A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter what word I use, so please don't use that against me to make me look ditsy. I like the phrase "optical range" because this account is supported by optics

No it isn't. Nothing you are claiming is supported by optics, and a lot of it is flatly contradicted by it. You don't appear to know anything about optics. You keep using phrases from that field without knowing what they mean.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

No it isn't. Nothing you are claiming is supported by optics, and a lot of it is flatly contradicted by it. You don't appear to know anything about optics. You keep using phrases from that field without knowing what they mean.

The only difference that I see is the fact that in the afferent account, we are resolving photons without the object having to be in range, and in the efferent account, we are resolving photons with the object having to be in range. Other than that, we're still dealing with light dispersion, angle of reflection, etc. Nothing changes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then what exactly is going on? You've been unable to explain how it happens. The analogy is perfectly apt as it applies to physical interaction between two physical objects.

No, as we have explained many times, and as you've agreed to be true, nobody thinks or theorizes or believes that images bounce or travel anywhere. This is the same misrepresentation of the standard model of vision that Lessans made and that you continue to make even after many corrections.

We've only ever stated that light reflects and travels, not images, light. You've stated light does not reflect and travel. That is stating that light works differently in the efferent model.

Light gets reflected but the image or pattern does not. The non-absorbed light gets dispersed which means there is a point at which the pattern (or wavelength/frequency) will no longer will be at the retina, film, telescope, or any other instrument that picks up photons. This particular wavelength/frequency of non-absorbed photons, therefore, does not continue on through space/time ad infinitum, as scientists now believe.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I have no idea what you are talking about. You've been evading my questions for YEARS, so don't pretend it's because of something I've allegedly done within the last few pages.

Since you have such a short memory, this is what I'm referring to. Do you actually believe I'm going to have a conversation with you after such a derogatory comment?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You don't know that.

Yes I do know that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what? Light is reflected or emitted, but the pattern that is the light (not the basket) gets dispersed to a certain point beyond which the object can no longer be seen. This pattern does not go on forever.

What does that have to do with flames?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you grilling me on this, as if this somehow disproves his claim? I've answered you already. It has to do with the combusion of a particular fuel.

It's a glaring exception to what you've been claiming. You've stated the conditions for efferent vision many times, and all flames meet those requirements, yet some flames cannot be seen despite meeting the requirements.

Is there a condition for seeing objects you've thus far failed to mention? Why does the type of fuel being burnt have anything to do with how the eyes work? Why can't we see a real object that is surrounded by light?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, in invisible fires, it produces heat but not light, therefore, it does not meet the conditions of sight.

Which condition for efferent sight is not met?
The object must be bright enough, meaning it has enough light surrounding it
The object must be close enough
The object must be big enough
The object must be in the optical range

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This kind of fire is rare and has to do with the ethanol and the chemical reaction when it reaches the flashpoint.

It's not only ethanol that burns invisibly...alcohol also does and hydrogen I think. Invisible flames can be easily produced by anyone with hand sanitizer gel.

"Has to do with" is not informative or explanatory, can you expand on how this chemical reaction renders real objects invisible?

Originally Posted by Wiki

[I]Fire is not invisible; fire is the chemical chain reaction from combustion that creates heat and light. Combustion, which is the actual burning process, is strictly chemical rearrangement and is invisible - but once you add oxygen to it, it becomes visible as fire.

Except for invisible flames, which is what we're talking about...so how does this support your repeated claims about efferent vision?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it does not. It means the photons are at the retina, and the object is in one's visual field.

There are no photons being emitted by the Sun? Where did the photons at the retina come from?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light gets reflected .

Light that is not absorbed gets transmitted or reflected and travels unless/until it encounters matter that absorbs it. You've denied this to be the case many, many times. Are you now retracting those multiple statements?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but the image or pattern does not

Nobody has ever claimed otherwise. That is a text book example of a strawman, fighting against a position nobody holds. All anyone has ever stated is that light that is not absorbed gets reflected and continues traveling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The non-absorbed light gets dispersed which means there is a point at which the pattern (or wavelength/frequency) will no longer will be at the retina, film, telescope, or any other instrument that picks up photons.

Only traveling light can disperse. So you are now admitting that light gets reflected and travels? Do you retract your previous statements to the contrary?

And if you are so keen on optics and believe they support efferent vision, why do you refuse to use the optics term "reflect" or "reflected" and continue to use "non-absorbed"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This particular wavelength/frequency of non-absorbed photons, therefore, does not continue on through space/time ad infinitum, as scientists now believe.

