Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #6601  
Old 01-27-2012, 12:26 AM
Crumb's Avatar
Crumb Crumb is offline
Adequately Crumbulent
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cascadia
Gender: Male
Posts: LXMMDCXIX
Blog Entries: 22
Images: 355
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumb View Post
peacegirl: Can we get a free two minute sample? :D
Are you kidding? She took the PDF offline because everyone was reading it and telling her where the errors were.
Not kidding at all. I'd love to hear a bit in the voice of the man himself.
__________________
:joecool2: :cascadia: :ROR: :portland: :joecool2:
Reply With Quote
  #6602  
Old 01-27-2012, 12:27 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXVI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Yeah, I'd love to hear that stretch where he explains how if God turned on the sun at noon, we'd see it on earth immediately, but not see our neighbors for eight and a half minutes. :grin:
Reply With Quote
  #6603  
Old 01-27-2012, 01:08 AM
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 Crumb View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumb View Post
peacegirl: Can we get a free two minute sample? :D
Are you kidding? She took the PDF offline because everyone was reading it and telling her where the errors were.
Not kidding at all. I'd love to hear a bit in the voice of the man himself.

Well I just hope you can hear it clearly over the clicking of billiard balls and quarters.
Reply With Quote
  #6604  
Old 01-27-2012, 01:10 AM
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 thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Oh, and did you look at your thread at the BAUT Forum? :D
Davidm, you are determined to spread this contagion to a new board??
bump?
Reply With Quote
  #6605  
Old 01-27-2012, 01:41 AM
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 LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He will also be clarifying many of the concepts by saying "quote" when he begins his elaboration and "unquote" when he's finished elaborating on a particular point.
That is of course the very best way to "quote" clarify "unquote" a concept.
It's got nothing to do with quoting people.
Why would he say the words quote and unquote for clarification purposes? I've never heard of such a strange thing
When he is quoting himself with a very short passage he could use "quote fingers" but for longer quotes of himself he had to say "quote" and "unquote". If he didn't do that his friends in the pool hall wouldn't know when to ignore him.
Reply With Quote
  #6606  
Old 01-27-2012, 01:48 AM
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
I disagree that the book is not consistent with reality. Yes, it's not consistent from your point of view, but whose reality is correct is in question.
Which reality is correct is only a question for you peacegirl.
Reply With Quote
  #6607  
Old 01-27-2012, 02:11 AM
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 naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He will also be clarifying many of the concepts by saying "quote" when he begins his elaboration and "unquote" when he's finished elaborating on a particular point.
That is of course the very best way to "quote" clarify "unquote" a concept.
It's got nothing to do with quoting people.
Why would he say the words quote and unquote for clarification purposes? I've never heard of such a strange thing
When he is quoting himself with a very short passage he could use "quote fingers" but for longer quotes of himself he had to say "quote" and "unquote". If he didn't do that his friends in the pool hall wouldn't know when to ignore him.

Would they really need a signal to know when to ignore him?
Reply With Quote
  #6608  
Old 01-27-2012, 02:25 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXVI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Apparently we all need a signal when to ignore peacegirl; with the other thread this nonsense is about 1,000 pages long!
Reply With Quote
  #6609  
Old 01-27-2012, 02:59 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXVI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

BTW, LadyShea, if you are still interested in making any comments on this topic at the BAUT forum, an admin tells me he has used his "godlike powers" to solve your registration woes and you are now a full member. :yup:
Reply With Quote
  #6610  
Old 01-27-2012, 03:05 AM
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:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
BTW, LadyShea, if you are still interested in making any comments on this topic at the BAUT forum, an admin tells me he has used his "godlike powers" to solve your registration woes and you are now a full member. :yup:
I finally got the email today. Thanks, I may look around for other topics to post on, but I got what I needed on this topic from your thread
Reply With Quote
  #6611  
Old 01-27-2012, 04:31 AM
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 LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
BTW, LadyShea, if you are still interested in making any comments on this topic at the BAUT forum, an admin tells me he has used his "godlike powers" to solve your registration woes and you are now a full member. :yup:
I finally got the email today. Thanks, I may look around for other topics to post on, but I got what I needed on this topic from your thread
I went to read the thread and decided to make a few comments and realized that I had registered and forgotten my user ID and password. After a quick e-mail request I got it straightened out and made a few posts. I had browsed the site before but they are into way too much detail, I like the more general threads in plane english. Like Davidm I've been there a few years, but I've never posted till now.
Reply With Quote
  #6612  
Old 01-27-2012, 04:40 AM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: VCCCLVIII
Images: 8
Default Spiders compare focused and unfocused green light for distance.

