Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You have absolutely no understanding of efferent vision... You need to first try to recognize the plausibility of the efferent model before coming to the premature conclusion that he is wrong...
|
If you want or expect me to understand efferent vision or recognise its alleged plausibility, then you'll need to answer my questions about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
...you keep basing your logic on the afferent model (even if you don't see it).
|
The help me see it. Show me exactly where and what the afferent assumptions are in the following set of questions:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?
Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]
Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]
Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]
Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]
Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]
If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]
|
And how about the next set? Where and what are the afferent assumptions here:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]
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]
3. If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?
|
Either show me these alleged afferent assumptions, or answer the questions already. |
Bumpity bump bump McBump. |
...bump bump. |
...and yet another bump for our dishonest question-dodging weasel.