This is why she posts this sort of diversionary crap when the going gets heavy for her; she is too dishonest to admit that she has NO ANSWER for any of these questions.
Even if blue photons bounce off and travel, the fact that the object must be in one's field of view means that those photons, when the lens of the eyes or camera is focused on the object, are present at the film/retina in nanoseconds.
Even if this were true for anything other than very close objects it remains the case that nanoseconds are a measurement of time. Thus, by your own admission, it takes time (i.e. nanoseconds) for light to traverse the distance between the object and the observer. If it takes any time at all for this to happen then it is not happening instantly, despite your frequent claims that it does happen instantly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
But the light is connected to the object.
How?
__________________ Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
Even if blue photons bounce off and travel, the fact that the object must be in one's field of view means that those photons, when the lens of the eyes or camera is focused on the object, are present at the film/retina in nanoseconds.
Even if this were true for anything other than very close objects it remains the case that nanoseconds are a measurement of time. Thus, by your own admission, it takes time (i.e. nanoseconds) for light to traverse the distance between the object and the observer. If it takes any time at all for this to happen then it is not happening instantly, despite your frequent claims that it does happen instantly.
The truth is that even though the blue wavelength light (or image) is believed to be bouncing off of the object, it is not. Why did I accept Spacemonkey's distinction between (P) reflection and (N) reflection if not to show that (P) reflection is not bouncing. It is revealing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
But the light is connected to the object.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
How?
By it being the flip side, or the mirror image, of the material world, which is why light reveals the material world, it does not bring the material world to us.
This is why she posts this sort of diversionary crap when the going gets heavy for her; she is too dishonest to admit that she has NO ANSWER for any of these questions.
You're wrong as usual. I add occasional links that I think people will enjoy because I'm human, and I need a break as well as others. Even when you go to a play, there are intermissions. Does this mean people aren't serious about what their work? Not at all.
You're still missing the point that if the object is seen or photographed, the light is already present at the film/retina.
You're still missing the point (or probably not, since you are a serial liar) that what you claim here is empirically false. Therefore your entire inane, incoherent and brain-damaged apologetic for your crackpot father's daydreams is superfluous and a waste of time.
As of this moment, there is no empirical proof that Lessans is wrong. It is all theoretical.
I'm also going to return to my earlier two sets of questions...
Quote:
FIRST SET
When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?
Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]
Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]
Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]
Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]
Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]
If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]
Your present answer to this appears to be that these blue-wavelength photons hitting the blue object do indeed bounce off the surface and travel away from it. Is that correct?
Quote:
SECOND SET
1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]
2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]
Your present answers here would seem to be that these photons did indeed exist before the photograph was taken and were then traveling between the ball and the camera. Is that correct?
Bump.
2nd bump.
3rd bump.
Are your present answers those I just stated or not?
4th bump.
5th bump.
Are your present answers those I just stated or not?
6th bump.
This entire issue comes down to whether the light is allowing us to see the object, or whether it is bringing the image to us through space and time, and being interpreted in the brain. The only way to prove that this is not what is going on is to test to see how the brain works, not how light works. This discussion is not going to be the definitive proof of anything Spacmonkey. Your rendition is completely theoretical, and it is based on a logical premise that makes it appear flawless, but if the premise is wrong, this whole theory falls apart.
You are getting your wish, peacegirl, but you have to follow the science news, otherwise how will you know when enough work has been done? (Disclaimer: I know perfectly well that unless Lessans comes back from the dead and says "I was wrong" nothing will ever be proof enough for peacegirl, so this is just interesting science for others to look at)
The Gallant lab at UC Berkley is making waves in the scientific community with their research into how the brain works with vision
From Time Magazine's 50 best inventions issue
Quote:
In experiments, subjects watched random clips of Hollywood movies, and the system reconstructed their brain activity through a process called quantitative modeling. The images from the subjects' minds bore incredible similarities to the ones they were watching.
Scientists at UC Berkeley have used fMRI to study the visual cortex to encode images as brain activity and decode brain activity into images. In other words, for a given image they know how your brain will react, and for a given brain reaction they know the image that would cause it. Researchers at UCB have even managed to do the same with video – their decoding system can create a rough facsimile of what a subject was watching at the time. This is incredible! I had a chance to talk with Jack Gallant of UC Berkeley about these attempts to see what the brain sees. While this technology is still in its very early stages, the work already finished is truly astounding. Check out a video discussing ATR, and pics of research from UCB after the break.
