A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true at all Spacemonkey. There is no teleporting duplicate copies of themselves instantaneously to the film when they left the surface of the object.

Well that's the only way any of us have been able to make any sense at all out of what you have been trying to say. You say the light just leaving the surface of the object will also be at the camera instantaneously without travelling to get there. How is that not teleportation (of itself or a copy of itself)? What would you call it? If the light cannot be in two places at once, then how can the light at the camera not be a duplicate copy of the light presently leaving the surface of the object?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Look at this picture. Why is the light able to show up on the water. The light didn't travel to the water. It's instantly there because the conditions allow the reflection (as in film) to be seen. It's the same exact thing that is occurring when we look at a scene. It is that same light that shows up on film or the retina instead of the reflection showing up on water.

Your link doesn't work. Light does travel to the water. A reflection just is light. Your bizarre account of looking at light on water isn't going to make any more sense than your present nonsense about photography, so it certainly won't be able to support or explain it.

[Rickoshay75]

Originally Posted by Kael

I've been wanting to hear more about determinism and the possibilities of free will from a naturalist perspective, since a lot of the material on the topic involves the theological side, especially the reconciliation of free will with a perfectly omniscient deity.

Anyone know any good sources or books, or have any thoughts on the matter?

Free Will and determinism, a dialogue, is a good place to start. You can buy it at Amazon Books for 7$

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to tell you NOOOO. What you are missing is that efferent vision allows light to be at the film or retina IF THE OBJECT IS IN RANGE.
Again, how many times do I have to repeat that the light is instantly at the film when the lens is focused on the object, just as the light is instantly at the retina when looking at an object through the lens.

This statement contradicts the Theory of Relativity, just like we've been saying all along. Efferent, real-time vision is basically impossible, just like we've been saying all along.

You can say, "NOOOO" all you want, but there's no way that real-time efferent vision can be reconciled with the current scientific understanding of the universe, and not just at the boundaries of science. No, you want to rewrite all the laws of reality simply to justify Lessans' misunderstandings.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It didn't come from anywhere in the sense of travel time. It is present at the film due to the ability of the object to absorb certain wavelengths. The wavelengths that are left are at the film instantly.

Yes.

If the camera's lens is focused on the scene, then the photons would already be at the film before the photograph is taken.

Thank you for trying to answer these questions. Unfortunately your answers contradict your previous claims about the behaviour of light, so I have some further follow-up questions which you will need to answer:

1. Will the photons at the film before the photograph is taken be the same photons which are at that same place at the next moment when the photograph is taken?

2. If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?

3. Can light (i.e. photons) ever be stationary, or is it always in motion?

4. For the photons which are at the film when the photograph is taken, where were they just before the photograph was taken?

[naturalist.atheist]

I don't know who is worse. peacegirl, who goes around in circles or all the people posting with her pushing her around in circles.

Are we dizzy yet?

It's making me want to throw up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Photons are not parked, if that's what you mean. The most important point to understand here is that efferent vision does not require light to travel. It is like I described earlier, a mirror image but upside down on the film or retina. You have to picture the visual range as a canvas, and the photons interact directly with the film but without having to travel to the film.

I can see your confusion again because you're not thinking in terms of efferent vision. You are only coming from an afferent point of view which involves the speed of light. Photons are not stationary. They are moving, but, regardless, it's the object that is determining the color at the film, so if the object turns red from blue, that is what will show up instantly on the film.

We've been over this before. Constant energy is always in motion.

At the film.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, it did, because that's what light does, it travels constantly. Then some of it was physically reflected off the water to come in physical contact with the film or digital light sensor to physically interact and create a photographic image.

Your link doesn't work, so I assume it is a photo of a reflection off water

The link worked for me, on this thread, so I don't know why it wouldn't work for you. Yes, it's a reflection off of water. You're wrong; it's a mirror image which takes no time at all.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Photons are not parked, if that's what you mean. The most important point to understand here is that efferent vision does not require light to travel. It is like I described earlier, a mirror image but upside down on the film or retina. You have to picture the visual range as a canvas, and the photons interact directly with the film but without having to travel to the film.

You haven't answered the question. You said that "photons would already be at the film before the photograph is taken". I want to know if those will be the same or different photons which are in that same place at the next moment when the photograph is taken. Which is it? Are they the same photons or different ones?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see your confusion again because you're not thinking in terms of efferent vision. You are only coming from an afferent point of view which involves the speed of light. Photons are not stationary. They are moving, but, regardless, it's the object that is determining the color at the film, so if the object turns red from blue, that is what will show up instantly on the film.

