A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because the size and composition of the sensor and the size and shape of the lens and the divergence of the reflected light over distance DETERMINE the visual range. Have YOU not been listening?

Optics explains the limitations to visual range and how it can be extended.

But that explanation is in keeping with efferent vision. The divergence of (P) reflected light is what causes one to see large or small objects depending on the location of the observer.

[LadyShea]

It's in keeping with afferent vision too. For some reason you keep bringing it up like this is an unexplained aspect in optics, or like it somehow isn't compatible with the standard model of vision. So, now what?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

I understand why my answers posit stationary light, and, yes, if what is on the retina is a true mirror image, those photons are not traveling, but that doesn't mean light itself doesn't travel. In other words, I am not denying the finite speed of light. Do you see why this is so hard to explain and just as hard to grasp, especially when we have been taught from early on that the eyes are a sense organ?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

LadyShea, this has everything to do with efferent vision. If the eyes were a sense organ, none of this would make any sense at all. When we look at the sky, due to the fact that the object is within visual range means that there is an instant interaction between the light surrounding the object and the film/retina. You need to understand that the requirement necessary for this to occur is that the object is large enough or bright enough to be seen. The space within one's visual range does not change just because an object is a few feet away or a million miles away. It just means that the object that is a million miles away has to be really really large and really really bright for it to be seen, whereas something close to us does not have to be that large or that bright to be seen.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand why my answers posit stationary light, and, yes, if what is on the retina is a true mirror image, those photons are not traveling, but that doesn't mean light itself doesn't travel. In other words, I am not denying the finite speed of light. Do you see why this is so hard to explain and just as hard to grasp, especially when we have been taught from early on that the eyes are a sense organ?

So you're retracting your earlier repeated claims that light is always in motion and never stationary?

I don't think you've fully appreciated the problem yet. You have stationary photons at two places - at the film/retina and at the object. And for light to ever be stationary directly conflicts with the basic physical properties of light which you've claimed you are not challenging. For starters, stationary light cannot possibly have any wavelength or frequency, as these are properties which require motion.

And the problems get worse. Say the ball is now blue, but a moment ago was red. This means that right now there are blue photons in existence at the film forming the mirror image interacting with that film. But you say those blue-wavelength photons have been stationary and were also at the same place (i.e. at the film) a moment ago when the ball was red. That means the mirror image at the film is predicting in advance what color the ball will be in the future. There will be a blue mirror image at the film before the ball is even blue.

I know this is not what you are trying to say. But it is a direct consequence of the answers you have given positing stationary light at the film.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If that particular interpretation of flooding were to be applied it would surely apply to you as well. As it happens you have simply misunderstood what flooding means.

Because this knowledge is new, it takes repetition for it to be understood. I don't call that flooding, but I call repeating over and over and over and over again in every post that I'm mentally inept is flooding because the content doesn't change. Through this constant repetition NA is hoping people will turn against me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's unfortunate that both type forums have problems that could be corrected. In the moderated forums, the moderators have too much control and can arbitrarily end a thread because they have the power to do so. And in an unmoderated forum (which I like more than moderated), it goes too far the other way by allowing someone to spew lies about someone and get away with it. This type of bullying should be forbidden and added to the rules of proper behavior, because it interferes with free thought, which is the purpose of this forum.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Basically, what you want is a place where you have the freedom to write whatever you want but others are prevented from writting things that you don't want to hear. The only way you are ever going to get that is to start your own forum or blog.

When have a ever told anyone not to express their refutations, or to ask questions, but this guy is a heckler and it's not right. He is using diversionary tactics to derail this thread.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I DID NOT WRITE THIS BOOK.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Except, of course, the substantial portions that you did write.

No Angakuk, I did not make this discovery, okay? I only added examples where I felt it would clarify the concept, but in no way, shape, or form did I make changes to the original concepts. That would not be good stewardship, and that was my biggest worry as I was compiling his 7 books.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Indeed she did. There is nothing in that story about the pot having been borrowed. Granny cut the ends off the roast because she did not own a pot that was large enough to accomodate a full sized roast. She did this routinely and that is how her daughter learned to do it as well. Logically, if the problem stemmed from the neighbor borrowing the pot, Granny could just have gone and gotten the pot back and the whole trimming the ends off the roast would have been a one-off.

Peacegirl's allegories are as incoherent as her defense of efferent sight.