I don't trust this study, their methods are sloppy and inconclusive. They must be confused. :innocent:

Jumping Spiders Hunt Prey With Unique Vision Traits

Quote:
However, because of the layers' respective distances from the lens of the eye, incoming green light is only focused on the deepest layer, while the other green-sensitive retinal layer receives defocused or fuzzy images. The researchers hypothesized that the spiders gauge depth cues from the amount of defocus in this fuzzy layer, which is proportional to the distance an object is to the lens of the eye.

To test this, they placed a spider and three to six fruit flies in a cylindrical plastic chamber, housed in a white styrene foam box. They then bathed the bugs in different colored lights: If the defocus of green light is important to the spiders, then they should not be able to accurately judge jumping distance in the absence of green light.

Sure enough, the spiders could easily catch the flies under green light, but consistently underestimated their jumps under red light (which doesn't contain shorter-wavelength light, such as green and blue). The researchers suggest that green light is just right to produce the image defocus necessary to gauge distances, unlike other wavelengths of light.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (01-27-2012), Kael (01-27-2012), LadyShea (01-27-2012)
  #6613  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:08 AM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

LOL shipping and handling for an MP3 file. Did you get ripped off by yet another unscrupulous publisher Peacegirl? MP3 files are something you download. They do not get shipped or handled. I hope you did not waste more of your savings!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (01-27-2012), Stephen Maturin (01-27-2012)
  #6614  
Old 01-27-2012, 12:44 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 Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You absolutely cannot understand the concept of efferent vision...
Maybe that's because (i) it is contradictory and makes no sense; and (ii) you keep refusing to answer questions about it.
I'm doing my best. You keep talking about photons traveling, and even though white light is always moving, the only way we can see the object and its (P) reflection is when the lens is focused on the object, which you seem to conveniently forget.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It's really going to take a lot more time than I realized for people to get this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Maybe it's answers to our questions rather than just more time that is needed.
I am answering your questions, but are you actually hearing my answers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If anyone wants to understand his first discovery, please let me know because that's what I want to discuss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
One word: presuppositions. Or had you forgotten about those?
Yes, his discovery presupposes a perfect conscience, and this is what he's trying to show, but if you don't let me present it my way people are going to get more confused than they are with this discussion, and I don't want that to happen.
Reply With Quote
  #6615  
Old 01-27-2012, 12:51 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

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?


Quit answering about objects and reflections, because all that is in the above example is the newly turned on Sun and the camera film. It is noon. There are no photons on Earth to be absorbed by the camera film until 12:08

How does the camera film absorb a photon, which is required to take a picture, at noon in this scenario?
Reply With Quote
  #6616  
Old 01-27-2012, 12:54 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 Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]
No.
Good. Not that I agree that this is correct, but I do agree that this is what you should be saying. The photons comprising the mirror image at the film at any given time must be newly existing photons which come into existence there. That avoids teleporting or stationary photons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]
At the object.
Um, can you tell me why you are here giving me the location of something which you've just told me above does not exist?

If you could also answer the questions in post #6452 (without positing stationary photons) that would be good.
Peacegirl, can you explain why you contradicted yourself here? If the light at the film (when the photograph is taken) didn't exist just before the photograph was taken, then it could not have been at the object just before the photograph was taken. Non-existent things do not have locations.

So are you saying that the light at the film did exist just prior to taking the photograph and was at the object? Or that it did not exist just prior to taking the object and therefore had no location then at all?

Do you know why you contradict yourself like this, even on the simplest of matters? These were not complicated questions. They were of the very simple form: Did x exist at t? If so, then where was x at t? You appear to have completely failed to comprehend the "If so..." part.
X was traveling because photons travel, but, to repeat, you're missing the most important point in all of this and that is efferent vision. If efferent vision means we are looking out in real time, then the photons are not traveling to us with the information of the object. We are seeing the object directly because of what light is allowing us to see. The photons that are present at the film instantly (no travel time) is also due to this phenomenon, which is just a mirror image when the lens is focused on the object.
Reply With Quote
  #6617  
Old 01-27-2012, 12:58 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 LadyShea View Post
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?


