A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This goes back to the way the brain works and the requirement that the object must be in view (optics). When those two phenomenon come together, we get a mirror image. Mirror images do not require travel from point to point. They are an exact replica but on the other side of the imaginary coin, which I've stated more than once.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does the brain have to do with camera film absorbing photons? How can a photon be absorbed by camera film if the photon is only a "mirror image" and not physically present at the same location of the film?

If it is physically present at the same location as the film, how does it get there without traveling, materializing as a duplicate, or teleporting?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Actually I usually don't attack her. I usually tell her she needs to get help. I was hoping that the "mental health professional" might be able to help her. But instead we got a mental health idiot that is trying to treat the person trying to get peacegirl some help.

You said you read both threads, but I am beginning to see a pattern of lying. If you read the other thread you would have known that originally I entered the other thread defending peacegirl from everyone else. They tried to warn me. I eventually figured out that peacegirl was incapable of learning much of anything. Everybody tried to teach her and it was a total waste of time. At that point in time I tried to figure out what was going on in her head, not to hurt her but to figure out a way that she would get help herself.

Frankly your presumptions are very insulting. They have been insulting from your very first posts in this thread. You also appear to be a liar. I doubt you have the credential you claim to have. And if you do, what ever you think you are in the mental health area, you suck at it.

I hope people can see how he is under pretense of knowing me like a well-oiled glove. Is this guy for real? And now he's doing the same thing to you ThreeLawsSafe, but you can see right through it. This guy is dangerous because he could try to diagnose someone online that is suggestible and vulnerable, and they could begin to doubt themselves. That would be a terrible thing.

[LadyShea]

This guy is dangerous because he could try to diagnose someone online that is suggestible and vulnerable, and they could begin to doubt themselves. That would be a terrible thing.

Someone who doubts their own mental health might go see a professional for an evaluation, right?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

An attack would imply that somehow I am trying to hurt you. I don't know you so frankly I don't care what you think. Perhaps it never occurred to you that letting everyone know that you were a healtcare professional and then lying about what you have read and making assumptions about what's been posted that are wrong would lead people to think you are a quack.

Do you see the contradiction ThreeLawsSafe? Here, he says he doesn't know you so he doesn't care what you think, BUT HE THINKS HE KNOWS ME???

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;1029448]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to talk about where photons are before the picture. They are obviously at the film or retina.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, that's not obvious at all. And if true it would mean you have stationary photons again. If you have the same photons at the same place (at the film/retina) at two consecutive times (when the photograph is taken, and just immediately before that) then that means they have been stationary rather than moving. What part of this do you not follow?

No, this is not about stationary photons. It is about seeing the object by what light reveals, not by what light brings. Photons are always moving but if we're looking at the object that has absorbed certain wavelengths, we will always get the same mirror image. Once the (P) reflection is so far away from the object that it can no longer be seen, we will then get white light on our retina, or film.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to repeat that the (P) reflection is a mirror image, not blue before red. It doesn't work that way in efferent vision. It works that way coming from an afferent position.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Who's talking about "blue before red"? That's not part of my questions at all. Why do you keep trying to bring up an example from several months ago as if it's still what I'm asking you about now? It isn't.

Okay.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is about circumstantial evidence which could be wrong. What appears to be a calculation from one thing might be correcting a miscalculation from somewhere else. I really don't know. What I do know is that Lessans had a solid basis for his claim, and it deserves further investigation.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The evidence isn't circumstantial. It will always be possible - for any evidence whatsoever, no matter how conclusive - that there might be some "mysterious unknown factors" that if known would solve the problem for you. By resorting to this you are rendering your position completely invulnerable to any and all evidence. You are making it a faith-position.

It is circumstantial to the extent that there is no absolute proof when you're talking about inferences that cannot be formally tested. I have seen television shows where I was positive that the prosecutor had it right. It was a slam dunk because it appeared beyond a reasonable doubt. His explanation for what occurred seemed to resist any argument to the contrary until the defense lawyer contested his "airtight" conclusions. It turned out that there was an alternative explanation for every single point that the prosecutor made. Don't you see the comparison?