It was not a defense; it was an analogy that I think had some validity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I don't think it will sit well with those who are sincerely interested in this discovery that I should be the one to leave.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

1. There is no evidence that anyone here is sincerely interested in Lessan's alleged discovery.
2. There is no evidence that anyone here really cares whether you go or stay.
3. Much of what n.a. posts does not sit well with a lot of the people who post here. This has nothing to do with you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what are you saying Angakuk? Give it to me straight.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That was as straight as it gets.

So should I leave? This thread has become burdensome for me as well.

Originally Posted by davidm

I thought you said we're not supposed to be diagnosing people on the Internet. Yet here you are, diagnosing N.A., if only by implication.

My, my.

Yes, I am diagnosing him because I know my motives, and he is totally wrong. I have the right to defend myself Angakuk.

No, I'm retaliating, and I am justified. I want him banned from this thread unless he stops bullying. It's as simple as that.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

David was talking to ThreeLawsSafe. That post was not directed at you in any way. It wasn't even about you. Not everything in this thread is.

It is about me even if it's indirect. I am being ostracized because of a bully??? Yes, this is a form of ostrification. This needs to be corrected by the administration because the purpose of this forum is to be entitled to express oneself, not to have hecklers that have no other intention than to sabotage what is being said because they don't like it.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I am not going offer an opinion on your mental health or suggest that you should see mental health practitioner. I am, however, going to suggest that you enroll in a reading class and buff up your comprehension skills.

Boo hoo!!!

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.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If TLR has failed to answer any of your refutations, it is because there haven't been any to answer. You have not successfully refuted a single argument since your first post here. So I guess it is still you who is being willfully ignorant.

Whether I have successfully refuted the argument of afferent vision is a matter of opinion.

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.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You do, of course, have empirical evidence to support this claim regarding this previously unknown property of reflected light. Surely you would not make such a claim without having evidence to support it. Why that would be both dishonest and unscientific.

Obviously it is the efferent model of vision that allows us to see in real time (i.e., getting a mirror image on the film/retina), and obviously once people can see that this is a plausible model, more empirical testing will need to be done to prove that this model is valid. Then slowly the old model will be replaced by the new if it turns out that there is substance to Lessans' claim.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light travels one foot per NANOSECOND. That's a billionth of a second, peacegirl. Do you understand just how fast that is?

Seriously, you are still using the afferent model and if it makes you happy that a mirror image doesn't mean that it is instant, fine. It doesn't change a darn thing because the visual range can only extend as far as our eyes can see. What we see can't go beyond the capability of our rods and cones. Our gaze isn't fixed (we can turn our heads to see a different screen of the outside world, but our visual range IS fixed.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seriously, you are still using the afferent model and if it makes you happy that a mirror image doesn't mean that it is instant, fine. It doesn't change a darn thing because the visual range can only extend as far as our eyes can see. What we see can't go beyond the capability of our rods and cones. Our gaze isn't fixed (we can turn our heads to see a different screen of the outside world, but our visual range IS fixed.

Is that with or without glasses?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, this has everything to do with efferent vision.

No, how the brain works in the vision process has NOTHING AT ALL to do with how light interacts with camera film which absorbs photons. Answer the question and quit weaseling.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

In the efferent model the lens must focus on the object for there to be a mirror image on the film/retina. That means that when we look at the object we're seeing those non-absorbed photons instantly even though white light continues to travel at a finite speed. Regardless of how far away the observer is from the object, that non-absorbed wavelength is still an instant mirror image on the film/retina as long as it's still within visual range. The object just gets smaller and smaller as it gets further and further away, which means that less photons are interacting with the film/retina.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, how the brain works in the vision process has NOTHING AT ALL to do with how light interacts with camera film by absorbing photons. Answer the question and quit weaseling.

Yes it does. I'm not weaseling. I just explained that mirror images do not require light to travel to Earth for that light to interact with the film/retina. You'll have to think about this because, in your mind, there can be no interaction, and I'm saying there is if you think in terms of how mirror images work.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes it does. I'm not weaseling. I just explained that mirror images do not require light to travel to Earth for that light to interact with the film/retina. You'll have to think about this because, in your mind, there can be no interaction, and I'm saying there is if you think in terms of how mirror images work.