Quit answering about objects and reflections, because all that is in the above example is the newly turned on Sun and the camera film. It is noon. There are no photons on Earth to be absorbed by the camera film until 12:08

How does the camera film absorb a photon, which is required to take a picture, at noon in this scenario?
All I can say LadyShea, and I hope you eventually understand this, is that all that is required for this mirror image to show up on film is for the object --- no matter how far away it is --- to be in the field of view of the camera. This creates the necessary condition for the light surrounding the object to create a mirror image and interact with the film. In other words, the object meets the requirements of size and brightness in order for this phenomenon to occur, which does not violate the laws of physics.
Reply With Quote
  #6618  
Old 01-27-2012, 01:03 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 Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Diagnosis of a specific type of delusional disorder can sometimes be made based on the content of the delusions. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) enumerates six types:

* Erotomanic Type (erotomania): delusion that another person is in love with the individual, quite frequently a famous person. The individual may breach the law as he/she tries to obsessively make contact with the desired person.
* Grandiose Type: delusion of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity or believes himself/herself to be a famous person, claiming the actual person is an impostor or an impersonator.
* Jealous Type: delusion that the individual's sexual partner is unfaithful when it is untrue. The patient may follow the partner, check text messages, emails, phone calls etc. in an attempt to find "evidence" of the infidelity.
* Persecutory Type: This delusion is a common subtype. It includes the belief that the person (or someone to whom the person is close) is being malevolently treated in some way. The patient may believe that he/she has been drugged, spied-on, harassed and so on and may seek "justice" by making police reports, taking court action or even acting violently.
* Somatic Type: delusions that the person has some physical defect or general medical condition (for example, see delusional parasitosis).
* Mixed Type: delusions with characteristics of more than one of the above types but with no one theme predominating.
Peacegirl presents the fascinating possibility that we may be dealing with a new sub-type here. Grandiose-by-proxy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
When delusional disorders occur late in life they suggest a hereditary predisposition. Researchers also suggest that these disorders are the result of early childhood experiences with an authoritarian family structure. According to other researchers, any person with a sensitive personality is particularly vulnerable to developing a delusional disorder.
A plausible hypothesis here is that Lessans suffered from grandiose-type delusional disorder, and that he passed on the same genetic predisposition to his daughter, who subsequently - and as a result of early childhood experiences with an authoritarian family structure - developed a new grandiose-by-proxy sub-type of delusional disorder.

Of course this is only speculative, and no conclusive diagnosis can be offered without getting her to an actual psychiatrist. But it's a fascinating possibility.
Give me a break!!!! :yawn:
Reply With Quote
  #6619  
Old 01-27-2012, 01:03 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

He is asking you to explain how efferent vision works. If you can't answer simple questions about how seeing occurs in efferent vision, then you don't have a plausible model...you have magic. You cannot say efferent vision works by efferent vision because efferent vision allows us to see efferently in real time That's circular. That's not telling us anything about the process.

I reworked your post, replacing your weasel words with what you actually are saying
Quote:
If efferent vision means we [have efferent vision], then the photons are not traveling to us with the information of the object. We are seeing the object directly because of [efferent vision]. The photons that are present at the film instantly (no travel time) is also due to [efferent vision], which is just an [unexplained and seemingly magical] mirror image when the lens is focused on the object.
Reply With Quote
  #6620  
Old 01-27-2012, 01:05 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
You've yet to offer a mechanism. You've only asserted that efferent vision allows for efferent vision.

Do you understand what a mechanism is? You don't seem to understand the words explain or model, should we add mechanism to the list of words you can't define?
I told you that the exact mechanism of how the brain is able to look through the eyes, is unknown, but that in no way indicates Lessans observations were wrong. And I also said that you can describe a mechanism that you think accounts for what is happening, and be entirely wrong.
The mechanism by which cameras take photographs, however, is completely known. Your model is not compatible with it.

So, you need to either explain how efferent vision extends to camera film, or admit that your model does not include cameras.
You keep saying, and I keep telling you that the way objects work with the retina work in the same way with cameras. The only difference is that when the lens of an eye is focused on an object (which obviously means it is within visual range (no matter how far away it is), it allows the eyes to see the object in real time, whereas the lens of a camera focusing on the same object allows the non-absorbed light to be instantly (no travel time) present, as a mirror image, at the film.
Reply With Quote
  #6621  
Old 01-27-2012, 01:07 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:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
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?


Quit answering about objects and reflections, because all that is in the above example is the newly turned on Sun and the camera film. It is noon. There are no photons on Earth to be absorbed by the camera film until 12:08

How does the camera film absorb a photon, which is required to take a picture, at noon in this scenario?
All I can say LadyShea, and I hope you eventually understand this, is that all that is required for this mirror image to show up on film is for the object --- no matter how far away it is --- to be in the field of view of the camera. This creates the necessary condition for the light surrounding the object to create a mirror image and interact with the film. In other words, the object meets the requirements of size and brightness in order for this phenomenon to occur, which does not violate the laws of physics.
This is not an answer. This is a weasel of the highest magnitude. If that's really "all you can say" then you are saying efferent vision is magic.

What is the mirror image and where is it located?

What "object" is light "surrounding" in the above scenario?

Where is the photon that is required by the laws of physics to touch the surface of the camera film to be absorbed?