You are getting your wish, peacegirl, but you have to follow the science news, otherwise how will you know when enough work has been done? (Disclaimer: I know perfectly well that unless Lessans comes back from the dead and says "I was wrong" nothing will ever be proof enough for peacegirl, so this is just interesting science for others to look at)
The Gallant lab at UC Berkley is making waves in the scientific community with their research into how the brain works with vision
From Time Magazine's 50 best inventions issue
Quote:
In experiments, subjects watched random clips of Hollywood movies, and the system reconstructed their brain activity through a process called quantitative modeling. The images from the subjects' minds bore incredible similarities to the ones they were watching.
Scientists at UC Berkeley have used fMRI to study the visual cortex to encode images as brain activity and decode brain activity into images. In other words, for a given image they know how your brain will react, and for a given brain reaction they know the image that would cause it. Researchers at UCB have even managed to do the same with video – their decoding system can create a rough facsimile of what a subject was watching at the time. This is incredible! I had a chance to talk with Jack Gallant of UC Berkeley about these attempts to see what the brain sees. While this technology is still in its very early stages, the work already finished is truly astounding. Check out a video discussing ATR, and pics of research from UCB after the break.
What I would like is to have the resolution of the image become clear enough to know if the brain intreprets exactly what it sees, or does the brain alter and augment the image to what it expects or wants to see?
My grandson wants to be a paleontologist, I told him he needs to learn to spell it before he can be one. I also gave him an assignment that when he starts digging up fossels he needs to examine the layer of sediment where the bones were first layed down and look for the imprints of feathers. There is some debate now that some dinosaurs had feathers, but there has been little or no evidence, mostly because Dinosaurs were first thought of as big reptiles and reptiles didn't have feathers so no-one was looking for traces just the bones. If you are not looking for something you will not find it, It makes me wonder how much trace evidence in the form of impressions in the rock layer were lost over the years. It could change our entire idea about the apperance of dinosaurs, could you imagine a T-Rex in full plumage displaying for courtship?
This does sort of relate to the topic, in that it is about vision, but Lessans used his 'observations' of what he saw and tried to intrepret them. The idea that what we see in front of us is delayed is counterintuitive. A mirror image seems to be instant, there is no delay that can be detedted with just naked eye observation, so the idea of delayed time image was not considered and this was just extended to all seeing. It is possible that he came across some ancient reference to the eyes projecting for vision to occure and just incorperated this into his own concepts. Just because he read a lot doesn't mean that what he read was accurate. It reminds me of something I heard on a TV show, "Writers are liers, that's why their work is called fiction."
Last edited by thedoc; 03-03-2012 at 03:03 PM.
Reason: Kael
You are getting your wish, peacegirl, but you have to follow the science news, otherwise how will you know when enough work has been done? (Disclaimer: I know perfectly well that unless Lessans comes back from the dead and says "I was wrong" nothing will ever be proof enough for peacegirl, so this is just interesting science for others to look at)
The Gallant lab at UC Berkley is making waves in the scientific community with their research into how the brain works with vision
From Time Magazine's 50 best inventions issue
Quote:
In experiments, subjects watched random clips of Hollywood movies, and the system reconstructed their brain activity through a process called quantitative modeling. The images from the subjects' minds bore incredible similarities to the ones they were watching. All you are doing is mimicking what you think is proof that Lessans is wrong, even if the empirical testing is theoretical. You don't want Lessans to be right, and this is causing a problem with your attitude toward this entire thread.
Scientists at UC Berkeley have used fMRI to study the visual cortex to encode images as brain activity and decode brain activity into images. In other words, for a given image they know how your brain will react, and for a given brain reaction they know the image that would cause it. Researchers at UCB have even managed to do the same with video – their decoding system can create a rough facsimile of what a subject was watching at the time. This is incredible! I had a chance to talk with Jack Gallant of UC Berkeley about these attempts to see what the brain sees. While this technology is still in its very early stages, the work already finished is truly astounding. Check out a video discussing ATR, and pics of research from UCB after the break.
