A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Don't be so stupid. YOUR MODEL has light at the film. So YOUR MODEL needs to say where that light previously was. So...

Care to remind us again of how the red photons get to be at the camera film at the very moment the distant object first turns red? Where did you say those same photons where just a moment beforehand?

This model does have light at the retina (I told you I'm not going to confuse people by discussing film), but you think it violates physics if the light hasn't traveled to the eye. In other words, you don't understand the plausibility of the eyes to see the natural world without the photons traveling and arriving. This is the afferent model whether you see it or not. There's no way I can get you to understand that this is a very plausible model if the requirements of efferent vision are met. This phenomenon rests entirely on what the brain and eyes are doing, in which case light becomes a necessary condition of sight, but does not bring the image to us.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

That's right, it's one or the other. But it isn't real-time seeing, because the Fizeau experiment alone disproves this. The light, the mirror, the reflection of the light in the mirror, none of these things is seen in real time, as I explained to you.

It does not disprove anything. Measuring the speed of light through this experiment does not mean we actually see the external world in delayed time. The confusion here is the idea that this same light will bounce off of an object and be able to bring the image to our eyes even if the object, or material substance, that is reflecting that image is nowhere to be seen. Even if it's a mirror reflecting the image, the object is still present. I know I'm failing to explain this in a way that is scientifically compelling for those who want the exact mechanism, so this discussion has come to a dead end. There will just be the same old accusations of people calling me stupid, mentally ill, and a fundie.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This model does have light at the retina (I told you I'm not going to confuse people by discussing film)...

Bad luck. Your account requires real-time photography as well as vision, so I'm asking you about photography. And the issue is not whether light is at the film, but rather where it was just beforehand.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but you think it violates physics if the light hasn't traveled to the eye.

Wrong. I'm saying it violates ELEMENTARY LOGIC to say that the light at the film previously existed and had a location, but was neither at the film nor anywhere else.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In other words, you don't understand the plausibility of the eyes to see the natural world without the photons traveling and arriving. This is the afferent model whether you see it or not. There's no way I can get you to understand that this is a very plausible model if the requirements of efferent vision are met.

It's not a plausible model at all if it posits light at the film but cannot explain where that light came from or where it was just beforehand.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This phenomenon rests entirely on what the brain and eyes are doing...

Absolutely false. Efferent vision also requires real-time photography, so it also rests upon the behavior of light which would be needed to make this possible even in the absence of brains and eyes. So...

Care to remind us again of how the red photons get to be at the camera film at the very moment the distant object first turns red? Where did you say those same photons where just a moment beforehand?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, in real-time photography, in a scenario involving only an object, a camera, and light (and no eyes, brains, or vision)...

1) You agree that some of the light which hits the object is not absorbed, still exists 0.0001sec after hitting the object, and must have a location at that time. So what is the location of these nonabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? Are they about 30 meters from the object and traveling away from it at light speed? Yes or No? If no, then where are they located at this time?

2) You agree that there are photons at the camera film (interacting with it to determine the color of the resulting image) when the photograph is taken, that this light also existed 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken, and that it must have had a location at this time. So what is the location of these photons 0.0001sec before they are at the camera film (i.e. 0.0001sec before the photograph is taken)? Were they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it at light speed? Yes or No? If no, then were were they located at this time?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

Yes. So stop asking this question. You are an interrogator Spacemonkey, no different than the police who interrogate those who are not guilty, but who are made to confess that they are. Are you happy now? Now I want you to leave me alone, okay? Forget this thread and go back to your other responsibilities.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This model does have light at the retina (I told you I'm not going to confuse people by discussing film)

Film photography requires light photons to be located on the surface of the camera film to create a photographic image via photochemical processes. This is not confusing.

Your model must account for the photons that are located on the surface of the camera film at the time the photograph is taken. As light, they must have been in existence before the photograph was taken and they must have been traveling through locations, otherwise the laws of physics have been violated (specifically the laws of conservation and the properties of electromagnetic energy). This is not confusing.