Then efferent vision requires that light has different properties than it is known to have, and contradicts optics in every way

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Since you have such a short memory, this is what I'm referring to. Do you actually believe I'm going to have a conversation with you after such a derogatory comment?

What exactly was derogatory about pointing out that you do not know something that you in fact do not know?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I do know that.

How do you know that you are not schizophrenic?

Unless you've been to a psychiatrist you do not know this at all.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light gets reflected but the image or pattern does not.

In the afferent model the light is the pattern and the pattern is the light, so the distinction you are trying to make does not make any sense at all. They are one and the same. The pattern is not anything over and above the light that comprises it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The non-absorbed light gets dispersed which means there is a point at which the pattern (or wavelength/frequency) will no longer will be at the retina, film, telescope, or any other instrument that picks up photons.

No, Peacegirl. That is not what 'dispersed' means.

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1110165][quote=peacegirl;1110153]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But if there is enough light surrounding the object, like sunlight in this case, why must it emit light to be seen? Many objects do not emit light and they can be seen using the surrounding light

So what? Light is reflected or emitted, but the pattern that is the light (not the basket) gets dispersed to a certain point beyond which the object can no longer be seen. This pattern does not go on forever.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does that have to do with flames?

I've lost you. Yes, light from other sources sometimes lights up an object that does not produce its own light. What are you trying to get at? We see the moon because of the Sun's light, so what? The moon is reflecting the light, but the pattern is not being reflected (which only means traveling through space/time indefinitely).

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You stated previously that when we see a regular candle flame, we see the actual combusting hot gases, not the light. So why can we see a candle flame but not an ethanol flame? They are both combusting hot gases.

Yes they are, but they have a different chemistry obviously when they combust.

Why are you grilling me on this, as if this somehow disproves his claim? I've answered you already. It has to do with the combusion of a particular fuel.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's a glaring exception to what you've been claiming. You've stated the conditions for efferent vision many times, and all flames meet those requirements, yet some flames cannot be seen despite meeting the requirements.

Flames do not always meet those requirements obviously. There are rare exceptions and therefore whether we see afferently or efferently, the flames would be invisible in ethanol fires.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Is there a condition for seeing objects you've thus far failed to mention? Why does the type of fuel being burnt have anything to do with how the eyes work? Why can't we see a real object that is surrounded by light?

We can see an object that is surrounded by light if the light is bright enough. The type of fuel being burnt has to do with chemistry and how visible flames are produced. If the byproduct of combustion does not produce visible flames because of the type of fuel being used, then how can we see them?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, in invisible fires, it produces heat but not light, therefore, it does not meet the conditions of sight.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which condition for efferent sight is not met?
The object must be bright enough, meaning it has enough light surrounding it
The object must be close enough
The object must be big enough
The object must be in the optical range

The object is not bright enough.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This kind of fire is rare and has to do with the ethanol and the chemical reaction when it reaches the flashpoint.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not only ethanol that burns invisibly...alcohol also does and hydrogen I think. Invisible flames can be easily produced by anyone with hand sanitizer gel.

"Has to do with" is not informative or explanatory, can you expand on how this chemical reaction renders real objects invisible?

Incomplete combustion. I am not interested in a chemistry lesson because this is getting way off onto another tangent which has absolutely no relation to this topic at all.

Originally Posted by Wiki

[I]Fire is not invisible; fire is the chemical chain reaction from combustion that creates heat and light. Combustion, which is the actual burning process, is strictly chemical rearrangement and is invisible - but once you add oxygen to it, it becomes visible as fire.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Except for invisible flames, which is what we're talking about...so how does this support your repeated claims about efferent vision?

Only in the sense that visible fires are produced by the burning of certain fuels that produce heat and light. When the fuel being used does not produce these byproducts due to their properties when burned, then they will not produce light. If they don't produce light, only heat, we will still get burned but not be able to see the fire.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What exactly was derogatory about pointing out that you do not know something that you in fact do not know?

How do you know that you are not schizophrenic?

Unless you've been to a psychiatrist you do not know this at all.

Oh, so everybody has to be told by a psychiatrist that they are not schizophrenic? Are you okay Spacemonkey? Maybe it is you that needs to go to a psychiatrist to make sure you're not dealing with a mental problem.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference that I see is the fact that in the afferent account, we are resolving photons without the object having to be in range, and in the efferent account, we are resolving photons with the object having to be in range. Other than that, we're still dealing with light dispersion, angle of reflection, etc. Nothing changes.