That's all well and good, but they have not proven anything. They have just used these observations to prove their premises. Don't you get what is going on at all LadyShea? Of course not, but if they ended up realizing that the brain does not interpret images IN THE THEORETICAL WORLD OF AFFERENT VISION, you would be all for it. But because it's Lessans, you are arguing against it. Talk about BIAS BIG TIME. You are so biased you can't see straight LadyShea unless it comes from your precious neuroscientists, which is exactly what Lessans was up against because he was not considered a contender for someone who would offer such truth to the world. Seeing one pattern from one image does not translate to having normal vision. No wonder there were colleagues who disagreed that "the movie" would be able to be interpreted and seen as normal visioned people see.
Yep I am biased. I am totally biased for evidence and experiment and useful, repeatable methodology and biased against unsupported claims and assertions, especially those claims of special knowledge unknowable by or unobservable to others.
They have just used these observations to prove their premises. Don't you get what is going on at all LadyShea?
Yes don't you get it LadyShea, for a believer no real evidence is necessary, and any disproof is invalid. So no matter what so called scientists discover it will be wrong unless it even suggests that Lessans could be right, because Lessans was always right, even when he was wrong. And if he was wrong he would have said so. So There!
You're still missing the point that if the object is seen or photographed, the light is already present at the film/retina.
You're still missing the point (or probably not, since you are a serial liar) that what you claim here is empirically false. Therefore your entire inane, incoherent and brain-damaged apologetic for your crackpot father's daydreams is superfluous and a waste of time.
As of this moment, there is no empirical proof that Lessans is wrong. It is all theoretical.
Laugh Out Loud at this dishonest little asshole.
Viewing the moons of Jupiter through a telescope, and verifying that they are seen in delayed time, is the very fucking definition of empirical, you little idiot. Calculating how to send spacecraft to Mars based on delayed-time seeing is the very definition of empirical. The flash-flickering lanterns experiment is the very definition of empirical.
Understand, stupid? No, of course not, in addition to having a canyon between your ears, you are without an honest atom in your body.
You're still missing the point that if the object is seen or photographed, the light is already present at the film/retina.
You're still missing the point (or probably not, since you are a serial liar) that what you claim here is empirically false. Therefore your entire inane, incoherent and brain-damaged apologetic for your crackpot father's daydreams is superfluous and a waste of time.
As of this moment, there is no empirical proof that Lessans is wrong. It is all theoretical.
Laugh Out Loud at this dishonest little asshole.
Viewing the moons of Jupiter through a telescope, and verifying that they are seen in delayed time, is the very fucking definition of empirical, you little idiot. Calculating how to send spacecraft to Mars based on delayed-time seeing is the very definition of empirical. The flash-flickering lanterns experiment is the very definition of empirical.
Understand, stupid? No, of course not, in addition to having a canyon between your ears, you are without an honest atom in your body.
Actually Peacegirl even copied her own post wrong, it was supposed to read,
'there is no empherical evidence, that I will acknowledge, that proves Lessans to be wrong.'
It's all a matter of selective preception, or willfull ignorance.
That is brand new,cutting edge science being done there in Berkley, of course they haven't proven anything yet. Exciting stuff in its infancy and I look forward to seeing it progress. That's new discovery, that's revolutionary.
You're still missing the point that if the object is seen or photographed, the light is already present at the film/retina.
You're still missing the point (or probably not, since you are a serial liar) that what you claim here is empirically false. Therefore your entire inane, incoherent and brain-damaged apologetic for your crackpot father's daydreams is superfluous and a waste of time.
As of this moment, there is no empirical proof that Lessans is wrong. It is all theoretical.
Laugh Out Loud at this dishonest little asshole.
Viewing the moons of Jupiter through a telescope, and verifying that they are seen in delayed time, is the very fucking definition of empirical, you little idiot. Calculating how to send spacecraft to Mars based on delayed-time seeing is the very definition of empirical. The flash-flickering lanterns experiment is the very definition of empirical.
Understand, stupid? No, of course not, in addition to having a canyon between your ears, you are without an honest atom in your body.
Actually Peacegirl even copied her own post wrong, it was supposed to read,
'there is no empherical evidence, that I will acknowledge, that proves Lessans to be wrong.'
It's all a matter of selective preception, or willfull ignorance.
Of course, we have tons of empirical proof -- yes, proof, not just evidence; there ARE proofs in science; it is proven that the earth is not flat, it is proven that Mars is the fourth planet from the sun, and it is proven that we see in delayed time as measured by the speed of light. Given the proofs that we see in delayed time as measured by the speed of light, which are all emphatically empirical, all she can say is, it is all theoretical!