Again, you haven't answered the question I asked: If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary? Which is it? Moving or stationary?

Is it an assumption of afferent vision that something which remains at the same place over two consecutive moments in time hasn't moved during that time? Is that an assumption you wish to challenge with efferent vision?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We've been over this before. Constant energy is always in motion.

Yes, we have been over this one before. I would like you to keep this answer in mind when re-answering questions 1, 2, & 4.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At the film.

How can they be at the same place at two consecutive times if they are always in motion and never stationary?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The link worked for me, on this thread, so I don't know why it wouldn't work for you. Yes, it's a reflection off of water. You're wrong; it's a mirror image which takes no time at all.

That would only be true if efferent vision were correct. So you can't use it to explain or support efferent vision. The claim that a mirror image of light on water can be instantaneous suffers from the exact same problems you are supposed to be explaining.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, how many times do I have to repeat that the light is instantly at the film when the lens is focused on the object, just as the light is instantly at the retina when looking at an object through the lens.

Well this should pretty much settle things for anyone with half a brain that still works. For Peacegirl to claim that anything is instantly anywhere, violates every known law of physics, that has been verified by testing, experimentation, and observation for a long time. This is not something that has been handed down by a bunch of arrogant authoratian scientists, but by repeated testing, experimentation, and observation. Nothing moves anywhere instantly, it just doesn't work that way.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're wrong; it's a mirror image which takes no time at all.

Here is the core of the problem, Peacegirl believes that it is possible for something to transit space instantly so it can be from here to there in no elapsed time. This puts her firmly outside the realm of science and reality and firmly in the realm of fantasy. Her grasp of reality is nill, she has no idea what is real and what is not. She posts fiction and believes it is true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because it's not necessary to travel in order for the light to be interacting with the film. I hope you begin to imagine one's visual range as a canvas. This might help you to envision what I'm talking about.

Light is not in two places at once or it would be magical.

I'm sorry if you're not getting it yet, but that doesn't mean what I'm saying is inaccurate. I just have to figure out a better way of explaining it, and I'm not going to give up if you don't.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are. You are saying a physical interaction requiring physical contact can happen at a physical distance!

I'm actually not. The difference between the Sun's photons traveling to Earth in 8.3 minutes, and us being able to see the Sun instantly (as it explodes) are not in contradiction if you understand the efferent version of sight. It would be a contradiction if you are coming from the afferent version of sight. I'm going to have to keep repeating this because this is exactly where the problem stems.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Well, obviously you have to wash the pudding before you can efferently lead the horse to it through the forest from the trees in real-time.

I can't help but giggle by this response. Sometimes you guys are really creative.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Then quit whinning and do some of the more simple tests. Start small and work up to the more complicated. No Guts, No Glory.

Actually, once you get afferent vision out of the equation, it's not that complicated. Optics actually supports efferent vision because the object (however small) has to be in range for it to be resolved.

[Spacemonkey]

The contradictions have nothing to do with where people are coming from, and everything to do with the simple fact that you are making contradictory claims. Such as that the light at the object will also be at the camera or retina... without being in two places at once. Or that the light at the camera film stays at the same place at two consecutive moments... despite always being in motion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, why do you keep bringing this analogy up using water, hands or what have you?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because you don't seem to understand that camera film and photons have to touch to have the photochemical reaction necessary to form a photographic image.

But they are forming a photochemical reaction because the light is interacting with the film.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's just that if the Sun exploded we would be seeing the Sun explode instantly because of the eyes being efferent, yet the photons would not have arrived on Earth for us to see each other.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And could we take a photograph of the sun when we could see the sun, or when we could see each other?

If the light from the Sun has not hypothetically gotten here yet, we would not be able to see each other because there's no light around the individual we are looking at. But we would see the Sun because there is light around the Sun which is all that is required in the efferent version of sight.

[LadyShea]

I'm actually not. The difference between the Sun's photons traveling to Earth in 8.3 minutes, and us being able to see the Sun instantly (as it explodes) are not in contradiction if you understand the efferent version of sight. It would be a contradiction if you are coming from the afferent version of sight. I'm going to have to keep repeating this because this is exactly where the problem stems.

I am talking about photography not sight. Even if vision works the way you are describing, camera film does not.

We are talking about the known properties of light, and the known interaction between light and film which requires physical contact.

Your explanation requires light and film to change their properties and be able to come into physical contact while there is a physical distance between them.