[LadyShea]

So peacegirl, again, we can measure the spectrum while light is interacting with matter, and see that some wavelengths are actually reflected while others are absorbed and still others passed through.

Spectrum analysis is used in chemistry and astronomy to show the presence of certain substances, because their absorption properties are known because the results of spectroscopy are so consistent.

Do you think (P) absorption and (P) reflection are testable this way?

[LadyShea]

I have seen television shows where I was positive that the prosecutor had it right. It was a slam dunk because it appeared beyond a reasonable doubt. His explanation for what occurred seemed to resist any argument to the contrary until the defense lawyer contested his "airtight" conclusions. It turned out that there was an alternative explanation for every single point that the prosecutor made. Don't you see the comparison?

You're comparing scientific methodology to television courtroom scenes? Ask any lawyer how accurately TV portrays legal proceedings and principles.

The laws of the land are created and interpreted by humans, and evidence is presented to only 12 people in a jury, or even 1 person the judge, to analyze and only two people, the attorneys to try to refute or confirm. It is not possible to replicate empirical observations of the event in question.

Scientific evidence is published for everyone to analyze and try to refute or confirm or duplicate or falsify results. Empirical observations are available to everyone to replicate for themselves. Scientific claims can be tested if there is a testable hypothesis in the first place- therefore, the analogy fails.

It is circumstantial to the extent that there is no absolute proof when you're talking about inferences that cannot be formally tested

I can think of no better test of calculations than using them to send and land spacecraft, multiple times, on another planet as has happened with Mars. Not only did they get to Mars, they were landed on Mars. Communications with the craft and Rovers use radio waves (light) so any corrections for movement or direction changes in flight or on the ground ALSO use the light speed delay in their calculations.

The light travel time correction is ubiquitous through all space programs, including satellite launches. If it was incorrect NASA would have failed spectacularly every mission. The people doing the math would have noticed, by now, that their calculations were off in exactly the same manner every time...their light travel time delay.

[LadyShea]

What appears to be a calculation from one thing might be correcting a miscalculation from somewhere else. I really don't know. What I do know is that Lessans had a solid basis for his claim, and it deserves further investigation.

You have been unable to demonstrate a solid scientific basis for his claims or any justification to launch an investigation.

Without a testable hypothesis that better explains empirical observations when compared to the accepted model, or without a testable hypothesis that explains empirical observations still in need of explanation within the accepted model, no investigation will be forthcoming.

"I don't know much about the current model or the evidence supporting it, and I can't point to anything obviously wrong with the current model, nor can I find anything that is currently not explained by the accepted model, but maybe the accepted model is wrong in some unspecified way" is not a basis for pursuit, nor does it offer any starting point for investigation.

So, learn about all aspects of optics. Find some specific problem scientists are looking at, or a question they are still trying to answer, or an empirical observation they are having trouble explaining, and see how efferent vision might answer that question or solve that problem or explain that empirical observation. And believe me, there are always problems and unanswered questions in science, otherwise scientists would have nothing to do.

Lets look at a current big ass problem in physics...the data showing that neutrinos traveled faster than light. Scientists all over the world are feverishly working on that. It is so crazy! It can't possibly be right! That may mean The Theory of Relativity needs to be re-examined, refined, or possibly scrapped! OMG it's nuts!

Yet they are taking this absurdity totally seriously...why? Because there is hard data, an observation, in need of an explanation. The first to find an explanation for the data that can be tested and replicated will be famous, and they will have solved an enormous mystery. Curiosity is the hallmark of every scientist. If they see a real problem, they will try to solve it.

They are not looking for solutions to possible problems that aren't showing up anywhere, or causing any weird findings, or in any way shape or form noticeable as problems, to spend time and money investigating anyway. "Somebody, somewhere, at some point had a different idea! Stop everything and investigate!!!"

Do you think this lady's idea is deserving of investigation? http://visualexperiments.org/ why or why not?