It does violate the laws of physics unless you can answer the above questions
Reply With Quote
  #6622  
Old 01-27-2012, 01:11 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:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
You've yet to offer a mechanism. You've only asserted that efferent vision allows for efferent vision.

Do you understand what a mechanism is? You don't seem to understand the words explain or model, should we add mechanism to the list of words you can't define?
I told you that the exact mechanism of how the brain is able to look through the eyes, is unknown, but that in no way indicates Lessans observations were wrong. And I also said that you can describe a mechanism that you think accounts for what is happening, and be entirely wrong.
The mechanism by which cameras take photographs, however, is completely known. Your model is not compatible with it.

So, you need to either explain how efferent vision extends to camera film, or admit that your model does not include cameras.
You keep saying, and I keep telling you that the way objects work with the retina work in the same way with cameras. The only difference is that when the lens of an eye is focused on an object (which obviously means it is within visual range (no matter how far away it is), it allows the eyes to see the object in real time, whereas the lens of a camera focusing on the same object allows the non-absorbed light to be instantly (no travel time) present, as a mirror image, at the film.

The lens is irrelevant. Camera film must absorb photons to cause a photochemical reaction. It can do so absent a lens which is why it must be kept in dark rooms and film cases. Have you ever processed camera film yourself? I have.
Reply With Quote
  #6623  
Old 01-27-2012, 01:12 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
He is asking you to explain how efferent vision works. If you can't answer simple questions about how seeing occurs in efferent vision, then you don't have a plausible model...you have magic. You cannot say efferent vision works by efferent vision because efferent vision allows us to see efferently in real time That's circular. That's not telling us anything about the process.

I reworked your post, replacing your weasel words with what you actually are saying
Quote:
If efferent vision means we [have efferent vision], then the photons are not traveling to us with the information of the object. We are seeing the object directly because of [efferent vision]. The photons that are present at the film instantly (no travel time) is also due to [efferent vision], which is just an [unexplained and seemingly magical] mirror image when the lens is focused on the object.
Oh my gosh, I am not just saying efferent vision works because efferent vision allows us to see in real time. I'm trying to explain how this is possible using optics. This model IS plausible. I told you that the exact mechanism is unknown. He didn't explain how the brain can do this. He was showing us his observation based on this idea of conditioning, which came about indirectly. Once it is established that this is a plausible model, then empirical testing can take place to further confirm that the brain is doing exactly what Lessans claimed (i.e., looking through the eyes to see the external world, not receiving the external world through light which is interpreted in the brain).
Reply With Quote
  #6624  
Old 01-27-2012, 01:16 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
You've yet to offer a mechanism. You've only asserted that efferent vision allows for efferent vision.

Do you understand what a mechanism is? You don't seem to understand the words explain or model, should we add mechanism to the list of words you can't define?
I told you that the exact mechanism of how the brain is able to look through the eyes, is unknown, but that in no way indicates Lessans observations were wrong. And I also said that you can describe a mechanism that you think accounts for what is happening, and be entirely wrong.
The mechanism by which cameras take photographs, however, is completely known. Your model is not compatible with it.

So, you need to either explain how efferent vision extends to camera film, or admit that your model does not include cameras.
You keep saying, and I keep telling you that the way objects work with the retina work in the same way with cameras. The only difference is that when the lens of an eye is focused on an object (which obviously means it is within visual range (no matter how far away it is), it allows the eyes to see the object in real time, whereas the lens of a camera focusing on the same object allows the non-absorbed light to be instantly (no travel time) present, as a mirror image, at the film.

The lens is irrelevant. Camera film must absorb photons to cause a photochemical reaction. It can do so absent a lens.
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?
Reply With Quote
  #6625  
Old 01-27-2012, 02:19 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 thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
. Photons are constantly being emitted, that is a fact, but the only way we get the (P) photons on film/retina is when the lens of the film or retina is focused on the object. It's as simple as that. If we happen to be looking at something that is parallel to the object, those photons that are made up of the visible spectrum. The only time we actually get a mirror image of the object is when we're looking directly at it and there is enough light surrounding the object for us to see it.
When the eye focuses on an object and we see that object, what is in our peripheral vision? What about the objects in the background or off to the side that the eye is not focusing on, an object that is further away and out of focus to the eye? Do we see them if the eye is not focused on them?
We see it exactly as a mirror image, which means the peripheral vision would be blurred. It's an inverse relation to the object's absorptive properties, so it makes perfect sense.
No it doesn't quite make perfect sense to me. You state that we need to be looking directly at an object to see the mirror image of it, but the other objects around we are not looking at directly so blured or not how can we see them? Could you explain this in more detail, because right now it seems like a contradiction to say that we need to look directly at somethingto see it, but we can still see something that we are not looking directly at?
Just trying to understand this?
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 10:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.16531 seconds with 14 queries