A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Exactly. She says she wants me to ask questions to work out if I'm being premature in concluding that Lessans was wrong. But what she means is that she wants me to ask questions which do not challenge her ideas in any way. Yet only questions which challenge her and Lessans' claims are relevant to working out whether or not those claims are correct (or even possible), and she doesn't want people to ask those kinds of questions. She wants me rather to assume that I have been premature, so that she can continue pretending that her position might actually be plausible when it obviously is not.

I never said don't challenge these ideas, but you are so certain that he is wrong that you are the one pretending to be interested. If you believe you're not premature in your conclusions; and if you believe this model of sight is impossible, why are we even talking?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said don't challenge these ideas, but you are so certain that he is wrong that you are the one pretending to be interested. If you believe you're not premature in your conclusions; and if you believe this model of sight is impossible, why are we even talking?

Because you keep claiming your ideas are plausible when they are not. So we ask you questions about how they could be plausible. You then weasel out of answering the questions and merely repeat your claims.

I know you didn't say not to challenge your ideas, but that's obviously what you meant. You clearly didn't mean what you actually said, because you asked me to ask more questions and you aren't willing to answer any of my questions. Like this one:

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Ask more questions you say...

...so that you can ignore them like you ignored these ones?

You're back to talking about photons while I'm talking about the lens and the fact that the object must be in range, which doesn't seem to register with you at all.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're back to talking about photons while I'm talking about the lens and the fact that the object must be in range, which doesn't seem to register with you at all.

You said that on your model there is a mirror image at the film consisting of light. Light consists of photons. I am asking you about those photons which are a part of your model.

Stop weaseling and answer the damn questions. You just told me to ask you questions. But when I do so you just ignore them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because you keep claiming your ideas are plausible when they are not. So we ask you questions about how they could be plausible. You then weasel out of answering the questions and merely repeat your claims.

I know you didn't say not to challenge your ideas, but that's obviously what you meant. You clearly didn't mean what you actually said, because you asked me to ask more questions and you aren't willing to answer any of my questions. Like this one:

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

Because you're not thinking in terms of efferent vision at all. You are still assuming the afferent position, for it makes no difference to you whether the object is present or not, which makes a world of difference. You believe that the photons themselves (with or without the object) are bringing the pattern to the retina which is being interpreted. The requirement of efferent sight means that the entire screen of the external world is a mirror image, not just the object. So if it's dark in certain spots, there will be no image on the retina or film. If there is an object reflecting light, those photons will be present at the film instantly. I know you're not going to be satisfied, but I don't know what else I can do to explain this model.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And light consists of photons. So you have photons at the film when the photograph is taken. How did they get there? Did they exist, say, 10 seconds ago? Where were those photons then? How did they get from wherever they were 10 seconds ago to the film where they are now?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because you're not thinking in terms of efferent vision at all. You are still assuming the afferent position, for it makes no difference to you whether the object is present or not, which makes a world of difference. You believe that the photons themselves (with or without the object) are bringing the pattern to the retina which is being interpreted. The requirement of efferent sight means that the entire screen of the external world is a mirror image, not just the object. So if it's dark in certain spots, it will show up as a mirror image dark on the retina or film. If there is light, those photons will show up as a mirror image.

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're back to talking about photons while I'm talking about the lens and the fact that the object must be in range, which doesn't seem to register with you at all.

When you talk about vision and optics you cannot refer to one part without referencing the others, everything works together and to focus on any one part without looking at the 'all' is useless and foolish. Peacegirl is trying to devide it into pieces so she can BS everyone by ignoring the inconsistancies with the whole system.

FYI, Lenses focus photons so the 2 work together to form an image on the retina, or film.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You said that on your model there is a mirror image at the film consisting of light. Light consists of photons. I am asking you about those photons which are a part of your model.

Stop weaseling and answer the damn questions. You just told me to ask you questions. But when I do so you just ignore them.

I have answered you plenty of times on this question Spacemonkey. I told you that although light travels, when we're looking at an object the photons that are captured are at the lens due to how the brain and eyes work. If you don't include this fundamental difference in your investigation, this model is going to look impossible.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there is an object reflecting light, those photons will be present at the film instantly.

If photons EVER get from one location to another instantly, then they have either traveled faster than light or they have teleported.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know you're not going to be satisfied, but I don't know what else I can do to explain this model.