So photons at camera film at the time of picture taking as required. Where were those specific photons .0001 second before that?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes. So stop asking this question. You are an interrogator Spacemonkey, no different than the police who interrogate those who are not guilty, but who are made to confess that they are. Are you happy now? Now I want you to leave me alone, okay? Forget this thread and go back to your other responsibilities.

I would say 3) is a definite YES.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes. So stop asking this question. You are an interrogator Spacemonkey, no different than the police who interrogate those who are not guilty, but who are made to confess that they are. Are you happy now? Now I want you to leave me alone, okay? Forget this thread and go back to your other responsibilities.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes. So stop asking this question. You are an interrogator Spacemonkey, no different than the police who interrogate those who are not guilty, but who are made to confess that they are. Are you happy now? Now I want you to leave me alone, okay? Forget this thread and go back to your other responsibilities.

Are we to take that as a 'Yes' to all three questions?

If not, then which of the three questions were you answering?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are we to take that as a 'Yes' to all three questions?

If not, then which of the three questions were you answering?

You're out the door Spacemonkey, that's all I have to say.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're out the door Spacemonkey, that's all I have to say.

Which question were you saying 'Yes' to?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Which question were you saying 'Yes' to?

The question of your competence.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're out the door Spacemonkey, that's all I have to say.

Spacemonkey, it's only the (P) door.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The question of your competence.

That must have been the (P) question.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bad luck. Your account requires real-time photography as well as vision, so I'm asking you about photography. And the issue is not whether light is at the film, but rather where it was just beforehand.

I'm not dismissing real time photography, I'm just not answering any questions related to it because cameras and eyes work the same way. You actually believe that this light would show up differently on film rather than the retina, which is nonsense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but you think it violates physics if the light hasn't traveled to the eye.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Wrong. I'm saying it violates ELEMENTARY LOGIC to say that the light at the film previously existed and had a location, but was neither at the film nor anywhere else.

It did previously exist, but these traveling photons have nothing to do with the light that is captured on film or the eye. If the role of light is to reveal the material world, do you think it's going to change properties just because we're using a camera?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In other words, you don't understand the plausibility of the eyes to see the natural world without the photons traveling and arriving. This is the afferent model whether you see it or not. There's no way I can get you to understand that this is a very plausible model if the requirements of efferent vision are met.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's not a plausible model at all if it posits light at the film but cannot explain where that light came from or where it was just beforehand.

Where did it come from? You're once again back in the afferent position. The phrase "come from" means that it's going somewhere, but the light that is captured is a mirror image, which means that it went nowhere when it was captured on the film/retina. This does not mean that light doesn't travel. The two concepts are unrelated. That's why Lessans said: It would take no time for us to see the Sun if it was just turned on (because it would meet the requirements of efferent vision), but it would take 8 minutes for it to travel to Earth and for us to see each other.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This phenomenon rests entirely on what the brain and eyes are doing...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Absolutely false. Efferent vision also requires real-time photography, so it also rests upon the behavior of light which would be needed to make this possible even in the absence of brains and eyes. So...

Care to remind us again of how the red photons get to be at the camera film at the very moment the distant object first turns red? Where did you say those same photons where just a moment beforehand?

No, I do not care to remind you of anything related to red photons. You still don't have a clue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Film photography requires light photons to be located on the surface of the camera film to create a photographic image via photochemical processes. This is not confusing.

Well obviously it is.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your model must account for the photons that are located on the surface of the camera film at the time the photograph is taken. As light, they must have been in existence before the photograph was taken and they must have been traveling through locations, otherwise the laws of physics have been violated (specifically the laws of conservation and the properties of electromagnetic energy). This is not confusing.

