold so far?

Vivsectus, DON'T PLAY THIS MANIPULATIVE GAME WITH ME, OKAY? There is no way sales could be up when I have not advertised or marketed in any way. If you want to be an investor, hey, come on board. You will have a limited copy when this knowledge is recognized. In fact, there is no telling how rich you could become.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, what does this have to do with what I'm offering? Srsly, are you kidding me?

If you don't see the inherent and obvious connection to what you are claiming about photography, then you have no business making claims about photography. Here's the hint: No lenses, no object surrounded by light allowing itself to be seen, yet a picture of your shadow.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you don't see the inherent and obvious connection to what you are claiming about photography, then you have no business making claims about photography. Here's the hint: No lenses, no object surrounded by light allowing itself to be seen, yet a picture of your shadow.

But I do see the inherent connection. So where do we go from here?

[LadyShea]

Then why did you ask what it had to do with the model you are offering?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivsectus, DON'T PLAY THIS MANIPULATIVE GAME WITH ME, OKAY? There is no way sales are up because I have not advertised. There is no marketing. If you want to be an investor, hey, come on board. You will make a mint eventually.

Touchy! I am merely curious.

How many have you sold in total? We know you sold at least one on Amazon. We read the review, which seems to have mysteriously disappeared since then, possibly because he considered it a complete waste of time and money. Has anyone given you any more positive or constructive feedback? Has anyone been convinced yet?

[LadyShea]

Using Lessans own example

1. The Sun is turned on at noon. Photons from the Sun will take 8.5 minutes to reach Earth. There are no photons on Earth at this time
2. You stated you can take a photograph of the Sun at noon with a film camera on Earth. Film cameras require photons to be located on the surface of the film to be absorbed.
3. HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?


HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

Actual photons have to actually strike the actual film to be absorbed by the silver halide molecules. HOW DO THE PHOTONS GET THERE in the above example out of Lessans book?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Using Lessans own example

1. The Sun is turned on at noon. Photons from the Sun will take 8.5 minutes to reach Earth. There are no photons on Earth at this time
2. You stated you can take a photograph of the Sun at noon with a film camera on Earth. Film cameras require photons to be located on the surface of the film to be absorbed.
3. HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

Actual photons have to actually strike the actual film to be absorbed by the silver halide molecules. HOW DO THE PHOTONS GET THERE in the above example out of Lessans book?

Actual photons are interacting with the film, believe it or not LadyShea. As I have said over and over that efferent vision is responsible for this, and until you understand the mechanism that allows this, you will be confounded. If you're having a problem with understanding why we get a picture even though the light hasn't reached Earth, you need a refresher course. This does not, IN ANY WAY, negate the truth of efferent vision.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Efferent vision.

Your so-called "efferent vision," by which you mean real-time seeing, is contradicted by the fact that we don't see in real-time, as the examples of the moons of Jupiter and how NASA sends spacecraft to celestial bodies proves. So when I ask you to explain the fact that we see the moons of Jupiter in delayed time, and we send vehicles to Mars and other bodies by calculating the difference between the apparent and actual locations of the bodies -- in other words, when I ask you explain how real-time seeing can be true, when it is emprically demonstrated to be false -- you say the explanation is "efferent vision!"

Dishonest little imbcile. Buh-bye!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Touchy! I am merely curious.

How many have you sold in total? We know you sold at least one on Amazon. We read the review, which seems to have mysteriously disappeared since then, possibly because he considered it a complete waste of time and money. Has anyone given you any more positive or constructive feedback? Has anyone been convinced yet?

Are you kidding me Vivisectus? How can you conclude that something is false by the show of sales? Aren't you placing the cart before the horse? Answer me honestly or I won't respond to you anymore as I will see you as a total fake.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Your so-called "efferent vision," by which you mean real-time seeing, is contradicted by the fact that we don't see in real-time, as the examples of the moons of Jupiter and how NASA sends spacecraft to celestial bodies proves. So when I ask you to explain the fact that we see the moons of Jupiter in delayed time, and we send vehicles to Mars and other bodies by calculating the difference between the apparent and actual locations of the bodies -- in other words, when I ask you explain how real-time seeing can be true, when it is emprically demonstrated to be false -- you say the explanation is "efferent vision!"

Dishonest little imbcile. Buh-bye!

Bye bye davidm. If you think Lessans is so wrong, why don't you leave? Are you trying to protect characters like Spiderman? Where do we draw the line? Could it be that actually think you're Spiderman himself? Now I'm beginning to wonder if your personal reality is not a delusion. What is it that keeps you here if you think I'm so off track?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you kidding me Vivisectus? How can you conclude that something is false by the show of sales? Aren't you placing the cart before the horse? Answer me honestly or I won't respond to you anymore as I will see you as a total fake.

What the hell are you on about now? I am merely curious about how many you have sold, and if you have received any feedback about it. Plain and simple.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, the photosensitive papers interact with photons, but show me where those photons turn into an actual picture of something other than light.

Every time you look at a photograph it is the result of photons reacting with film or the photo receptors in a digital camera. With film the lens focuses the light that is reflected from the object or scene onto the film which reacts to the color frequency and intensity of the light, this produces a negative image on the film. Then by shining light thru the film onto print paper the positive image is produced when the light interacts with the print paper. With a digital camera the lens focuses the light onto the image sensor which turns the image into a digital map of the image that can be stored on the computer memory in the camera. This image can then be printed out onto print paper, usually through a computer hookup. So everytime you look at a photograph it is a picture that is the result of photons being turned into an actual picture of something.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Just trying to understand this?

Have you made up your answer yet?