A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Didn't you ask me to go ahead and cut and paste? I don't want to do this if no one wants me to because then I'll be called a liar.

peacegirl you are such a boob. After all these posts it still doesn't dawn on you that you've done this all before many times and the outcome is always the same. People have the same reaction.

When are you gonna seek professional help and end this crazy cycle you are stuck in?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

True, except for being called a liar one more time.

So how do you think that's gonna turn out peacegirl. A moron would have figured it out by now, but it would take someone mentally ill to not see what is gonna happen. Someone like you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

FINALLY!

So then you were wrong in your initial answer:

So now we're back to that initial question. Given that the light did travel to get to the camera, where did it travel from?

4. Did the light present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken previously travel from the object to get there?

I never said light doesn't travel, but you're missing the meaning behind efferent vision. I tried to explain that when object is in view, the distance from the object to the camera or retina does not require travel time because the light being used is right there, as a mirror image of the object (so to speak). I have tried to explain this in many different ways, including the fact that light coming from an object without the object present would never be detected on film or the lens of a telescope. It's true that light can travel and be detected, but that's not what I'm talking about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What about pictures taken at night?

We can see an object as long as light is surrounding the object because light is a condition of sight. It should be obvious that we can't see something if there's no light in which to see it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The moons of Jupiter observation is reliable, you can even test it yourself, and has been replicated countless time over several centuries.

The moons of Jupiter observation is reliable, that's true, but the explanation as to what is going on is still circumstantial. Is it possible that there could be another explanation for what is occurring?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

With respect to these points...

...do you agree or disagree that:

(i) These things have to be true for the conclusions of his book to be true?

The terms you use are questionable. Conscience is innate, yes. God-given? What do you mean by that? Infallible? What do you mean by that? And I'm not sure what you mean by point 5?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

(ii) He did not argue for or support these things anywhere within his book?

I believe he argued for and supported these terms, if they mean what I'm assuming they mean.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Right, so now you're agreeing that the light at the camera (at the time the photograph was taken) previously travelled there from the sun by way of the surface of the object being photographed.

Now you have previously agreed that the nature of the image produced on the film is caused by the properties (i.e. frequency) of the light at the camera when the photograph is taken.

So the next question is this: If the object changes color after the light in question leaves its surface, but before that light reaches the camera (i.e. before the photograph is taken), can the frequency of that travelling light change while it is in transit (between the object and the camera) so that it continues to match the real-time color of the object?

Once again, you're losing the whole idea behind efferent vision. The frequency can only be the same as the actual object because there is no travel time when you are looking at the object directly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe that is true because blind people can see patterns from impulses being relayed by the optic nerve, but this doesn't mean we're dealing with true vision; the kind of vision that allows us to actually see normally.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're missing the point. Lessans' bizzare strawman of what he wrongly thought afferent vision requires never happens. What afferent vision does require actually does happen, as you just agreed. So Lessans' passage you quoted is incorrect. He did not describe a requirement of afferent vision which doesn't actually occur.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All the information is there at the eye, that is true, but the eye can't see itself. It must use the light's wavelengths by means of the cones and rods to see the real world --- that's out there --- not in the brain.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is nothing efferent in this at all. What you describe is simply the brain interpreting afferently recieved (and allegedly real-time) information from the light which has arrived at the eyes. What you are describing is how people 'look out'. You are no longer describing how all this happens and then the brain looks out as some further additional act. This is no longer efferent. It is just (allegedly) real-time afferent vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At one time light had to travel to the object, but once the light is here, it's always here. I'll say this again: If you can see an object through a lens, the light is already present so when you take a photograph it's a photograph in real time, not delayed time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No-one is denying that the light is always there once it is there. That is a tautology and does not in any way establish that the photograph will be real-time rather than delayed.

Your logic is way off. What you just posted that makes no sense to me, yet you think you have figured it all out. If you believe the eyes are afferent, the more power to you, but I will stick with my belief that it's not. Let's agree to disagree, okay?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true. This thread was intended for his first discovery until it got hijacked again. I also said more empirical studies will determine, once and for all, who is right, but the testing has to be reliable and replicable.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are still refusing to discuss his first non-discovery with me. And no further testing is necessary. All you have to do is follow through the implications of your own position for yourself by answering my questions. Do you have the courage to do that?

This has nothing to do with courage. And please don't patronize me. I have followed through with the implications, and I believe he was right.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So the next question is this: If the object changes color after the light in question leaves its surface, but before that light reaches the camera (i.e. before the photograph is taken), can the frequency of that travelling light change while it is in transit (between the object and the camera) so that it continues to match the real-time color of the object?

The light is not in transit Spacemonkey when it comes to objects that are resolved by our retina, or by the film in a camera. You are the confused one, sorry.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Actually, pretty much everyone but peacegirl and Lessans would deny that the light is always there once it is there. I believe they are the only ones who believe that light just hangs around waiting for us to see stuff.

That's not even the issue. The issue is the fact that an object must be present for it to be seen which does not require light to travel. I still maintain that Lessans was right because it makes complete sense based on his findings.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And when his knowledge turns out to be true, what will people think of you and your disgusting name calling even if they don't know your real name. I guarantee you would not talk this way if you weren't anonymous. What a coward!

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

DOH! You got me. I didn't know peacegirl was your real name.

People know my real name. I also have nothing to be ashamed of. You, on the other hand, do, which is why you wouldn't dare to come forward.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The moons of Jupiter observation is reliable, that's true, but the explanation as to what is going on is still circumstantial. Is it possible that there could be another explanation for what is occurring?

