A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not only are we in the wrong thread, but I refuse to talk to someone who tries to make me the one who has the problem. You must be in la la land.

I was replying to your comments, which you posted in this thread. And you have subsequently responded here anyway. And you do have the problem. Quite apart from anything else, you have the problem of not being able to consistently explain the behavior of light on your non-model.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then what is the pattern that strikes our retina Spacemonkey (even when the object is no longer present), if not an electric image that supposedly bounces off the object and travels through space and time (which is just another way of saying the same thing)?

It is light. It is only light. So claiming that science thinks an image travels or is reflected is a strawman.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still don't get it, do you?

If by "it" you mean answers to my questions, then you're right. I still don't get those.

What happens to the nonabsorbed light that has hit an object, if it doesn't get reflected and can't travel away? Where is it at the next moment in time?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get what you're saying, but it doesn't apply to the efferent account. If it's true that we see in real time, it is still light striking the canvas, but it's not traveling because the eye is seeing a mirror image of what exists, which takes no time.

But you can't explain how it works. How does the nonabsorbed light which just struck an object get to be instantaneously at distant eyes or cameras? That is teleportation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a strawman. The image that IS SEEN is seen in real time, because of how the eyes work. Light travels at 186,000 miles a second. There is no conflict with these two separate accounts.

It is a strawman to say that science thinks images travel or get reflected. It tells us nothing to say "because of how the eyes work" when you can't tell us how you think the eyes work. And you deny that the nonabsorbed light travels at 186,000 miles a second. You instead claim both that "nothing happens" to it, and that it is instantly at distant eyes and/or cameras, where it stays stationary.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing happens to the non-absorbed light. It is there at the eye which reveals the object, it doesn't bring anything to the eye.

No-one claims it brings anything to the eye. It brings only itself. And it is contradictory to say that this non-absorbed light at the object instantaneously teleports itself to distant eyes and/or cameras and that nothing happens to it. If nothing happened to it, then it would still be there were it was at the surface of the object it just struck.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not mean that light doesn't do anything.

Yet once again, that is what you actually said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I meant that the non-absorbed light is captured by the eyes because of how the eyes work by using light as a medium, not as a courier service.

The eyes cannot reach out and grab or capture distant nonabsorbed light and make it instantly change location (from distant objects to within the eye). That would be magic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yet once again, that is what do actually said.

The eyes cannot reach out and grab or capture distant nonabsorbed light and make it instantly change location (from distant objects to within the eye). That would be magic.

No Spacemonkey, that's not what is happening. The eyes are not reaching out to capture the image. The image is there already. You are not grasping why light is at the eye because of how the eyes work, which is the opposite of light needing to travel. This changes the phenomenon completely and it doesn't violate the laws of physics. I really don't want to start this conversation again because it's going to go nowhere. Why can't you wait until more empirical proof is done? If you don't believe what he's saying is even plausible, then why care what his claims are, you won't believe it anyway.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, that's not what is happening. The eyes are not reaching out to capture the image. The image is there already.

The eyes cannot make photons teleport. They cannot make light instantly change location without traveling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not grasping why light is at the eye because of how the eyes work, which is the opposite of light needing to travel.

Neither are you. If you grasped it then you'd be able to explain it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This changes the phenomenon completely and it doesn't violate the laws of physics.

Yes it does. Teleporting light that can instantaneously change locations without traveling the intervening distance completely violates the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't want to start this conversation again because it's going to go nowhere.

Too bad. You have started this conversation again.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, that's not what is happening. The eyes are not reaching out to capture the image. The image is there already. You are not grasping why light is at the eye because of how the eyes work, which is the opposite of light needing to travel. This changes the phenomenon completely and it doesn't violate the laws of physics. I really don't want to start this conversation again because it's going to go nowhere. Why can't you wait until more empirical proof is done? If you don't believe what he's saying is even plausible, then why care what his claims are, you won't believe it anyway.

I suppose this makes some sort of wacky sense if one considers that peacegirl maintains that the brain looks out through the eyes. Perhaps she is thinking that light travels to the eyes in the afferent way and without violating any laws of physics and then projects an image inside of the skull for the brain to look out at using the mind's eye? Thus light becomes the media assuming the minds eye sees with light.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light strikes our retina. Light from different sources and directions has different qualities (intensity and wavelength, location where it hits the retina). These differences in the light that strikes the retina causes a pattern to form on the retina but are not a pattern or "electric image" that exists while the light is traveling

I tried to explain it using an analogy of throwing paint at a canvas. Different colors in different amunts thrown from different directions and different distances will determine the pattern that forms on the canvas, right? Is the pattern in the paint as it travels? No, it's just traveling paint...the pattern doesn't happen until some of it hits the canvas.

Yes, I tried something similar using the analogy of a dart-throwing machine that is whisked away before the darts hit their target. The analogy easily showed both that we see in delayed time and that no pattern travels.

But she will continue to repeat this strawman of what science says about light until her dying breath. Why? Because Seymour The Buffoon claimed that scientists said that "electric images travel on wings of light!"

Of course, no scientist has ever said any such thing, but Dumbo believed that scientists said that, and ergo, it must be true! Why? Because Seymour said so! Remember, peacegirl has drilled into her brain the Prime Directive:

SEYMOUR IS ALWAYS RIGHT! EVEN WHEN HE'S WRONG!

[naturalist.atheist]

Or even when peacegirl disagrees with Lessans, he is always right.

Beware!

