Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #7301  
Old 01-31-2012, 10:27 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
you (davidm) have invested your entire adult life in the belief that time is relative.
Wait what? How did david "invest" in this belief? Does he rely on the relativity of time to buy food or pay rent? Is the relativity of time his job, or life's work that he has put a lot of hours into? What does this sentence even mean?
I'm referring to his worldview which is almost as important as rent or food depending how strongly one is attached to it. He doesn't like anybody or anything messing with it.

Space-time is essentially the history of the entire universe, containing every "event" that ever happens. Each point on the world-line is generally thought to be a real physical event at a unique point in space-time. Special relativity allows us to define a distance from the origin for all the points on a world-line, allowing the world-line to be a set of points that have physically distinguishable properties. Therefore, we can identify each of the events on a world-line as distinct points in space-time.

Spacetime Continuum - Einstein's Relativity, Space, Time, Quantum Gravity, and Quantum Physics
Reply With Quote
  #7302  
Old 01-31-2012, 10:27 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Sound doesn't really bend either - though it does have some wavelike properties that means it refracts around the edge of an object.

Perhaps 'bend' was the wrong word, but sound will excite the molecuels in the body of fluid even around a corner and behind an object relative to the source.

It depends very carefully on the geometry of the problem. You can still arrange for a region of silence from a source emitting waves. I guess bending is a fine enough term for it, but refracts is better as it includes a whole slew of subtleties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Sound doesn't really bend either - though it does have some wavelike properties that means it refracts around the edge of an object. It's not the same thing as bending though.
Of course it bends.

Refraction of Sound
"...though it does have some wavelike properties that means it refracts around the edge of an object."
Bend, refract whatever. It is a wave and under different conditions it's speed changes so for the wave equation to satisfy the boundary conditions, it moves in a different direction and people commonly say it bends. Just like the pencil in the glass of water.

Pencil In The Water Illusion | Mighty Optical Illusions
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
peacegirl (01-31-2012)
  #7303  
Old 01-31-2012, 10:29 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
you (davidm) have invested your entire adult life in the belief that time is relative.
Wait what? How did david "invest" in this belief? Does he rely on the relativity of time to buy food or pay rent? Is the relativity of time his job, or life's work that he has put a lot of hours into? What does this sentence even mean?
I'm referring to his worldview which is almost as important as rent or food depending how strongly one is attached to it. He doesn't like anybody or anything messing with it.

Space-time is essentially the history of the entire universe, containing every "event" that ever happens. Each point on the world-line is generally thought to be a real physical event at a unique point in space-time. Special relativity allows us to define a distance from the origin for all the points on a world-line, allowing the world-line to be a set of points that have physically distinguishable properties. Therefore, we can identify each of the events on a world-line as distinct points in space-time.

Spacetime Continuum - Einstein's Relativity, Space, Time, Quantum Gravity, and Quantum Physics
If I had no worldview you would still be wrong because nobody sees efferrently. It is that simple.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (01-31-2012)
  #7304  
Old 01-31-2012, 10:30 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Care to explain to me the difference between cis-retinal and trans-retinal, and what we got wrong?

:popcorn:
I'm not saying any of this is wrong. I just don't believe this transduction from cis-retinal to trans-retinal are giving us normal sight. Just like the blind guy explained in the video who didn't have an optic nerve; the impulses that are being interpreted are similar to someone outlining an object on one's back. They will get a pattern but to call this sight is far-fetched.
Reply With Quote
  #7305  
Old 01-31-2012, 10:36 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Care to explain to me the difference between cis-retinal and trans-retinal, and what we got wrong?

:popcorn:
I'm not saying any of this is wrong. I just don't believe this transduction from cis-retinal to trans-retinal are giving us normal sight. Just like the blind guy explained in the video who didn't have an optic nerve; the impulses that are being interpreted are similar to someone outlining an object on one's back. They will get a pattern but to call this sight is far-fetched.
Initially it's like drawing on your back but then the brain learns to see.
Reply With Quote
  #7306  
Old 01-31-2012, 10:42 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Come on peacegirl, you're once again throwing a fit and throwing around insults to distract from the fact you can't answer questions about your ideas or support your claims. We know the drill.

