A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you see David that the reason you say I'm willfully ignorant and blatantly dishonest IS for one reason and one reason only: I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU. Is this insanity, or am I in Alice in Wonderland for real????

Um, no.

It's because you frequently lie. And because, by your own admission you are willfully ignorant.

You know next to nothing about the relevant science, or even the implications of your own claims. You have provided exactly zero evidence to back your claims. Yet you insist that you and Lessans are correct and that the entire scientific community is therefore wrong.

That's the height of arrogance.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is why the shape, size and receptor density allows longer distance vision, and also is the limiting set of factors.

For larger sensors there is simply more area for more photons to strike. Sensors with a high density of receptors can see further because they collect more photons per location on the sensors (birds of prey have twice the density of receptors compared to humans and additional color receptors).

Yup. And nocturnal animals have relatively larger eyes than do their diurnal counterparts.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a huge difference. (N) light goes on indefinitely, and that is being confused with (P) light that does not because it's the light reflecting off the object, which is finite. To the lens the light is fading out. Technically it's a divergence but, regardless, this does not negate what Lessans is trying to show.

No, peacegirl, all light is light. It all behaves the same way, it all travels for the same distance (which is infinite unless it hits something). The distinctions (N) and (P), while they might be useful in some contexts, will not save Lessans' ideas no matter how hard you cling to them. There are not two completely distinct kinds of light floating around that behave in completely distinct ways. Remember as well that what we call "light" is merely the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that we can detect with our eyes. Fundamentally, there is no difference between what we call light and any other kind of EM radiation, from radio waves to gamma rays.

All of this is well known, well documented, easily demonstrated, and easily replicated. Skimming a Wikipedia article on optics or light or EM radiation and glomming onto a word or phrase or label that jumps out at you and pretending therein lies the key to Lessans being right after all will not work. We understand too much about these subjects for you to bullshit your way through it like a freshman literature class.

If we have to wait for a radio broadcast to arrive at the antenna in order to decipher it, then we have to wait for light to arrive at the detector, eye or camera, to do the same. They are the same thing. Light does not "carry an image" any more than radio waves "carry a voice." In both cases they are simply amalgamations, assemblies of many discrete energy levels of light or radio signals, put together and interpreted by a radio or a brain. There is no "looking out," there is no "instant seeing," there is no "screen" of any kind of substance, much less "undeniable" substance. It is wasted, ignorant, and wholly unnecessary prattle that exists for no purpose except to justify a belief about conditioning that could be easily justified in far less convoluted ways. Even if you continue to tout his book and supposed grand vision of world peace, you are better off discarding this particular topic. Everyone makes mistakes, after all. No one gets everything right. Let this be his Aristotelian elements, his Einsteinian cosmological constant, the thing he just didn't get right, and move on.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Um, no.

It's because you frequently lie. And because, by your own admission you are willfully ignorant.

You know next to nothing about the relevant science, or even the implications of your own claims. You have provided exactly zero evidence to back your claims. Yet you insist that you and Lessans are correct and that the entire scientific community is therefore wrong.

That's the height of arrogance.

Um yes. You keep calling me this, but you haven't answered any of my refutations, so the one being willfully ignorant is a matter of opinion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

No, peacegirl, all light is light. It all behaves the same way, it all travels for the same distance (which is infinite unless it hits something). The distinctions (N) and (P), while they might be useful in some contexts, will not save Lessans' ideas no matter how hard you cling to them. There are not two completely distinct kinds of light floating around that behave in completely distinct ways. Remember as well that what we call "light" is merely the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that we can detect with our eyes. Fundamentally, there is no difference between what we call light and any other kind of EM radiation, from radio waves to gamma rays.

There is a big difference. The visual spectrum are those waves that allow us to see the real world, not the other way around. I did not say that light does not behave the same way, but part of that way is when an object reflects certain wavelengths. It is these wavelengths that have a limited lifespan, not the full visible spectrum.

Originally Posted by kael

All of this is well known, well documented, easily demonstrated, and easily replicated. Skimming a Wikipedia article on optics or light or EM radiation and glomming onto a word or phrase or label that jumps out at you and pretending therein lies the key to Lessans being right after all will not work. We understand too much about these subjects for you to bullshit your way through it like a freshman literature class.

I don't care whether you think I'm bullshitting or not. I'm explaining a very real phenomenon but you will never see it because you are bent on not seeing it.

Originally Posted by kael

If we have to wait for a radio broadcast to arrive at the antenna in order to decipher it, then we have to wait for light to arrive at the detector, eye or camera, to do the same. They are the same thing. Light does not "carry an image" any more than radio waves "carry a voice." In both cases they are simply amalgamations, assemblies of many discrete energy levels of light or radio signals, put together and interpreted by a radio or a brain. There is no "looking out," there is no "instant seeing," there is no "screen" of any kind of substance, much less "undeniable" substance. It is wasted, ignorant, and wholly unnecessary prattle that exists for no purpose except to justify a belief about conditioning that could be easily justified in far less convoluted ways. Even if you continue to tout his book and supposed grand vision of world peace, you are better off discarding this particular topic. Everyone makes mistakes, after all. No one gets everything right. Let this be his Aristotelian elements, his Einsteinian cosmological constant, the thing he just didn't get right, and move on.