Film photography requires there be a photon absorbed by camera film which requires the film and photon to be in the same location in spacetime. "Mirror image" isn't an explanation, it's just a concept you've yet to describe in detail. Like where does this mirror image exist in space that it allows items to be touched? If it doesn't allow hand shaking, it can't allow this kind of interaction

You obviously cannot explain how this miracle physical touching happens over a distance of 93 million miles.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the efferent model the lens must focus on the object for there to be a mirror image on the film/retina. That means that when we look at the object we're seeing those non-absorbed photons instantly even though white light continues to travel at a finite speed. Regardless of how far away the observer is from the object, that non-absorbed wavelength is still an instant mirror image on the film/retina as long as it's still within visual range. The object just gets smaller and smaller as it gets further and further away, which means that less photons are interacting with the film/retina.

What does this have to do with my post? Did you even read what you were replying to?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by davidm

Insofar as any of these people could be said to be "mentally ill" (and let's not forget that less than fifty years ago, gay people were all held to be mentally ill!), when they were ill, they achieved nothing. Van Gogh could not paint or do anything during his worst episodes. Hemingway, when he was "mentally ill" did not write, and ended up killing himself. I have no idea why the other people are even included on the list. Isaac Newton was mentally ill? Really?

Mental illness, by and large, is a socio-political category made up to stigmatize people we don't like. OTOH, there are objective brain dysfunctions, from injury for example. And there are people who have difficulty coping with the real world; often they are stigmatized as mentally ill, but really, they may be wholly sane and their "ill" response is a response to world that is insanely put together. As was famously said of Van Gogh: He was was suicided by society.

But most of these people went about their business and created works of brilliance which were recognized in their life times as brilliant. They didn't try to convince the world they were brilliant by idiotic repetition of incoherent nonsense.

Mental illness can be overlooked if there is genius involved but if all it does is prance in the public square spouting gibberish then it needs help.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't answered the question here at all. It isn't asking you if white light is always in motion. It isn't asking you if we see a mirror image. It isn't asking you about travelling images, or anything at all about mountains or lakes.

It is asking you a general question about the meaning of a word:

3. If something (i.e. anything at all) is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it (i.e. that thing, regardless of what it is) moving during that time period, or is it stationary?

I am asking if it is ever possible, for anything at all, to be at the same position at two consecutive times, and to still have been moving during that time. This is not a question about science or physics. It is a question about the meaning of certain words.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that explanation is in keeping with efferent vision. The divergence of (P) reflected light is what causes one to see large or small objects depending on the location of the observer.

Only travelling light can diverge. (P)reflected light isn't meant to be travelling, remember?

And it is not enough to show that the same explanation is in keeping with efferent vision. You were further claiming that this explanation doesn't work for afferent vision. You haven't shown that at all.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand why my answers posit stationary light, and, yes, if what is on the retina is a true mirror image, those photons are not traveling, but that doesn't mean light itself doesn't travel.

Of course it does. Light just is photons, so if there are ever stationary photons, then light is not always travelling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In other words, I am not denying the finite speed of light. Do you see why this is so hard to explain and just as hard to grasp, especially when we have been taught from early on that the eyes are a sense organ?

If you're now deliberately positing stationary photons, such that the specific photons at the film when the photograph is taken were also there a moment before that, can you tell me how long they've been there for?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Film photography requires there be a photon absorbed by camera film which requires the film and photon to be in the same location in spacetime. "Mirror image" isn't an explanation, it's just a concept you've yet to describe in detail. Like where does this mirror image exist in space that it allows items to be touched? If it doesn't allow hand shaking, it can't allow this kind of interaction

You obviously cannot explain how this miracle physical touching happens over a distance of 93 million miles.

You're still missing the entire concept of efferent vision which is exactly why the space between the object and the eye (i.e., the space between the Sun and the Earth does not require the photons to travel to Earth in order to see the Sun if it was just turned on). I know this sounds magical but it's really not.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When we look at the sky, due to the fact that the object is within visual range means that there is an instant interaction between the light surrounding the object and the film/retina.

That directly contradicts your claim that the film cannot interact with anything not in direct contact with it. The light surrounding the object cannot also be in contact with the film without being in two places at once.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course it does. Light just is photons, so if there are ever stationary photons, then light is not always travelling.

If you're now deliberately positing stationary photons, such that the specific photons at the film when the photograph is taken were also there a moment before that, can you tell me how long they've been there for?