So, see you tomorrow after your reset.
I have explained as clearly as possible how we are able to see the external world in real time, and the more I explain, the meaner are the insults. I'm not that surprised. It's probably difficult to accept that the scientific community has made an honest mistake. Although it was done unintentionally, it still needs correction.
Yes, thousands of scientists from all over the world, over centuries, in different disciplines, often directly competing with each other or actively attempting to refute each other, all repeatedly made the same honest mistake...but Lessans can't possibly have made an honest mistake about physics, anatomy, biology, astronomy or optics.
You still don't get it. The difference between afferent and efferent is slight, but it makes a huge difference as far as space/time is concerned and what we're actually seeing. I can't expect you to accept this new knowledge based on this thread. It will take others to confirm it before you let down your guard.
Reply With Quote
  #7307  
Old 01-31-2012, 10:43 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
It depends very carefully on the geometry of the problem. You can still arrange for a region of silence from a source emitting waves. I guess bending is a fine enough term for it, but refracts is better as it includes a whole slew of subtleties.
"...though it does have some wavelike properties that means it refracts around the edge of an object."

And if I am not mistaken this is a result of sound waves cancelling each other as opposed to the sound waves not getting there, though the effect is the same. However I'm sure there are techniques to block or mask the sound from teaching an area. I have also heard of architecture or geometry that can create a spot where other sounds are clearly audible. Acoustics can have some interesting effects sometimes unintentional.
Reply With Quote
  #7308  
Old 01-31-2012, 10:43 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Care to explain to me the difference between cis-retinal and trans-retinal, and what we got wrong?

:popcorn:
I'm not saying any of this is wrong. I just don't believe this transduction from cis-retinal to trans-retinal are giving us normal sight. Just like the blind guy explained in the video who didn't have an optic nerve; the impulses that are being interpreted are similar to someone outlining an object on one's back. They will get a pattern but to call this sight is far-fetched.
Initially it's like drawing on your back but then the brain learns to see.
Yes, the brain learns to see the pattern but to then say that these impulses will allow us to eventually see as a normal person, is making a huge leap.
Reply With Quote
  #7309  
Old 01-31-2012, 10:44 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Sound doesn't really bend either - though it does have some wavelike properties that means it refracts around the edge of an object.

Perhaps 'bend' was the wrong word, but sound will excite the molecuels in the body of fluid even around a corner and behind an object relative to the source.

It depends very carefully on the geometry of the problem. You can still arrange for a region of silence from a source emitting waves. I guess bending is a fine enough term for it, but refracts is better as it includes a whole slew of subtleties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Sound doesn't really bend either - though it does have some wavelike properties that means it refracts around the edge of an object. It's not the same thing as bending though.
Of course it bends.

Refraction of Sound
"...though it does have some wavelike properties that means it refracts around the edge of an object."
Bend, refract whatever. It is a wave and under different conditions it's speed changes so for the wave equation to satisfy the boundary conditions, it moves in a different direction and people commonly say it bends. Just like the pencil in the glass of water.

Pencil In The Water Illusion | Mighty Optical Illusions
As I said to thedoc, I suppose bend is a good enough word though it misses a lot of the important subtleties.

Edit: Actually, now I think about it, even this isn't quite right. Just like sound, light does refract around objects; but the wavelength of light is much smaller compared to that of sound, so we hardly notice.
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner

Last edited by Dragar; 01-31-2012 at 10:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7310  
Old 01-31-2012, 10:44 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXDXCIX
Images: 523
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Care to explain to me the difference between cis-retinal and trans-retinal, and what we got wrong?

:popcorn:
I'm not saying any of this is wrong. I just don't believe this transduction from cis-retinal to trans-retinal are giving us normal sight. Just like the blind guy explained in the video who didn't have an optic nerve; the impulses that are being interpreted are similar to someone outlining an object on one's back. They will get a pattern but to call this sight is far-fetched.
That's not an answer. It's an evasion.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (02-01-2012)
  #7311  
Old 01-31-2012, 10:46 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
I can't expect you to accept this new knowledge based on this thread. It will take others to confirm it before you let down your guard.
Who do you feel is qualified to confirm it? You believe all scientists everywhere are so incompetent that they keep making the same "honest" mistake over and over again; no matter who they are, where they live, what field they are in, what experiments or applications they are working on, or how many times they get the same correct results.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-01-2012), Dragar (01-31-2012), Spacemonkey (02-01-2012), The Lone Ranger (01-31-2012)
  #7312  
Old 01-31-2012, 10:52 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXDXCIX
Images: 523
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Incidentally, conversion of cis-retinal to trans-retinal is not transduction, it's photoisomerization.

You're only making yourself look ignorant.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #7313  
Old 01-31-2012, 10:56 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

It seems a bit contradictory that she wants scientists to examine and confirm these ideas in the book, but then condems them as mistaken and biased for the past. Why would she want these incompetents to examine anything, just doesn't make sense.
Reply With Quote
  #7314  
Old 01-31-2012, 10:58 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
From the first part of this thread. We went pages and pages where you couldn't even support the very first premise

Would you like to return to this discussion peacegirl?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Peacegirl, you need to define "satisfaction", and explain how "moving in the direction of greater satisfaction" can be observed.