[davidm]

Any further effort by peacegirl to present an explanation for real-time seeing (an effort at which she has failed spectacularly thus far) is moot. But I think Spacemonkey, LadyShea and others should also bear this in mind. Even if she were to come up with a coherent explanation for real-time seeing, it's simply irrelevant. This is because it has been proven that we don't see in real time. The example of how NASA sends its probes to other planets is just the most recent of literally hundreds of such examples that conclusively rule out real time seeing.

This being the case, I recommend that whenever she presents yet another tortured and convoluted rationale for real-time seeing, all you need say is, "but we don't see in real time, peacegirl. This has been ruled out by the facts of the world."

[LadyShea]

Let's ask ThreeLawsSafe for his professional opinion on the whole reason Lessans came up with efferent vision, shall we?

TLS, Lessans posited that we are conditioned to see some features as beautiful, and that this conditioning can only happen by projecting the value "beautiful" on "the screen of actual substance". He says this could not happen if vision is the result of receiving light which is then interpreted as an image in the brain.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My evidence is how the brain is able to project words (that contain values) onto real substance that have no corresponding accuracy. If sight was afferent, the brain could not do this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It actually does because in all the other senses we cannot become conditioned. I cannot become conditioned to liking certain music just because you tell me that certain sounds are beautiful even though you don't like those sounds. I cannot become conditioned to liking certain foods just because you tell me that certain foods are tasty even though you don't like that food. I cannot become conditioned to liking certain feelings just because you tell me that they feel good to you even though I don't like that feeling. I cannot become conditioned to liking certain smells just because you tell me that something smells good to you even though I don't like that smell. But I can become conditioned when you tell me over and over again that certain features are beautiful (which gets a pleasurable reaction), and certain features are ugly (which gets a negative reaction). This has everything to do with how the brain works in relation to the eyes.

Is there any reason, assuming the current model of vision is correct, to think the brain could not be conditioned to attach inaccurate values to visual images?

[LadyShea]

At this point davidm, I am hoping she can come to at least an understanding of how science works, if nothing else.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

LadyShea, the light does travel and that wavelength continues on until it fades do to the inverse square law you mentioned. When you are looking at the object through a lens (which is exactly the same thing as looking the through the lens of an eye, the only difference being that the brain, looking through the eyes, sees the object in real time due to that (P) reflected light, and that same light used by a camera is instantly at the film), the film and the light intersect. Depending how far away you are from the object, the camera will resolve what the pixels pick up based on that distance, and it will be recorded in real time because when you're looking at something efferently, the (P) reflection coming from the object is not traveling; it is a mirror image.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

At this point davidm, I am hoping she can come to at least an understanding of how science works, if nothing else.

Please stop patronizing me LadyShea. It's ironic what people are doing to discredit Lessans in the name of science.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by davidm

Any further effort by peacegirl to present an explanation for real-time seeing (an effort at which she has failed spectacularly thus far) is moot. But I think Spacemonkey, LadyShea and others should also bear this in mind. Even if she were to come up with a coherent explanation for real-time seeing, it's simply irrelevant. This is because it has been proven that we don't see in real time. The example of how NASA sends its probes to other planets is just the most recent of literally hundreds of such examples that conclusively rule out real time seeing.

This being the case, I recommend that whenever she presents yet another tortured and convoluted rationale for real-time seeing, all you need say is, "but we don't see in real time, peacegirl. This has been ruled out by the facts of the world."

You might add that not even she is willing or able to show that she sees efferently. All she has to do is go to an observatory. She would time lunar occultations entirely differently from every one else.

[thedoc]

It is my understanding that Science involves the review of new data as it is discovered, in an effort to verify or disprove. Relative to this, the premise or hypothesis must be clearly stated and can involve an entirely new phenomenon or an anomaly in an existing body of knowledge. Where there is no new data or problem with an existing theory there is no need for examination. The problem with efferent vision, is that there is no new data, there is no problem with the existing model of vision, and there is nothing to support this idea, it's not even a hypothesis just an assertion as to how we see. The example of Edison and the electric light bulb, Edison proved his idea by producing and demonstrating a working light bulb. All Peacegirl needs to do is demonstrate that she can see efferently and her point would be made, she would have proven that efferent vision is true. But no such proof has been seen and all the tests and experiments have supported afferent vision. The claim that tests and observations are biased has no foundation in reality, just a red herring, to cast suspicion where there is no reason for suspicion. Ad-hominem attacks and arguments from authority do not accomplish anything in science

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

MAGIC!