NO, the moons move behind Jupiter and we can still see them because the light is still traveling to us. The moons move out from behind Jupiter and we do not see them till the light has had time to get here. It's all very straight forward, has been observed many times, and the explination is well understood by all who do not chose to deny it. The only other explination is WOO.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes. Yes, I am. If I can't see that Lessans was right about things he never gave anyone any reason to think to be true, then that's my fault, not his. Nothing could ever be his fault. He was infallibly perfect and must be worshipped with unwavering faith and devotion. All hail the great Lessans!

Do I sense jealousy Spacemonkey?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you showing jealousy Spacemonkey?

I think 'Sarcasm' would be more accurate, but that is just another word that you do not understand.

[davidm]

[quote=peacegirl;1021666][quote=Spacemonkey;1021611][quote=thedoc;1021608]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do I sense jealousy Spacemonkey?

You are so deluded you are practically infantile.

[davidm]

Look, she is spam posting now, more off her rocker than usual, I guess.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Look, she is spam posting now, more off her rocker than usual, I guess.

No, that would defy the laws of relativity and exceed C.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People know my real name. I also have nothing to be ashamed of. You, on the other hand, do, which is why you wouldn't dare to come forward.

Now that is very interesting. If I came forward would that make you insane or Lessans more of a moron? Your defense of Lessans and of your sanity is all you. Too bad you're not sane enough to realize it. A sane person given what you and Lessans have to work with would have left 15,000 posts ago. Consider the post count a measure of your insanity. You get nuttier by the post.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do I sense jealousy Spacemonkey?

No. You don't. Why would you think that?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said light doesn't travel...

Yes, you did. Liar. I even quoted you saying so in the post you were here replying to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but you're missing the meaning behind efferent vision. I tried to explain that when object is in view, the distance from the object to the camera or retina does not require travel time because the light being used is right there, as a mirror image of the object (so to speak). I have tried to explain this in many different ways, including the fact that light coming from an object without the object present would never be detected on film or the lens of a telescope. It's true that light can travel and be detected, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Not only have you failed to answer the question posed in the post you were replying to, but you've missed the fact that you had already subsequently answered it in a different post to someone else, and that the question you know need to answer is a different one.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The terms you use are questionable. Conscience is innate, yes. God-given? What do you mean by that? Infallible? What do you mean by that? And I'm not sure what you mean by point 5?

No. These terms are not questionable. 'God-given' means given by God. 'Infallible' means not fallible. Look them up if you have to. I've been asking you about these presuppositions all week and now you're going to tell me you don't even undertstand them? The correct answer is that these things do have to be true for his arguments to work. If you wish to disagree, then the onus is on you to show otherwise.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe he argued for and supported these terms, if they mean what I'm assuming they mean.

Then you believe wrongly. At no point does he argue for or support any of the above points anywhere in his book. Go ahead and look. You won't find him offering a single scrap of evidence or argument in support of any of these points. If you think otherwise then quote me a paragraph (only!) where you think he does so.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once again, you're losing the whole idea behind efferent vision. The frequency can only be the same as the actual object because there is no travel time when you are looking at the object directly.

Wrong. We are talking about the specific light that is at the camera when the photograph is taken, and which you have agreed previously travelled to get there from the surface of the object. You agreed the light at the camera travelled to get there. You agreed it was previously somewhere else. You agreed it came from the sun by way of the surface of the object being photographed. If it was previously at the object, is now at the camera, and travelled the distance in between at a finite speed, then there is a travel time involved for that bit of light.

So answer the question: If the object changes color after the light in question leaves its surface, but before that light reaches the camera (i.e. before the photograph is taken), can the frequency of that travelling light change while it is in transit (between the object and the camera) so that it continues to match the real-time color of the object?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No. These terms are not questionable. 'God-given' means given by God. 'Infallible' means not fallible. Look them up if you have to. I've been asking you about these presuppositions all week and now you're going to tell me you don't even undertstand them? The correct answer is that these things do have to be true for his arguments to work. If you wish to disagree, then the onus is on you to show otherwise.

Are you expecting the horse to sing?

The Tale of the Singing Horse

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your logic is way off. What you just posted that makes no sense to me, yet you think you have figured it all out. If you believe the eyes are afferent, the more power to you, but I will stick with my belief that it's not. Let's agree to disagree, okay?

No.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with courage. And please don't patronize me. I have followed through with the implications, and I believe he was right.

You haven't followed through the implications. If you had then you wouldn't still be contradicting yourself. One clear implication is that if some particular light is now at the camera, was previously at the object, and travelled the distance in between at some finite speed, then there was a travel time involved, and that light was previously in transit between those two points.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light is not in transit Spacemonkey when it comes to objects that are resolved by our retina, or by the film in a camera. You are the confused one, sorry.

You are the one contradicting yourself, so the confusion remains yours. If the light at the camera at the time of the photograph travelled there from somewhere else as you have agreed then it was previously in transit. Only a mentally ill person could fail to follow such an obvious implication.

So answer the question: If the object changes color after the light in question leaves its surface, but before that light reaches the camera (i.e. before the photograph is taken), can the frequency of that travelling light change while it is in transit (between the object and the camera) so that it continues to match the real-time color of the object?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People know my real name. I also have nothing to be ashamed of...

Then show this thread to your children. Show it to your local doctor, or a mental health professional. If you have nothing to be ashamed of, that is.

[naturalist.atheist]

peacegirl is too crazy to be ashamed of this thread. She thinks she has performed brilliantly. All the problem lies with us.

That horse will never learn to sing no matter how hard you try Spacemonkey.