You've agreed that it cannot be directly observed. That means it must be inferred in any given case on the basis of what is actually directly observed (i.e. what people are actually observed to do).
Satisfaction is the fulfillment of some need or want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Are there any conceivable instances of human behaviour which, if observed, would show people to not be moving in the direction of greater satisfaction? Or is this principle compatible with all possible behavioural observations?
There are no conceivable instances of human behaviour which would show people to not be moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, otherwise it wouldn't be a law. There are no exceptions. We often choose the lesser of two evils because we don't have any good options available, so it may appear that we're moving in the direction of dissatisfaction, but that is only because the other options are worse by comparison.
Once again, you haven't answered the question. How can greater satisfaction be observed? What behavioral observations demonstrate this "law" in action? "What is actually directly observed (i.e. what people are actually observed to do)?".
I really don't want to talk to you because the way you're coming off is extremely arrogant. You aren't trying to understand, you're telling me he's wrong. And this is supposed to be some kind of serious refutation? All of your refutations have fallen flat such as we don't need lenses to take a photograph, or your spectrophotometry example, or even your hologram example as if this is supposed to prove him wrong. Every single thing you've written has done nothing but show me how little you understand. And then you have the gall to offer me someone who you call a woo, which is a slap in the face as far as I'm concerned. So, no, I don't want to talk to you unless you change your attitude. If anyone is interested in Chapter Two, I will present it my way and people can conclude what they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You're arrogant

We don't need lenses to take a photograph as per the several lensless imaging links I gave you
And I quoted from that link, the computer acts like a lens.

As they proceed through the cell, the coherent x-rays are scattered and differentially absorbed by the cell's internal structures. There's no lens either in front or behind the sample as the light passes through the cell and reaches the detector, so there's nothing to limit resolution or efficiency.
But the result looks nothing like an image. Instead it's a pattern of dark and light speckles, the traces of the scattered x-rays. A computer -- which acts as the "lens" in lensless imaging -- uses these patterns to create an image.

Lensless imaging of whole biological cells with soft X-rays


Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Spectrophotometry measures reflected light off objects or substances, though you've stated objects don't reflect light
No, it measures the non-absorbed wavelengths. There is no reflection meaning light bouncing off of the object. A spectrophometer only works when there is an object present, just like in efferent vision. You can't measure a wavelength that has been reflected from an object when there's no object. Doesn't happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The Mirage toy displays a 3d image, made from mirrors, that cannot be physically interacted with. You have stated that your version of "mirror images" can be physically interacted with, so I was asking you to explain how this is possible.
I said that photons are interacting with the film in real time because the non-absorbed photons are present the instant the lens focuses the light.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You initially mentioned approaching Deepak Chopra, I would like to see that happen. Although he is now a woo peddler, he was a trained MD, so does have a background in evidence based science. I am very curious as to how he might view Lessans ideas.
I wish I could get through to him. I will have the mp3s soon, but I don't want to send it to him without talking to him first so he'll know what it's about and will be looking for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You have had most of a year to present whatever you wanted however you wanted. It's not my fault, nor my attitude's fault, that you have not done so.
To what extent group think has on a topic such as this is open to interpretation, but I believe the general tone of a thread has a lot to do with the ability to understand what is being said.
Reply With Quote
  #7315  
Old 01-31-2012, 11:00 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
It seems a bit contradictory that she wants scientists to examine and confirm these ideas in the book, but then condems them as mistaken and biased for the past. Why would she want these incompetents to examine anything, just doesn't make sense.
So that makes you competent, right doc? It's always us against them. Makes people feel more important.
Reply With Quote
  #7316  
Old 01-31-2012, 11:00 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You're arrogant

We don't need lenses to take a photograph as per the several lensless imaging links I gave you
And I quoted from that link, the computer acts like a lens.
No, peacegirl, the lens acts like the computer! :D
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (01-31-2012)
  #7317  
Old 01-31-2012, 11:02 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Incidentally, conversion of cis-retinal to trans-retinal is not transduction, it's photoisomerization.

You're only making yourself look ignorant.
I meant that it's the process towards transduction. Look, I'm on your side for a change, so smile. :yup:
Reply With Quote
  #7318  
Old 01-31-2012, 11:04 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You're arrogant

We don't need lenses to take a photograph as per the several lensless imaging links I gave you
And I quoted from that link, the computer acts like a lens.
No, peacegirl, the lens acts like the computer! :D
I guess you're being sarcastic now.