If this is the only difference, then you are saying that everything about the afferent account is correct except for this detail. The afferent account states that photons reflect and travel to the eye to be resolved into an image. So now you are saying that this is what happens in the efferent account? And the only difference is the presence or absence of the object.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh, so everybody has to be told by a psychiatrist that they are not schizophrenic? Are you okay Spacemonkey? Maybe it is you that needs to go to a psychiatrist to make sure you're not dealing with a mental problem.

Again, how do you know that you are not schizophrenic?

You are the one making a big deal about me saying you don't actually know this, so tell me HOW you know that you are not.

If you can't tell me how you know this, then you have no grounds for objection, and no grounds for continuing to evade my perfectly reasonable questions.

[koan]

Here's your problem with me "peacegirl":
I'm not projecting because I have no need to project. I know my mental state and I've learned to distinguish between reality and non reality. I can go on a bender and come out of it because I recognise that it is not real. It'll still take me a few weeks to work that out but only a few weeks. You've been going for how many years?

I'll tell you something more: I can go further than you because it's fun for me. I can take your delusion and make it even better. I could turn your father's delusion into a religion. But I know it's a delusion. You don't. You hate me because I can identify with you. I actually have true compassion but compassion is different than sympathy. If I just felt sorry for you I'd tell you that you were right when I know you're wrong. Compassion means more. It is deep awareness of suffering coupled with the wish to relieve it. Sometimes relieving the suffering can seem cruel. I have no patience for mentally ill people who insist on continuing their delusions. Wake the fuck up.

I'm not sane. I'm not superior. What I am is aware of the signs of mental illness. I know them intimately well. It takes one to know one.

I'll make you a deal. I'm going to go to a doctor and get an official assessment. Not just of what is wrong with me, because I'm pretty sure I've figured that out, but to what degree I suffer from it. You go to a doctor and do the same thing. Take Lessan's book with you and tell the doctor what you are trying to accomplish and for how long you've been doing it. We'll meet back here and tell each other what the assessment was.

I'm going to take a brief version of Lessans' book with me when I go and ask the doctor what they suspect of Lessans as well. So we can compare notes. (Just to keep you honest.)

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The object (alcohol fire flames) is not bright enough.

Why are you mad? You said the following just last week so I am trying to follow your reasoning.

Originally Posted by peacegirl on 1/19/13

The only requirement for sight is that the object is large enough and the light surrounding the object is bright enough.

In the race car fire it was full daylight, more than enough light was surrounding the object. Why do flames need to emit light in order to see them in the efferent account?

You seem to be saying what you've said all along...which is absolutely nothing more than "we see what can be seen because we can see it". You have nothing at all to offer as far as investigative opportunities.

[LadyShea]

duplicate

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by koan

(Just to keep you honest.)

And there is your problem, you believe that Peacegirl is interested in being honest. Either she is alrady in therapy and this is part of her treatment, or she somehow sees this as a means to promote her book as a meal ticket. So she is either very delusional, beyond rationality, or very cleaverly baiting everyone here to keep the thread going. I think that she occasionally slips up and displays too much expertise to be truely delusional, but is puting on a very clevar act. She is not uneducated, her vocabulary gives that away, and she once mentioned a college degree, so her feigned ignorance must be very carefully crafted to keep it going.

[koan]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And there is your problem, you believe that Peacegirl is interested in being honest. Either she is alrady in therapy and this is part of her treatment, or she somehow sees this as a means to promote her book as a meal ticket. So she is either very delusional, beyond rationality, or very cleaverly baiting everyone here to keep the thread going. I think that she occasionally slips up and displays too much expertise to be truely delusional, but is puting on a very clevar act. She is not uneducated, her vocabulary gives that away, and she once mentioned a college degree, so her feigned ignorance must be very carefully crafted to keep it going.

I don't think she's honest at all. That's why I'm going to use a few minutes of my psych time to get her a free evaluation.

It's very difficult to get a schizophrenic to see a doctor and, once there, to get them to tell the doctor what their delusion is. There is a window of opportunity when you convince them that there is a small chance they could be wrong before they decide you are a) jealous b) vindictive and mean c) part of the plot against them d) sent to test their devotion to the delusion e) all of the above f) something else the voices in their head tell them

Usually they don't get diagnosed until they are arrested or committed by a family member.

