A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course they used their eyes, but it still doesn't tell us what the brain was doing.

I get that, but they are vastly different experiments. Seeing a target illuminated gives us a premise measurement of the speed of light. The moons of Jupiter experiment is another story because there is an assumption that the moons are images coming from light. But there's no way to prove this.

The ability to see in real time does not negate our ability to measure light when it lands on a target. But you're assuming that when light bounces off of objects it is taking with it a particular pattern, and that pattern is being interpreted as an image in the brain. That's the fallacy, according to Lessans.

Furthermore, seeing in real time has nothing to do with infinite speed. This comment makes me realize that there is no one on this thread that even has a clue as to why the brain, looking through the eyes, as a window, would allow us to see in real time without violating the laws of physics. The fact that the speed of light is finite doesn't have anything to do with our ability to see in real time. That's why I told Spacemonkey I don't want to answer anymore questions regarding photons traveling since it doesn't even relate.

What in the blue hell are you babbling about, you little imbecile?

It's VERY OBVIOUS that if we saw in REAL TIME, the experiment of the flash-flickeirng lanterns would not work. Because it DOES work, we don't see in real time! End of story, derper!

I don't think you even know what real-time seeing means. Goddamn, but you are dumb.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As much as I want to answer your question, you're going to have to change your tactics, or I'm putting on ignore. I am sick of you calling me mentally challenged.

I am presenting you with the evidence of your own mental illness. The question you are saying you want to answer concerns your own delusional behavior of constantly returning to an 'unanswered' question that has been repeatedly answered. Our answers to your question are correct and will not be changing. So your own behavior is clear evidence of your cognitive impairment. A sane person would not keep asking the same question in the hope of a different answer, when the only reason they have for rejecting the answers given is that those answers do not explain invented facts which no-one else believes to be true.

[naturalist.atheist]

The shocking aspect of trying to communicate with a mentally ill person is that they behave mentally ill. There is no point in it. All you can do is try to get them help. You can not reason them to mental health, and they may be too far gone to be helped.

peacegirl could very well have a form of schizophrenia.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still are missing why there is a mirror image without light having to travel to Earth, and why a mirror image shows up on a camera the same way even though cameras don't have a brain.

Here's another example of your mental illness. You are again returning to the claim that there can be a mirror image at a location where light has not travelled to. Yet when pressed you will admit that this mirror image consists of photons, that photons always travel, and that these photons therefore travelled to get to wherever they are. I know you will do this because we've been through the exact same exchange a thousand times already. But your mind is broken, and your faith compels you to repeat this same loop over and over again.

[davidm]

peacegirl, we shine a laser at the moon. Do we see its reflection off the moon instantaneously or with a time delay? If we see it with a time delay we are seeing the moon as it was slightly in the past. Slightly in this case because the moon is very close in celestial terms.

The experiment has been done numerous times and we see it with a delay, meaning we see the illuminated spot of the moon as it was very slightly in the past. Real time seeing is therefore false.

End of story. Lessans, meet fork -- again!

Why you persist with this nuttery is beyond me. You really need help.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I told Spacemonkey I don't want to answer anymore questions regarding photons traveling since it doesn't even relate.

And you've just completely ignored repeated explanations of why you are wrong about that. Your own model posits travelling photons, yet you cannot produce any coherent and consistent account of the position and location at different times of such photons compatible with real-time photography. That alone is a conclusive refutation of efferent vision, no matter how much you would like to ignore it.

You are not mentally well, Peacegirl. When we say this we are not trying to insult you out of frustration or anger. Can you at least acknowledge that we really are genuinely concerned about your mental health? The evidence for your cognitive impairment is just as conclusive and overwhelming as the evidence against Lessans' claims. But you won't honestly face up to either problem.

[LadyShea]

But you're assuming that when light bounces off of objects it is taking with it a particular pattern

Nobody assumes that nor thinks that, as has been explained to you countless times. This is a strawman.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was a hypothetical example LadyShea.

Regardless of how powerful a telescope would have to be, if all the conditions were right, scientists believe that we would be able to see a past event such as Columbus discovering America, which is what Lessans disputed.

As it is not at all empirically testable he couldn't have offered a more useless hypothetical.

Why do you insist on using something so stupid and useless and unable to support your point?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

scientists believe that we would be able to see a past event such as Columbus discovering America, which is what Lessans disputed.

And Lessans was wrong, and what the scientists believe is correct, given the proper conditions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

What in the blue hell are you babbling about, you little imbecile?

It's VERY OBVIOUS that if we saw in REAL TIME, the experiment of the flash-flickeirng lanterns would not work. Because it DOES work, we don't see in real time! End of story, derper!

I don't think you even know what real-time seeing means. Goddamn, but you are dumb.

No, it's not the end of story! I know you wish you could hand wave this thread away, but you can't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody assumes that nor thinks that, as has been explained to you countless times. This is a strawman.

It is not a strawman LadyShea. How many times has it been explained that light is absorbed and (N) reflected, and the reflected light travels independently with the pattern of the object, even when the object is no longer present?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Here's another example of your mental illness. You are again returning to the claim that there can be a mirror image at a location where light has not travelled to. Yet when pressed you will admit that this mirror image consists of photons, that photons always travel, and that these photons therefore travelled to get to wherever they are. I know you will do this because we've been through the exact same exchange a thousand times already. But your mind is broken, and your faith compels you to repeat this same loop over and over again.