Another mysterious magical reason you can't even specify!

So either, there are lot of unknown, magical reasons that stop Lessans being ruled out...

Or Lessans is wrong, and there are no magical mysterious reasons required.

What do you think, peacegirl?

I don't think you have thought through the entire problem objectively. I never said there were mysterious reasons. Lessans' claim can be clearly checked out through empirical testing because we can manipulate the variables. We cannot manipulate the variables in outer space, so we have to base our conclusions on what we think is going on. As far as a direct connection between the light correction that is made, it is very possible that the differential in light delay has something to do with the guy who first used the moons of Jupiter to calculate the speed of light. I really don't know, but you don't put the cart before the horse to determine what is true and what isn't, and that's exactly what you're doing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It is my understanding that Science involves the review of new data as it is discovered, in an effort to verify or disprove. Relative to this, the premise or hypothesis must be clearly stated and can involve an entirely new phenomenon or an anomaly in an existing body of knowledge. Where there is no new data or problem with an existing theory there is no need for examination. The problem with efferent vision, is that there is no new data, there is no problem with the existing model of vision, and there is nothing to support this idea, it's not even a hypothesis just an assertion as to how we see. The example of Edison and the electric light bulb, Edison proved his idea by producing and demonstrating a working light bulb. All Peacegirl needs to do is demonstrate that she can see efferently and her point would be made, she would have proven that efferent vision is true. But no such proof has been seen and all the tests and experiments have supported afferent vision. The claim that tests and observations are biased has no foundation in reality, just a red herring, to cast suspicion where there is no reason for suspicion. Ad-hominem attacks and arguments from authority do not accomplish anything in science

That is not true. I don't have to talk to this guy directly either to refute what he's saying. There is no data supporting Lessans' claim because no one has ever challenged the afferent model until now. So all of the empirical tests are going to confirm what everyone believes is a fact. No matter how skewed the results look to me because I'm coming from a different position, to scientists, the results are perfect. It's no surprise that the results confirm the very premise that has hardened into a non-negotiable law.

This reminds me of the story (that I gave here early in the first thread and got clobbered for it, but oh well, I'm repeating it because it feels right) of a family who always cut the end of a roast off because that's how all of the previous generations did it. They didn't know why they were doing it but they assumed it had a special meaning; something to do with how the roast turned out. So this tradition continued for many more generations until, one day, someone in the family tried to discover what was behind the tradition that everyone was following to a T. To everyone's dismay, he found out that long long ago, the great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother was cooking her roast but her neighbor had borrowed the pot that she normally used, so instead she had to use a smaller pot and in order for the roast to fit she had to cut off the end. Moral of the story: Conventional wisdom may turn out to be plain old ignorance.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, the light does travel and that wavelength continues on until it fades do to the inverse square law you mentioned. When you are looking at the object through a lens (which is exactly the same thing as looking the through the lens of an eye, the only difference being that the brain, looking through the eyes, sees the object in real time due to that (P) reflected light, and that same light used by a camera is instantly at the film), the film and the light intersect. Depending how far away you are from the object, the camera will resolve what the pixels pick up based on that distance, and it will be recorded in real time because when you're looking at something efferently, the (P) reflection coming from the object is not traveling; it is a mirror image.

That doesn't explain how camera film, on Earth, can physically absorb a photon that is presently located at the newly ignited sun and has not reached Earth yet

Also, the inverse square law does not indicate the light travels only until it "fades". There is no fading light that stops traveling posited anywhere in optics.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please stop patronizing me LadyShea. It's ironic what people are doing to discredit Lessans in the name of science.

Then start answering specific questions about your thus far imaginary model.

Even if we don't need light to reach Earth to see it, we must have photons touch camera film to be absorbed and create a photographic image.
So, if the Sun was newly turned on at noon, how could we photograph the Sun at noon when the photons from the Sun are not on Earth to be absorbed by camera film?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

You might add that not even she is willing or able to show that she sees efferently. All she has to do is go to an observatory. She would time lunar occultations entirely differently from every one else.