She really is a dishonest shit, and deserves to be shunned.
Of course, we have tons of empirical proof -- yes, proof, not just evidence; there ARE proofs in science; it is proven that the earth is not flat, it is proven that Mars is the fourth planet from the sun, and it is proven that we see in delayed time as measured by the speed of light. Given the proofs that we see in delayed time as measured by the speed of light, which are all emphatically empirical, all she can say is, it is all theoretical!
She really is a dishonest shit, and deserves to be shunned.
It really grates on my nerves when I am discussing some subject where there has been a lot of scientific research and evidence that prooves it, and the other person will say "It's just a theory." proving that they don't understand what a theory is in science.
Yep I am biased. I am totally biased for evidence and experiment and useful, repeatable methodology and biased against unsupported claims and assertions, especially those claims of special knowledge unknowable by or unobservable to others.
LadyShea, you are biased in favor of neuroscience because empirical experimentation is the only methodology that you would consider as being valid; according to you astute observation and sound reasoning are not to be taken seriously at all, under any circumstance. If it was up to you, this new world would never have a chance. Thank goodness, it isn't up to you.
You're still missing the point that if the object is seen or photographed, the light is already present at the film/retina.
You're still missing the point (or probably not, since you are a serial liar) that what you claim here is empirically false. Therefore your entire inane, incoherent and brain-damaged apologetic for your crackpot father's daydreams is superfluous and a waste of time.
As of this moment, there is no empirical proof that Lessans is wrong. It is all theoretical.
Laugh Out Loud at this dishonest little asshole.
Viewing the moons of Jupiter through a telescope, and verifying that they are seen in delayed time, is the very fucking definition of empirical, you little idiot. Calculating how to send spacecraft to Mars based on delayed-time seeing is the very definition of empirical. The flash-flickering lanterns experiment is the very definition of empirical.
Understand, stupid? No, of course not, in addition to having a canyon between your ears, you are without an honest atom in your body.
Actually Peacegirl even copied her own post wrong, it was supposed to read,
'there is no empherical evidence, that I will acknowledge, that proves Lessans to be wrong.'
It's all a matter of selective preception, or willfull ignorance.
Of course, we have tons of empirical proof -- yes, proof, not just evidence; there ARE proofs in science; it is proven that the earth is not flat, it is proven that Mars is the fourth planet from the sun, and it is proven that we see in delayed time as measured by the speed of light. Given the proofs that we see in delayed time as measured by the speed of light, which are all emphatically empirical, all she can say is, it is all theoretical!
She really is a dishonest shit, and deserves to be shunned.
I know there are proofs in science, but seeing an image from the past is not one of them, even though light travels at a finite speed. I am not debating the flash flickering lanterns experiment either, so why are you bringing this up as if this necessarily correlates with DELAYED SIGHT? And why does an object, in every single instance that can be empirically observed, have to be in range in order to see it David?
Yep I am biased. I am totally biased for evidence and experiment and useful, repeatable methodology and biased against unsupported claims and assertions, especially those claims of special knowledge unknowable by or unobservable to others.
LadyShea, you are biased in favor of neuroscience because empirical experimentation is the only methodology that you would consider as being valid; according to you astute observation and sound reasoning are not to be taken seriously at all, under any circumstance. If it was up to you, this new world would never have a chance. Thank goodness, it isn't up to you.
Yes, thank goodness it isn't up to LadyShea, It will be left to the truth of reality, and thank goodness there are well educated scientists observing and experimenting to show us the way. Pity that Lessans had nothing to offer but idle speculation and wild dreams. Perhaps if he had known anything about the sciences he disputed he may have gotten it right. But you are right it is a good thing that a self-professed non-scientist like Ladyshea is not making final decisions about the scientific nature of the world, we will let that up to those who actually know something about it. I, for one, am content to let them do the hard work that I do not have the time or knowledge to do and I can enjoy the fruits of their labors. In a way its all about trust and having faith in others who can demonstrate what they have done.
I know there are proofs in science, but seeing an image from the past is not one of them, even though light travels at a finite speed. I am not debating the flash flickering lanterns experiment either, so why are you bringing this up as if this necessarily correlates with DELAYED SIGHT? And why does an object, in every single instance that can be empirically observed, have to be in range in order to see it David?