You need to explain how efferent vision negates the known properties of light and camera film.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I'm not sure what you mean. Why is reality exactly as you mentioned. It records the pattern of light that is on the film/CCD chip. So what are you trying to dispute here?

Originally Posted by Dragar

Let's try again peacegirl.

Why don't we ever observe your claim that "taking a photograph has nothing to do with light traveling to the film" in reality? Why don't we ever notice photons interacting at a huge distance instantaneously with a photographic film?

That's not what I'm saying at all, and it's that misconception that makes this whole thing appear magical. How can it be magical when it follows the principles of physics?

Originally Posted by Dragar

Why is every scientific discovery ever made completely compatible with vision being due to light travelling from an object to the camera or the eye?

Because afferent vision appears logical, and there seems to be no other explanation, but if you can look from the efferent position [even temporarily just to see what Lessans saw], then you will begin to understand that this is not hogwash at all. It makes sense.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Why do you need to make up reasons to explain all these scientific observations that appear to contradict your claims about vision (remember the big list?)?

Because these observations are valid. Why would anyone want to believe in something that's false? Our determination to understand reality won't let us, especially those of us who are scientifically inclined.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the light from the Sun has not hypothetically gotten here yet, we would not be able to see each other because there's no light around the individual we are looking at. But we would see the Sun because there is light around the Sun which is all that is required in the efferent version of sight.

You've changed your position since the last thread. Awfully strange how efferent vision keeps changing like this. You were previously claiming light at the eyes to be a necessary condition of vision. Now you're saying light only has to exist at the Sun (and not at our eyes) for the Sun to be visible. But if we can see without any light at our eyes, then why do we have light detectors in our retinas?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But they are forming a photochemical reaction because the light is interacting with the film.

If the light from the Sun has not hypothetically gotten here yet, we would not be able to see each other because there's no light around the individual we are looking at. But we would see the Sun because there is light around the Sun which is all that is required in the efferent version of sight.

You didn't answer the question.

Would we be able to take a photograph of the sun at the same time we see the sun, or when we can see each other 8.5 minutes later when the photons arrive?

Remember, the photons and the film have to be in physical contact, they have to be touching. Camera film is not efferent eyes and brain.

Lessans didn't say anything about photography, which is problematic for you because of all the discrepancies created if vision is efferent and cameras work as they are known and designed to work. You have had to come up with some form of efferent photography...and you can't make it fit without breaking the laws of physics.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what I'm saying at all, and it's that misconception that makes this whole thing appear magical. How can it be magical when it follows the principles of physics?

Because afferent vision appears logical, and there seems to be no other explanation, but if you can look from the efferent position [even temporarily just to see what Lessans saw], then you will begin to understand that this is not hogwash at all. It makes sense.

Because these observations are valid. Why would anyone want to believe in something that's false? Our determination to understand reality won't let us, especially those of us who are scientifically inclined.

You say it follows the principles of physics, yet it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that your nonsense theory breaks most principles of physics. It doesn't follow them at all, it contradicts them.

You say 'it makes sense', and yet every explanation you give is self-contradictory. Just look at how much you have changed your answers when talking to Spacemonkey and LadyShea. In fact, I think you don't even understand it at all - you just parrot out Lessans catchphrases (or your own) and then change your answers when a contradiction is pointed out as immediately apparent.

You say you are 'scientificly inclined', but your response to an observation that contradicts Lessans is to make something up to save your pet theory, without even admitting this completely undermines what you are trying to save. That's the oppposite of scientific. You don't dare actually test Lessans claims, you just assume they are right.

You also didn't understand my last question: why do you need to make up all these mysterious reasons to save your theory from observations like the moons of Jupiter, and neutrinos from a supernova, and steller abberration, and gravitational lensing, and so on?

[peacegirl]

No. There has to be an interaction between the light and the film, but the light originates at the object.

Originally Posted by Dragar

What do you mean originates at the object? Do you mean the light that is now physically interacting with the film was formerly reflected or emitted by the object being photographed?

Yes, in order for the light to interact with the film it had to be present. You are still confusing reflection or emission with travel time.

No, it means that as the lens focuses on the object the light is instantly interacting with the film because taking a photograph has nothing to do with light traveling to the film, which involves the finite speed of light.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Then why don't we ever observe this effect in nature? Why is all reality completely as we'd expect if taking a photograph was nothing more than recording the pattern of light landing on the film/CCD chip?

I'm not sure what you mean. Why is reality exactly as you mentioned. It records the pattern of light that is on the film/CCD chip. So what are you trying to dispute here?