I would think that if efferent vision were true for peacegirl it would be true for everyone, I do not think that is something we could choose. If she were seeing efferently her observations would corrospond to the actual timing of the events and not to the timing of the time-delayed event. To the best of my knowledge all the observations so far corrospond to the delayed-time event. But the fly in the ointment is that Peacegirl can claim that we have been seeing efferently all along and just miscalculated because we believe that we see afferently. There is no real way to win the argument, since everything is based on observations. What we need are some observations that are corrolated with probes that are on location at a planet such as mars. If the probe could radio the precise timing of an event and a ground based observation was done to verify it we would have proof, We know the radio signals take time to reach us and it would be easy to corrolate the visual observation and the radio signal. I'm sure these observations have been done so its just a matter of finding the record of the observations.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you could actually demonstrate real time seeing, nobody would laugh.

Hell no they wouldn't laugh. It would mean new science and the person who figured out what was going on would get a Nobel Prize. Because peacegirl, as it has been pointed out to you thousands of times. Efferent vision violates scores of scientific principles. And to claim you can do something that violates all those principles and be unable to demonstrate that you do indeed do so, may make them laugh a little but probably not much. That is because cranks like you approach them all the time with their crazy theories but are unwilling to demonstrate their "discovery". They have a book or a paper or a website with all their gibberish on it. But they do not realize that science is like business. You want something in business then "show me the money". You want something in science then "show me the phenomena". Data talks bullshit walks.

However deep down you know what you are actually afraid of. You are afraid that you will go to an observatory, a simple experiment will be set up and measurements will be made. The data will show that you see afferently just like everybody else and you will yet again get nowhere but you will yet again claim that they are wrong and nothing will change from your sick, pathetic situation in life.

You don't need a scientist or a web forum. You need a doctor.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true. I don't have to talk to this guy directly either to refute what he's saying. There is no data supporting Lessans' claim because no one has ever challenged the afferent model until now. So all of the empirical tests are going to confirm what everyone believes is a fact. No matter how skewed the results look to me because I'm coming from a different position, to scientists, the results are perfect. It's no surprise that the results confirm the very premise that has hardened into a non-negotiable law.

This reminds me of the story (that I gave here early in the first thread and got clobbered for it, but oh well, I'm repeating it because it feels right) of a family who always cut the end of a roast off because that's how all of the previous generations did it. They didn't know why they were doing it but they assumed it had a special meaning; something to do with how the roast turned out. So this tradition continued for many more generations until, one day, someone in the family tried to discover what was behind the tradition that everyone was following to a T. To everyone's dismay, he found out that long long ago, the great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother was cooking her roast but her neighbor had borrowed the pot that she normally used, so instead she had to use a smaller pot and in order for the roast to fit she had to cut off the end. Moral of the story: Conventional wisdom may turn out to be plain old ignorance.

So you think that scientists are chopping the ends off of photons to make them fit their theory?

[LadyShea]

Old wives tales, urban legends, and human traditions are not analogous to repeated empirical observations, repeatedly successful test results, and hard data.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Old wives tales, urban legends, and human traditions are not analogous to repeated empirical observations, repeatedly successful test results, and hard data.

No, but often they have more entertainment value.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I would think that if efferent vision were true for peacegirl it would be true for everyone, I do not think that is something we could choose. If she were seeing efferently her observations would corrospond to the actual timing of the events and not to the timing of the time-delayed event. To the best of my knowledge all the observations so far corrospond to the delayed-time event. But the fly in the ointment is that Peacegirl can claim that we have been seeing efferently all along and just miscalculated because we believe that we see afferently. There is no real way to win the argument, since everything is based on observations. What we need are some observations that are corrolated with probes that are on location at a planet such as mars. If the probe could radio the precise timing of an event and a ground based observation was done to verify it we would have proof, We know the radio signals take time to reach us and it would be easy to corrolate the visual observation and the radio signal. I'm sure these observations have been done so its just a matter of finding the record of the observations.

We have Mars.