I must admit that Peacegirl is really good at stirring up a good word salad. Have we given up on claiming 'astutely observed' now? But it is not true that in 'every single instance' the object needs to be in range, but on Earth with the relatively short distances the delay is unnoticable to the average person, but in space the distances are far enough that the delay can be measured, and there is the disproof of Lessans claim.
It is just another example of Peacegirl's willfull ignorance that she is demanding an example, on Earth, of a naked eye observation to demonstrate delayed seeing, which she knows is impossable, and that is why she requires it. I still find it hard to believe that she is as stupid as her posts would indicate, which is why I contend that there is some hidden agenda to her continued persistance. ( Is 'continued persistance' redundant? or did I just emphasize the point? )
Yep I am biased. I am totally biased for evidence and experiment and useful, repeatable methodology and biased against unsupported claims and assertions, especially those claims of special knowledge unknowable by or unobservable to others.
LadyShea, you are biased in favor of neuroscience because empirical experimentation is the only methodology that you would consider as being valid; according to you astute observation and sound reasoning are not to be taken seriously at all, under any circumstance. If it was up to you, this new world would never have a chance. Thank goodness, it isn't up to you.
It is up to people like me though, isn't it? Scientists are much like me, biased in much the same way in that they consider evidence and experiment the best way to find knowledge. As you yourself have noted many times, Lessans New World doesn't have a chance without scientific verification.
Science doesn't settle for assertions either. Science doesn't take unsupported claims seriously at all.
You're still missing the point that if the object is seen or photographed, the light is already present at the film/retina.
You're still missing the point (or probably not, since you are a serial liar) that what you claim here is empirically false. Therefore your entire inane, incoherent and brain-damaged apologetic for your crackpot father's daydreams is superfluous and a waste of time.
As of this moment, there is no empirical proof that Lessans is wrong. It is all theoretical.
Laugh Out Loud at this dishonest little asshole.
Viewing the moons of Jupiter through a telescope, and verifying that they are seen in delayed time, is the very fucking definition of empirical, you little idiot. Calculating how to send spacecraft to Mars based on delayed-time seeing is the very definition of empirical. The flash-flickering lanterns experiment is the very definition of empirical.
Understand, stupid? No, of course not, in addition to having a canyon between your ears, you are without an honest atom in your body.
Actually Peacegirl even copied her own post wrong, it was supposed to read,
'there is no empherical evidence, that I will acknowledge, that proves Lessans to be wrong.'
It's all a matter of selective preception, or willfull ignorance.
Of course, we have tons of empirical proof -- yes, proof, not just evidence; there ARE proofs in science; it is proven that the earth is not flat, it is proven that Mars is the fourth planet from the sun, and it is proven that we see in delayed time as measured by the speed of light. Given the proofs that we see in delayed time as measured by the speed of light, which are all emphatically empirical, all she can say is, it is all theoretical!
She really is a dishonest shit, and deserves to be shunned.
I know there are proofs in science, but seeing an image from the past is not one of them, even though light travels at a finite speed. I am not debating the flash flickering lanterns experiment either, so why are you bringing this up as if this necessarily correlates with DELAYED SIGHT? And why does an object, in every single instance that can be empirically observed, have to be in range in order to see it David?
I wonder whether your predominant trait is stupidity or dishonesty, or whether perhaps you possess them in equal (and abundant!) measure.
Not debating fast-flickering lanterns, are we? Fast-flickering lanterns, you weasel, necessarily correlates with delayed sight, because if we saw in real time the fucking experiment would not work, as any first-grader could easily understand. So is that you're dumb, or is it that you're dishonest?
Do you have any clue how fast light travels? You don't, do you? It travels so fast that if it could be made to curve around the earth after being emitted from a source, it would circumnavigate the earth roughly seven times in one fucking second. As has been repeatedly explained to your dishonest ass, this is why its seems as if there is no delayed time seeing for objects on earth: because the light travels so fast it seems instantaneous. Yet we CAN demonstrate its finitude with fast-flickering lanters, AND at the same time we demonstrate that we see light and see it in delayed time, because the experiment would simply fail to produce the results that it produces if Lessans were right and we saw in real time!
Oh, and peacegirl? Why do we see the moons of Jupiter in delayed time, and why does NASA use delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars and other bodies?
Re: A revolution in thought
No, of course not, in addition to having a canyon between your ears, you are without an honest atom in your body. 
Linear Mode