[peacegirl]

I am not here to start the conversation again, but I do want to express my gratitude to those who helped me make certain changes. As much as I didn't like the things Vivisectus accused Lessans of, I can now see how he looked arrogant to those who didn't know him. I know he wasn't, but that doesn't change how the words he used made him appear. Thank you Vivisectus, if you're reading this. The other person I want to thank is LadyShea. Even though he didn't cite references, you helped me to take out that one sentence that people could have misinterpreted. I also want to thank you for sharing your ideas on marketing. I'm just about at that stage, and anything that could be helpful is greatly appreciated. I really felt the need to express my appreciation because I believe you have my best interest at heart.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not here to start the conversation again...

That's exactly what you said last time. Do you remember that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's exactly what you said last time. Do you remember that?

Why are you always questioning my memory? I know what I said and I didn't come back to start the conversation again regarding the eyes. I wanted to respond to that one question.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I HAVE NO DESIRE TO DISCUSS HIS SECOND DISCOVERY. WHAT IS IT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND?

Why don't you want to discuss the discoveries? That's what you came here to do. If you would just discuss them and answer questions, you would get further. You are the one who is preventing progress on this thread.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you always questioning my memory? I know what I said and I didn't come back to start the conversation again regarding the eyes. I wanted to respond to that one question.

What one question? I question your memory because it appears to be very very poor. For example, right here you seem to have no idea what I'm referring to in saying that you've said the above before.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What one question? I question your memory because it appears to be very very poor. For example, right here you seem to have no idea what I'm referring to in saying that you've said the above before.

I know what I said Spacemonkey. In the post you're referring to, I said to you I'm not here to start the conversation again, but I answered your one question. Then you said I already did start it again. I said I was answering your one question but I don't want to start this debacle again. What's it to you whether I do or don't have a good memory? I'm really not sure what your motive is. To try to prove that I'm incapable? Is that it?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what I said Spacemonkey. In the post you're referring to, I said to you I'm not here to start the conversation again, but I answered your one question. Then you said I already did start it again. I said I was answering your one question but I don't want to start this debacle again. What's it to you whether I do or don't have a good memory? I'm really not sure what your motive is. To try to prove that I'm incapable? Is that it?

Okay. Tell me what you remember of the post I am referring to. What did you say, and then what happened?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Okay. Tell me what you remember of the post I am referring to. What did you say, and then what happened?

First, tell me what it is exactly you're trying to prove?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First, tell me what it is exactly you're trying to prove?

That you don't remember what you claim to remember.

So tell me what you remember of the post I am referring to. What did you say, and then what happened?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That you don't remember what you claim to remember.

So tell me what you remember of the post I am referring to. What did you say, and then what happened?

I just told you what I said. I don't have to tell you word for word. I know I told you that I didn't want to resume the conversation on the eyes. When you said I just did start it again I said "no", I am just answering your one question. Do you want the # to the post too?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just told you what I said. I don't have to tell you word for word. I know I told you that I didn't want to resume the conversation on the eyes. When you said I just did start it again I said "no", I am just answering your one question. Do you want the # to the post too?

Wow. You really have no idea what post I'm even talking about, do you? I'm not talking about post #10360. Nor am I referring to posts #10355 or #10356 as you appear to be thinking of here. Can you tell me what post I am referring to when I said you'd said before that you were not here to start the conversation again? Can you tell me what you said then, and what happened afterwards? You have no recollection at all of what I'm even talking about, do you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Wow. You really have no idea what post I'm even talking about, do you? I'm not talking about post #10360. Can you tell me what post I am referring to when I said you'd said before that you were not here to start the conversation again? Can you tell me what you said then, and what happened afterwards?

Oh, I get what you're doing. You are trying somehow to convince yourself that if I don't remember what came first, or what I said next, then how can I have any memory for anything else I'm discussing. Am I right?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh, I get what you're doing. You are trying somehow to convince yourself that if I don't remember what came first, or what I said first next, then how can I understand photons or what they do. Am I right?

No, you are wrong. You said (in post #10360) that you were not here to start the conversation again. I said that you had made that claim before. I'm now pointing out that you have no recollection of this fact. You don't remember having said these exact same things before, and yet going on to restart the conversation again anyway.

Will you admit now to having significant memory impairment?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, you are wrong. You said (in post #10360) that you were not here to start the conversation again. I said that you had made that claim before. I'm now pointing out that you have no recollection of this fact. You don't remember having said these exact same things before, and yet going on to restart the conversation again anyway.

Will you admit now to having significant memory impairment?

I'm sure I said it before. I've repeated myself plenty of times out of frustration. Sometimes I stick to what I say and sometimes I don't depending on the people in here. It's difficult for me to realize that out of thousands of pages, we never got past the first chapter (other than Chapter Four). That's why I'm fed up, and I do not want to go back to talking about the eyes, nor about presuppositions.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sure I said it before. I've repeated myself plenty of times out of frustration. Sometimes I stick to what I say and sometimes I don't depending on the people in here. It's difficult for me to realize that out of thousands of pages, we never got past the first chapter (other than Chapter Four). That's why I'm fed up, and I do not want to go back to talking about the eyes, nor about presuppositions.

I'm not here talking about your motivations or whether or not you ever stick to what you say. I'm simply pointing out your memory impairment. You have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about (when I say that you've said before that you're not here to restart the conversation), do you?

Will you admit now to having significant memory impairment?

[naturalist.atheist]

It's not mearly a memory problem, it is an overall disorganized brain. A brain in a state that is not capable of nor receptive to reason. Which is why there is no point in trying to reason with peacegirl.