Why do you want to talk to a mentally ill person? Find someone who is not mentally ill, and talk to them. You'll be a lot happier.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As it is not at all empirically testable he couldn't have offered a more useless hypothetical.

Why do you insist on using something so stupid and useless and unable to support your point?

He was using this as an example, so people could understand what he was talking about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

peacegirl, we shine a laser at the moon. Do we see its reflection off the moon instantaneously or with a time delay? If we see it with a time delay we are seeing the moon as it was slightly in the past. Slightly in this case because the moon is very close in celestial terms.

The experiment has been done numerous times and we see it with a delay, meaning we see the illuminated spot of the moon as it was very slightly in the past. Real time seeing is therefore false.

End of story. Lessans, meet fork -- again!

Why you persist with this nuttery is beyond me. You really need help.

Show me the proof that we see the moon in delayed time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I am presenting you with the evidence of your own mental illness. The question you are saying you want to answer concerns your own delusional behavior of constantly returning to an 'unanswered' question that has been repeatedly answered. Our answers to your question are correct and will not be changing. So your own behavior is clear evidence of your cognitive impairment. A sane person would not keep asking the same question in the hope of a different answer, when the only reason they have for rejecting the answers given is that those answers do not explain invented facts which no-one else believes to be true.

It has not been answered to my satisfaction, therefore I will continue to ask the question and posit a different answer that I believe is more accurate. So now you think you're Freud?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What's to interpret? There are stars, galaxies, nebulae, supernova etc.

I guess you have lost sight of the point of this discussion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No one can say I never did the Internets a big favor! I R winnah!

Read what ceptimus just wrote, you little fool!

Delayed seeing is the only way we have to measure the speed of light.

You do not even understand what real-time seeing entails. Neither did the buffoon Lessans. If we saw in real-time, we would have no way of telling how fast photons travel and we we would have to (correctly) adjudge them to be traveling infinitely fast. That you cannot see this necessary connection between measuring light speed and delayed seeing is nothing short of breathtaking.

It is incorrect that if we saw in real-time, we would have no way of telling how fast photons travel. If there's a target that we can measure, there is nothing about efferent vision that would prevent us from seeing this. The only thing Lessans was claiming was the light does not enter the brain and get interpreted as normal vision. You are talking about two different things.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, here's a question for you -- not that this hasn't been asked before, too!

If we shined a laser at the moon to illuminate a certain spot on it, would see see that illuminated spot (a) instantaneously, or (b) with a time delay? Notice that if you answer (b) it means, necessarily, that we are seeing that illuminated part of the moon as it was in the past.

Now, then, peacegirl, what is your answer? Take you time! I'm sure this is toughie. A little hint, though: this experiment has been done numerous times over the last fifty years, so we already know the answer!

There would be a delay depending on how long it takes for the laser to reach the spot on the moon in order to illuminate it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has not been answered to my satisfaction, therefore I will continue to ask the question and posit a different answer that I believe is more accurate. So now you think you're Freud?

Why on Earth would you persist in repeatedy asking us the same question when the only answer you will accept is your own?

Could anyone ask for clearer evidence of your mental illness?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you want to talk to a mentally ill person? Find someone who is not mentally ill, and talk to them. You'll be a lot happier.

You're asking me a question which I've already answered. I've told you why I'm here. You certainly can't dispute the obvious fact that the above is evidence of your broken mind. Why else would you keep returning to the refuted and contradictory claim that there can be a mirror image at a location that didn't have to travel to get there, and yet which consists of photons which did have to travel to get there? Face it Peacegirl, you are completely out to lunch. Seek help. What you are doing here is not healthy at all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There would be a delay depending on how long it takes for the laser to reach the spot on the moon in order to illuminate it.

And the time it takes corosponds to the total time for the 'round trip' not just the 'one way' trip of the light reaching the Moon. So in reality the light must travel to the Moon and illuminate the spot, which is then big enough and bright enough to be seen, but the observer does not see it till the light has been reflected and travels back to the observers eye. So the delay is the total 2 way trip, not just the one way trip. Efferent vision is disproved and false, we see in delayed time 'afferently'.
-
FYI, the distance to the Moon has been accurately measured, so there is no question there, and the speed of light has been accurately measured, so again there is no question. The brain looking through the eyes, does not change the distance to the moon or the speed of light, these are known quantities and the math is simple enough, even for you to do.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times has it been explained that light is absorbed and (N) reflected, and the reflected light travels independently with the pattern of the object, even when the object is no longer present?

Not once. Go back and read through the last 24hrs worth of posts and see if you can find which part of the above statement is incorrect. It was explained to you very recently.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not a strawman LadyShea. How many times has it been explained that light is absorbed and (N) reflected, and the reflected light travels independently with the pattern of the object, even when the object is no longer present?

There is no "pattern of the object" traveling "with" anything. The pattern is not a separate entity to be carried by or travel alongside or in or on the light.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was using this as an example, so people could understand what he was talking about.

And you continue to use it, even though it is not useful?

[LadyShea]

Oops