I can't do that because I don't think he's wrong, and I won't sacrifice his hard earned insights for anyone, not even you.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a big difference. The visual spectrum are those waves that allow us to see the real world, not the other way around.

Once again, fail. Don't you realise, peacegirl, that some animals see in completely different part of the spectrum to us? There is no difference at all; that's how insects can see in the UV and snakes can see in the infrared. That's a how radio telescope can see in the radio spectrum, or an X-ray telescope in the X-ray part.

If Lessans is correct, why is everything you post on the matter wrong?

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He stated he was just being a shit disturber. I don't think you're being unreasonable, but definitely you got sucked into a diversion.

And you as well, I see.

[LadyShea]

Yep, me too. Diversions don't bother me. I have been on the main topic for the better part of a year.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are now on enemy territory. Sorry Vivisectus, but you are now showing your true colors. I don't need to engage in conversation with you anymore because you are as biased as NA. Have fun laughing but don't expect me to answer anymore of your questions.

I think you keep mistaking me for someone else Peacegirl. I have been making fun of this idea for most of the time I was aware of it - and I have been far, FAR more satirical than this on many occasions. You seem to have some weird internal reset-button that trips every few weeks, and then you forget everything that has been said so far.

Let me get this straight: I think this entire book is extremely funny.

If Lessans had simply been ignorant, it would have been sad for him to waste his time like this, and I would have felt sorry for someone who shows his ignorance so clearly, and is not bright enough to even notice.

But no - he is pompous, self-important and condescending, which lifts this entire book out of the merely pathetic and turns it into a wonderful farce. He is not just a fool, but an arrogant buffoon, trying to lecture people about things he knows nothing about.

And it is so blatant! Anyone can see that here we have a man who was very ashamed of his lack of schooling. He goes on and on about it. In stead of actually doing something about it - did he ever go to night-school? Did he attend college later in life? Of course not! That would have meant admitting ignorance, something he was trying to avoid. So in stead he made his own pretend-study, a fantasy world where he could pretend to be a sagacious scholar.

No-one reads this book and sees anything but that, because that is all there is. You are the only one convinced by this nonsense, and so it shall remain.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is these wavelengths that have a limited lifespan, not the full visible spectrum.

A wavelength is not a thing that exists, it is a property of light, of all EM radiation in fact. You do not understand that, and so think that 'wavelength' is the magical term behind which Lessans' vindication hides.

Likewise "the full visible spectrum" is also not a thing that exists, it is a label we put on EM radiation with wavelengths between 380 and 780 nanometers. When we say some light is "the full visible spectrum," that does not mean all the light is of that whole range of wavelengths, it means that discrete units of light are present for each part of that range. Intensities (or relative abundance) of each wavelength of light can vary. For example, the Sun emits EM radiation along a broad range, from ~100 nm to ~1 mm, but the strongest emission are in that 380-780 nm range that we call "visible light" (which is probably why so many animals on the planet evolved to detect those emissions, which is why we can detect those emissions, which in turn is why we call them "visible light").

As usual, the truth of the matter is far more interesting than Lessans ever imagined it was.

[livius drusus]

For the record, I have checked the IP information in the Admin Control Panel and ThreeLawsSafe is not anyone's sock puppet, certainly not peacegirl's. He posts from three IPs (work, home, and mobile) resolving to the same area. Said area is thousands of miles from where peacegirl's IP resolves to.

[Vivisectus]

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yep, me too. Diversions don't bother me. I have been on the main topic for the better part of a year.

And you do a good job of handling that topic. I've learned a great deal, actually, from the likes of yourself, Spacemonkey, and Davidm in particular. Thank you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a huge difference. (N) light goes on indefinitely, and that is being confused with (P) light that does not because it's the light reflecting off the object, which is finite.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say that light does not behave the same way, but part of that way is when an object reflects certain wavelengths. It is these wavelengths that have a limited lifespan, not the full visible spectrum.

So according to your model reflected light isn't really light at all, it is something else.

Light travels unless it is absorbed. Reflection does not change the empirically observed properties of light.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Um yes. You keep calling me this, but you haven't answered any of my refutations, so the one being willfully ignorant is a matter of opinion.

So says the person who has frequently admitted that she refuses to read the essay I wrote for her on the topic ...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Yup. And nocturnal animals have relatively larger eyes than do their diurnal counterparts.

How do any these facts refute Lessans' claims regarding efferent vision?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So says the person who has frequently admitted that she refuses to read the essay I wrote for her on the topic ...