You are still missing an important aspect. White light is always traveling, but if we see efferently we can only see the object when we're looking at it. This is important to understand. White light is constantly being reflected everywhere, but only when a lens is focused on the object can the snapshot (which is a mirror image) of the object be instantly at the film/retina. This image is seen because of the object's absorptive properties and our ability to see in real time. It's the combination of the two that allows this interaction to take place. You can't seem to separate moving photons and what the lens of the eye sees.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are still missing an important aspect. White light is always traveling, but if we see efferently we can only see the object when we're looking at it. This is important to understand. White light is constantly being reflected everywhere, but only when a lens is focused on the object can the snapshot (which is a mirror image) of the object be instantly at the film/retina. This image is seen because of the object's absorptive properties and our ability to see in real time. It's the combination of the two that allows this interaction to take place. You can't seem to separate moving photons and what the lens of the eye sees.

I understand all that just fine. But it doesn't answer my question. You have said the light at the film when the photograph is taken was also there (and therefore stationary) just before the photograph was taken. So how long have those stationary photons been there? How long have those specific photons been sitting there motionless on the surface of the film? Do these photons ever change their wavelengths while they are stationary at the film?

Suppose those photons have been there stationary at the film since the first moment when the camera lens was focussed upon the object. Then where were they just before that? (They can't have been at the object, because you've told me the blue photons hitting the object stay there.)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't change a darn thing because the visual range can only extend as far as our eyes can see. What we see can't go beyond the capability of our rods and cones. Our gaze isn't fixed (we can turn our heads to see a different screen of the outside world, but our visual range IS fixed.

Then what, according to Lessans, is that fixed visual range?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please explain how under efferent vision something can stay in one place without being stationary.

According to my dictionary, that's a straight contradiction.

Bump.

Also, if some of the sunlight stays at the object when it hits it, how can all of the sunlight bounce off and keep travelling? If the blue part of the spectrum stays at the ball, how can the full spectrum still bounce off?

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by davidm

I would expect no less from someone whose career depends on labeling people mentally ill! Hey, doc, are gay people mentally ill? Because they were so classified as recently as 1969! Suddenly -- poof! -- they are no longer mentally ill? Because why? Or why were they so stigmatized to begin with, O mighty thinker?

Nice ad hominem. So, because a science once made an error, then the whole of that science is therefore debunked. Newton's laws were overturned by Einstein's relativity, so therefore all of physics is meaningless. Stephen Hawking, you're an idiot, oh mighty thinker. That makes a lot of sense.

Originally Posted by davidm

It is documented rather objectively from Van Gogh's own voluminous letters and other accounts of his friends and family that when Van Gogh had his crippling episodes, he produced no work whatosever. To say that he "benefited" from his manic states of illness betrays total ignorance on your part on what an artist does (I am an artist) and also presumes to KNOW what Van Gogh's illness actually was. Van Gogh's illness has never been successfully diagnosed; the clues are simply too conflicting or insubstantial.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and your ignorance is deeply disturbing. I suggest you actually do some research in the areas on which you profess to soapbox.

For example, you might look at some of the peer-reviewed work on Van Gogh's mental illness, which says definitively that he suffered from manic episodes. While we can't say definitively (and I never did) what he had, some suggest temporal lobe disfunction, others suggest bipolar disorder. Those are acceptable possibilities. Either way, he had what were clearly a form of clinical hypomania at times.

I am an artist myself, and have worked with and studied artists with mental illness all my career. Many, many artists suffer from mental disorders, and many of them have documented how they work during manic episodes. Some, like Van Gogh, admit that they depend on their manic episodes for work, and that they can't work in down periods. It's not uncommon, and Van Gogh's letters clearly indicate heightened manic episodes during periods of work.

As much respect as I've had for you in some other posts, here you're barking up the wrong tree.

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

To say that mental-illness is simply socially constructed...

Originally Posted by davidm

Except I didn't say that, did I, doc? Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you just serially dishonest and hypocritical?

Yep, you did. Right here.

Originally Posted by davidm

Mental illness, by and large, is a socio-political category made up to stigmatize people we don't like.

I suggest you take some reading lessons and actually read your own posts. I suggest you actually read some Van Gogh. I suggest you read more than just a little Foucault (whose expertise in Psychology proper was minimal). I suggest you read the extensive literature in psychology that shows cross-cultural agreement on diagnosis of mental disorders, as well as heavily brain-based research in neuroscience over the last 10 years confirming so much of what we've already discovered. Have a look at the DSM-IV (or the V, coming soon), and look at the cross-applications with neuroscience and international research in peer-reviewed work, and then tell me you know something about psychology.

Because as of right now, it's fairly obvious that you don't know jack shit, you little prick.