Obviously it is. You are wrong about the laws of physics being broken. You are separating light from the object, which is why you're failing to understand this concept. I think it's because you have been so entrenched with the idea that cameras are just light detectors, that you just can't imagine how this concept works. In every single situation the OBJECT (or substance of any kind), that is interacting with the light must be present. You don't seem to get the importance of this along with the difference between seeing afferently or efferently, which changes how cameras work.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So photons at camera film at the time of picture taking as required. Where were those specific photons .0001 second before that?

So you're going to continue where Spacemonkey left off? Nuh uh!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The question of your competence.

Well, I'm glad you agree that I'm competent.

Seriously though. What was it you were answering 'Yes' to?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well obviously it is.

It's not confusing at all.

Your feeble attempts to explain how the photons get to the camera film and where those photons came from is highly confused, the concept is not.

There are photons on the surface of the camera film, where did they come from and how did they get there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously it is. You are wrong about the laws of physics being broken.

Light is energy which cannot be created or destroyed. Law of physics

Light always travels. Law of physics

When light encounters matter it can be absorbed, reflected, or transmitted only. Law of physics

If light is located on the surface of a piece of camera film it had to get to the surface of that camera film by some mechanism. Only traveling to it doesn't break the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are separating light from the object, which is why you're failing to understand this concept.

Light exists independently of it's emitting or reflecting source. Law of physics

If light is located on the surface of a piece of camera film it had to get to the surface of that camera film by some mechanism. Only traveling to it doesn't break the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think it's because you have been so entrenched with the idea that cameras are just light detectors, that you just can't imagine how this concept works.

Film photography requires photons to be located at the surface of camera film to be absorbed and initiate a photochemical process.

Are you now positing some other mechanism by which film photography creates photographic images on film?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In every single situation the OBJECT (or substance of any kind), that is interacting with the light must be present. You don't seem to get the importance of this along with the difference between seeing afferently or efferently, which changes how cameras work.

Completely irrelevant to my questions which regards only the photons located at the surface of the camera film.

The object can be there if you want, it doesn't matter to the question

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So you're going to continue where Spacemonkey left off? Nuh uh!

I have been asking the same question for months and months. I did pick up his specific factor, but it's not a different question.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not dismissing real time photography, I'm just not answering any questions related to it because cameras and eyes work the same way. You actually believe that this light would show up differently on film rather than the retina, which is nonsense.

I have not said anything about light showing up differently on film than on the retina. And if cameras and the eyes work the same way then it should be easy for you to answer questions about either one.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It did previously exist, but these traveling photons have nothing to do with the light that is captured on film or the eye. If the role of light is to reveal the material world, do you think it's going to change properties just because we're using a camera?

What traveling photons? And who said anything about light changing properties? I'm just asking you about the light at the film. That light cannot have nothing to do with the light that is captured on film.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where did it come from? You're once again back in the afferent position. The phrase "come from" means that it's going somewhere, but the light that is captured is a mirror image, which means that it went nowhere when it was captured on the film/retina. This does not mean that light doesn't travel. The two concepts are unrelated. That's why Lessans said: It would take no time for us to see the Sun if it was just turned on (because it would meet the requirements of efferent vision), but it would take 8 minutes for it to travel to Earth and for us to see each other.

Did the light at the film previously exist or not? You said that it did, and that it had a previous location. If that location is also the same (i.e. at the film) then it is stationary non-traveling light. If it is different (i.e. anywhere else) then it had to get from there to the film.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I do not care to remind you of anything related to red photons. You still don't have a clue.

So are there no red photons in efferent vision? Then how do we see or photograph red objects?

[Spacemonkey]

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

[Spacemonkey]

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

[Spacemonkey]

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

[Spacemonkey]

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the light that is captured is a mirror image, which means that it went nowhere when it was captured on the film/retina.

Light located at camera film had to get to that location by some physical mechanism. Only traveling to that location is consistent with both the laws of physics and the known properties of light.

If you are positing a different mechanism, you are positing changing the laws of physics and/or changing the known properties of light.