Originally Posted by Dragar

Let's try again peacegirl.

Why don't we ever observe your claim that "taking a photograph has nothing to do with light traveling to the film" in reality? Why don't we ever notice photons interacting at a huge distance instantaneously with a photographic film?

That's not what I'm saying at all, and it's that misconception that makes this whole thing appear magical. How can it be magical when it follows the principles of physics?

Originally Posted by Dragar

Why is every scientific discovery ever made completely compatible with vision being due to light travelling from an object to the camera or the eye?

Because afferent vision appears logical, and there seems to be no other explanation, but if you can look from the efferent position [even temporarily just to see what Lessans saw], then you will begin to understand that this is not hogwash at all. It makes sense.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Why do you need to make up reasons to explain all these scientific observations that appear to contradict your claims about vision (remember the big list?)?

Because these observations are valid. Why would anyone want to believe in something that's false? Our determination to understand reality won't let us, especially those of us who are scientifically inclined.

Originally Posted by Dragar

You say it follows the principles of physics, yet it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that your nonsense theory breaks most principles of physics. It doesn't follow them at all, it contradicts them.

Not when you understand the position that you are ignoring. You can't see it because you keep coming from the position of afferent vision, which will ruin any chances of understanding. I told you that you have eliminate afferent vision in the equation, even temporarily, otherwise, the logic will be flawed and you will attack me on a false conclusion.

Originally Posted by Dragar

You say 'it makes sense', and yet every explanation you give is self-contradictory. Just look at how much you have changed your answers when talking to Spacemonkey and LadyShea. In fact, I think you don't even understand it at all - you just parrot out Lessans catchphrases (or your own) and then change your answers when a contradiction is pointed out as immediately apparent.

I honestly have to admit that I could not explain the discrepancy between what is described in terms of light traveling and the fact that light could be interacting with the film at the same time. But I get it now. The interesting aspect of this is that I never doubted Lessans. You didn't know him.

Originally Posted by Dragar

You say you are 'scientificly inclined', but your response to an observation that contradicts Lessans is to make something up to save your pet theory, without even admitting this completely undermines what you are trying to save. That's the oppposite of scientific. You don't dare actually test Lessans claims, you just assume they are right.

I am not assuming anything. These are accurate observations, and I hope you recognize that Lessans was spot on. The observation that you are claiming contradicts Lessans is not correct. And it is not correct because of the false logic that justifies the conclusion.

Originally Posted by Dragar

You also didn't understand my last question: why do you need to make up all these mysterious reasons to save your theory from observations like the moons of Jupiter, and neutrinos from a supernova, and steller abberration, and gravitational lensing, and so on?

What mysterious reasons are you talking about? Follow the trail of reason and observation, and nothing is mysterious at all. It follows like a well oiled machine (as I said before but no one was listening). I am not in the position to discredit any theory out there. All I should be expected to do is to explain the observations Lessans was able to see and the sound reasoning that followed, which led Lessans to his conclusions.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to picture the visual range as a canvas

A canvas where? A canvas doing what or having what done to it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

, and the photons interact directly with the film but without having to travel to the film.

In order to interact with a canvas, the paint or ink must touch the canvas. You cannot draw or paint on a canvas if there is a physical distance between the canvas and the materials it is interacting with...unless you throw the paint or ink (which means travel time).

It's the same with light and film. You cannot get a photographic image on the film unless they physically interact through physical contact.

In order for that the happen the light has to get to the film to touch it, somehow. We know light is in constant motion. We know it travels at a finite speed. We know it cannot be in two places at once. We know it cannot appear at a location instantly.

How does that happen according to you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Hows about you answer the questions asked of you, as those answers will explain your position clearly in a way we can understand because we had to formulate the questions. Like answer this post below

I'm giving my all to get you to understand why we see in real time, but if you keep coming from a position that light has to travel to its destination, it will ruin any chances for understanding.

[LadyShea]

I'm giving my all to get you to understand why we see in real time, but if you keep coming from a position that light has to travel to its destination, it will ruin any chances for understanding.

I am talking about photographic film and how it can somehow break the laws of physics to create photographic images instantly.

I have said, at least 4 times now, that even if we assume- for arguments sake- that we can see in real time, without the need for the light to physically arrive at our eyes after travel time, camera film MUST have the light TOUCHING it, physically. That requires the light to physically get to the film, somehow .

If eyes and film work differently (eyes do not require light to travel and film does), you then have the known discrepancies regarding when we can see something versus when we can photograph that same thing.