A computer -- which acts as the "lens" in lensless imaging
Reply With Quote
  #7319  
Old 01-31-2012, 11:04 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

The computer acting as a lens is not using an actual lens taking the photograph. That's why the sentence had "lens" in quotes.

What exactly is it you think the lens does?

Also note A computer -- which acts as the "lens" in lensless imaging -- uses these patterns to create an image. That's just what we've been saying the brain and cameras do!
Reply With Quote
  #7320  
Old 01-31-2012, 11:06 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
It depends very carefully on the geometry of the problem. You can still arrange for a region of silence from a source emitting waves. I guess bending is a fine enough term for it, but refracts is better as it includes a whole slew of subtleties.
"...though it does have some wavelike properties that means it refracts around the edge of an object."

And if I am not mistaken this is a result of sound waves cancelling each other as opposed to the sound waves not getting there, though the effect is the same. However I'm sure there are techniques to block or mask the sound from teaching an area. I have also heard of architecture or geometry that can create a spot where other sounds are clearly audible. Acoustics can have some interesting effects sometimes unintentional.
Sometimes (though really they're the same thing, not just in their effect!).

But refraction has a limit, and it really is the case that you won't always have sound waves refract around something.

And as I realised above, this only happens for sound and not light because the wavelength for light is quite large. For very low wavelength noises (high pitched), you'll actually struggle for any refraction to take place at all around a large object. You can have a 'shadow' for a sound source, just as for a light source.
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #7321  
Old 01-31-2012, 11:07 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You're arrogant

We don't need lenses to take a photograph as per the several lensless imaging links I gave you
And I quoted from that link, the computer acts like a lens.
No, peacegirl, the lens acts like the computer! :D
I guess you're being sarcastic now.

A computer -- which acts as the "lens" in lensless imaging
No, peacegirl, the lens acts like the computer in non-lensless imaging.

Why do you say we need a lens, and don't say we need a computer?
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (01-31-2012)
  #7322  
Old 01-31-2012, 11:07 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
The computer acting as a lens is not using an actual lens taking the photograph.
What exactly is it you think the lens does?
I know that the computer acting as a lens is not using an actual lens in the photograph, but something has to focus the light. Pinhole cameras don't have an actual lens either but the pinhole acts as a lens so that a photograph can be taken. It fills in for the lens.
Reply With Quote
  #7323  
Old 01-31-2012, 11:09 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
The computer acting as a lens is not using an actual lens taking the photograph.
What exactly is it you think the lens does?
I know that the computer acting as a lens is not using an actual lens in the photograph, but something has to focus the light. Pinhole cameras don't have an actual lens either but the pinhole acts as a lens so that a photograph can be taken. It fills in for the lens.
Neither the empty space in a pinhole camera, nor the computer in this example, focus the light. Try again?
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (01-31-2012), LadyShea (01-31-2012)
  #7324  
Old 01-31-2012, 11:14 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Care to explain to me the difference between cis-retinal and trans-retinal, and what we got wrong?

:popcorn:
I'm not saying any of this is wrong. I just don't believe this transduction from cis-retinal to trans-retinal are giving us normal sight. Just like the blind guy explained in the video who didn't have an optic nerve; the impulses that are being interpreted are similar to someone outlining an object on one's back. They will get a pattern but to call this sight is far-fetched.
Initially it's like drawing on your back but then the brain learns to see.
Yes, the brain learns to see the pattern but to then say that these impulses will allow us to eventually see as a normal person, is making a huge leap.
It currently is not as good as most people's regular sight, but not everyone is born with good sight nor keeps that good sight for their entire lives so for them it is better vision. One of your many cognitive problems is that you don't know the difference of kind vs a difference of degree.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (01-31-2012), LadyShea (01-31-2012)
  #7325  
Old 01-31-2012, 11:15 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

No, the light didn't need to be focused by a lens or lens-like, they used a laser like coherent beam to begin with.

Quote:
lensless x-ray diffraction microscopy, a concept pioneered by David Sayre beginning in the 1980s. To produce a high-resolution diffraction pattern from noncrystalline structures like the membranes and organelles of a cell, the light has to be coherent, that is, laser-like, having all the same frequency and phase. Beamline 9.0.1 was built to supply this kind of light.

As they proceed through the cell, the coherent x-rays are scattered and differentially absorbed by the cell's internal structures. There's no lens either in front or behind the sample as the light passes through the cell and reaches the detector, so there's nothing to limit resolution or efficiency.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.98485 seconds with 14 queries