Intelligence has naught to do with it. The more intelligent she is the more susceptible she may be to the illness. When we talk about the science aspects of her delusion we validate her. She is building her vocabulary and her delusion through fighting with us. The worst thing that could happen to her is for nobody to discuss this project with her. As long as she gets feedback on what she needs to explain to have the "discovery" make sense the more she feels she is getting closer to success. She doesn't need to publish the book because she has us here to talk to her about it. The science is evidently bad. It doesn't need disproving. There is no science. Why are we discussing it? As long as she thinks we are actually contemplating these ideas scientifically she is hyped. She will find new terms and new ways of trying to justify the belief.

Sure it's fun to see what she'll come up with next but her vocabulary and intelligence have nothing to do with her sanity.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference that I see is the fact that in the afferent account, we are resolving photons without the object having to be in range, and in the efferent account, we are resolving photons with the object having to be in range. Other than that, we're still dealing with light dispersion, angle of reflection, etc. Nothing changes.

Of course it does. You are using words like photon and dispersion and 'in range' to mean completely different things to optics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are no photons being emitted by the Sun? Where did the photons at the retina come from?

Of course they are, otherwise, there would no photons at the retina when the Sun is bright enough to be seen, which is one of the requirements.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Of course it does. You are using words like photon and dispersion and 'in range' to mean completely different things to optics.

Please elaborate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why are you mad? You said the following just last week so I am trying to follow your reasoning.

I'm not mad, I'm perplexed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl on 1/19/13

The only requirement for sight is that the object is large enough and the light surrounding the object is bright enough.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In the race car fire it was full daylight, more than enough light was surrounding the object. Why do flames need to emit light in order to see them in the efferent account?

Yes, there was enough light surrounding the object, but we're talking about fuel and how it interacts with the environment. If it does not produce light when it combusts, then we can't see the flame even if it's daylight. When I said light has to be surrounding the object, I was alluding to objects that are made up of materials that can absorb light and reflect light. If a flame met the conditions of efferent sight (brightness and size), the photons permitting us to see it would be at the retina instantly. If we're talking about a star, we don't need daylight to see it. We just need enough intensity of light coming from the star that would allow it to be bright enough to be seen by the naked eye or a telescope.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You seem to be saying what you've said all along...which is absolutely nothing more than "we see what can be seen because we can see it". You have nothing at all to offer as far as investigative opportunities.

That's exactly what you said with his discovery regarding "greater satisfaction." When did you become the final artiber of what is true and what isn't? If you don't think there is any way to investigate this claim, then drop the subject.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

I don't think she's honest at all. That's why I'm going to use a few minutes of my psych time to get her a free evaluation.

It's very difficult to get a schizophrenic to see a doctor and, once there, to get them to tell the doctor what their delusion is. There is a window of opportunity when you convince them that there is a small chance they could be wrong before they decide you are a) jealous b) vindictive and mean c) part of the plot against them d) sent to test their devotion to the delusion e) all of the above f) something else the voices in their head tell them

Usually they don't get diagnosed until they are arrested or committed by a family member.

Intelligence has naught to do with it. The more intelligent she is the more susceptible she may be to the illness. When we talk about the science aspects of her delusion we validate her. She is building her vocabulary and her delusion through fighting with us. The worst thing that could happen to her is for nobody to discuss this project with her. As long as she gets feedback on what she needs to explain to have the "discovery" make sense the more she feels she is getting closer to success. She doesn't need to publish the book because she has us here to talk to her about it. The science is evidently bad. It doesn't need disproving. There is no science. Why are we discussing it? As long as she thinks we are actually contemplating these ideas scientifically she is hyped. She will find new terms and new ways of trying to justify the belief.

Sure it's fun to see what she'll come up with next but her vocabulary and intelligence have nothing to do with her sanity.

This just shows how koan is trying to use her faulty diagnosis to put me into a false category. That's the danger of labeling people. She starts out with a phony premise that I'm the one with a mental problem and then she follows through with her phony reasoning that comes to a phony conclusion, but in her mind everything seems to fit perfectly. That is the sign of someone who is trying desperately to identify others who are like her. It gives her a feeling of safety that she is not the only crazy one. If it helps her, let her think what she wants, but in the end she will be apologetic when this discovery is confirmed valid.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course they are, otherwise, there would no photons at the retina when the Sun is bright enough to be seen, which is one of the requirements.

Then why did you say "No it does not" when my point absolutely stands?

The retina is a location and the Sun is a location. If the Sun is newly turned on at noon, and the photons are on the retina at noon as well as being emitted by the Sun at noon, that means light is in two places at the same time.