You still don't understand that the model of sight you are offering is 99% right, but it won't change the part that I believe is flawed. I'm not taking the value of your essay away from you. I'm only trying to point out where I believe a mistake has been made.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, now I'm wondering if you have lost all sense of reality. You can't, in all honesty, tell me that NA has a genuine concern for my mental health.

Of course I can. We all do. But you have a self-defence mechanism that makes you interpret any mention of mental illness as a joke, ridicule, or personal attack. You don't seem capable of processing the fact that many people are genuinely concerned about your mental health.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not misinterpreting anything. I hope you're joking. I'm sure ThreeLawsSafe would have a different opinion, and I'm sorry to say that I value his professional opinion over yours.

TLS has not been offering his professional opinion on your mental state. His whole point has been that this cannot be done over the internet. So to receive his "valued opinion" you would first have to visit him (or some other mental health professional). Will you do that?

I note also that you have ignored all of my posts and replies on light and vision once again. Why is that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So according to your model reflected light isn't really light at all, it is something else.

Light travels unless it is absorbed. Reflection does not change the empirically observed properties of light.

It's not changing the observed properties of light. The only difference is when an object absorbs certain wavelengths, the non-absorbed wavelengths are instantly at the film or retina. In other words, the non-absorbed light allows the screen of the external world (which is constantly changing) to reveal itself, but it doesn't bring the external world to us. Picture a large block of granite and underneath the block is a statue of a woman but until the extra granite is chiseled away (the light), the statue of the woman cannot be seen.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How do any these facts refute Lessans' claims regarding efferent vision?

They explain why the field and range of view is limited according to optics (which is the model supporting the standard idea of vision).

The fact that all manner of visual limitations are predicted, expected, and explained by optics- with no puzzling observations or unanswered questions- seems to be escaping you, because you keep asking us why we can't see what we can't see due to some strawman version of optics in your head.

You are not showing any indication that you understand what we are saying yet, so we keep giving you the info in the hopes you will understand. Of course I think you will keep fighting that strawman forever out of pure faith based obstinance.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The (P) wavelength that is reflected off of an object does fade depending on where the camera is positioned, otherwise, we would get a picture no matter how far away the object is from the lens.

What on earth is a (P)wavelength, and how does it differ from a (N)wavelength? Please define it.

I recommended you use (P)reflection and (P)absorption because you were clearly using these words to mena something different from their standard meanings. But I never suggested that you redefine light or its basic properties, whcih is what you do by speaking of (P)light and (P)wavelengths.

And how can something which allegedly never travels fade over distance? The whole point of (P)reflection was that it is instantaneous and explains light at the film or retina which has not travelled to get there. So how can it fade over distance?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's exactly what I've been trying to say. The (P) light gets dispersed where it cannot be seen by the film anymore. This does not mean (N) light doesn't travel at a finite speed.

What is (P)light, and how does it differ from (N)light? Please define it. And if (P)light is not travelling between the object and the camera/retina then how can it "disperse" in the same sense as science describes?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not changing the observed properties of light. The only difference is when an object absorbs certain wavelengths, the non-absorbed wavelengths allow the object to be seen or photographed instantly because they allow a mirror image to be instantly at the film or retina. Through the non-absorbed light, the external world reveals itself. I don't know why this concept is so difficult to grasp.

It's difficult to grasp because it posits light not acting as light is known to act. Also, you keep refusing to answer direct, simple questions about light. Like what happens to an individual photon with a green wavelength after it encounters a plant leaf.

Wavelengths that are not absorbed continue to travel. Because wavelength is a property of light, and light travels unless it is absorbed. If it doesn't continue to travel, it isn't light.

Also, "allows" is not explaining the mechanism.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Um yes. You keep calling me this, but you haven't answered any of my refutations, so the one being willfully ignorant is a matter of opinion.

Please link me to one of these alleged refutations. I haven't seen you refute anything anywhere.

I have seen you admit that you have no idea how to deal with opposing evidence, and then appeal to mysterious unknown factors. Is that what you mean by a (P)refutation?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How do any these facts refute Lessans' claims regarding efferent vision?

The physical characteristics of the eye determine how they respond to light, if this response was not THE DETERMINING FACTOR for vision the eye would never have evolved beyond the most primitive form that had a lens for the brain to look through. Efferent vision was completely unnecessary for Lessans claims about conditioning, and contradicts much of what is known about optics and the physiology of the eye and vision centers of the brain.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not changing the observed properties of light. The only difference is when an object absorbs certain wavelengths, the non-absorbed wavelengths allow the object to be seen or photographed instantly because they allow a mirror image to be instantly at the film or retina. Through the non-absorbed light, the external world reveals itself. I don't know why this concept is so difficult to grasp.

If it's so easy to grasp, then why do you refuse to answer questions about this process (or contradict yourself whenever you try)?