You can either accept the fact that your model is contradictory and incoherent (such that it can and should be rejected by all rational thinkers), or you can try to change it.

Or you can just continue with your present mindless and dishonest weaseling and avoidance.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I will be glad to donate the following for the campaign's first bumper sticker.


Don't be stupid. Stay in school.

Correction, if I may,

Don't be Lessans, Stay in school and learn your Lessons.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered you plenty of times on this question Spacemonkey. I told you that although light travels, when we're looking at an object the photons that are captured are at the lens due to how the brain and eyes work. If you don't include this fundamental difference in your investigation, this model is going to look impossible.

If you accept that the light at the film (comprising the mirror image) traveled to get there, then you can't reasonably reject my previous questions about this traveling light on the grounds that traveling light is not a part of your model. Because it obviously is a part of your model.

If these photons at the film didn't travel to get there (and didn't teleport), then how did they get there? "Because of how the brain and eyes work" is not an answer. There are no brains or eyes in this example, so you have to explain it without reference to vision.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered you plenty of times on this question Spacemonkey. I told you that although light travels, when we're looking at an object the photons that are captured are at the lens due to how the brain and eyes work. If you don't include this fundamental difference in your investigation, this model is going to look impossible.

This model (efferent vision) is impossible because photons do not jump from one place to another instantly and the brain looking out through the eyes does not contact them at a distance. That's 2 impossible things, you need 4 more before you can have breakfast.

[Vivisectus]

You may need to do more investigation on your own in order to understand why light does not have to travel to Earth for photons to interact with the eyes, even though the light has not traveled the intervening space which would allow us to see each other.

Because you sure do not have any answers!

The reason he brought this example up in the first place is to show that there is no time involved in efferent vision, therefore all we have is the present.

No: he had the idea about there being nothing but the present first, and then decided to make a theory about sight that fitted the bill. Based on common misconceptions about dog-sight, infant sight, and an almost complete ignorance of physics.

I notice you are still here. Does that not embarrass you?

[LadyShea]

If these photons at the film didn't travel to get there (and didn't teleport), then how did they get there? "Because of how the brain and eyes work" is not an answer. There are no brains or eyes in this example, so you have to explain it without reference to vision.

She will never answer about cameras without referencing vision and eyes because even she knows it's a fatal flaw in Lessans reasoning.

We know you know, peacegirl. We know you won't admit it here, to us.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that although light travels, when we're looking at an object the photons that are captured are at the lens due to how the brain and eyes work.

Which is a completely nonsensical statement.

How do the brain and the eyes bring photons to the lens?

Do they create these photons in situ? Do they reach out into space, snatch up photons, and deposit them onto the lens in question?


"When we're looking at an object the photons that are captured are at the lens due to how the brain and eyes work" is a perfect example of a non-answer to the question of how the photons from which the image is constructed got to where they are.

I mean, honestly. That should be the example used in any textbook on logic or rhetoric for "How to pretend that you've answered a question when, in fact, you've completely avoided it."

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered you plenty of times on this question Spacemonkey.

You mean you've answered me differently plenty of times. So which of those answers should I accept and which should I disregard? You've told me both that these photons at the film were previously traveling towards the camera and that there are no traveling photons in your model at all. Which of those claims was correct?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not going to keep going in circles.

Yes you are. That's exactly what you're going to do. You've been doing just that for years, so you're hardly likely to stop anytime soon.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because you're not thinking in terms of efferent vision at all. You are still assuming the afferent position, for it makes no difference to you whether the object is present or not, which makes a world of difference. You believe that the photons themselves (with or without the object) are bringing the pattern to the retina which is being interpreted. The requirement of efferent sight means that the entire screen of the external world is a mirror image, not just the object. So if it's dark in certain spots, there will be no image on the retina or film. If there is an object reflecting light, those photons will be present at the film instantly. I know you're not going to be satisfied, but I don't know what else I can do to explain this model.

I get the same problem with my theory. People just insist on applying the non-cheese theory of gravity to the explanations that I give, which is that cheese causes gravity through the process of fermenting milk, which causes bodies to attract one another. You see, the "cheese" theory of gravity requires gravity to be generated more by large bodies, but only in the presence of cheese so the bacteria that ferment milk can impart it on them. So if there is no cheese in certain areas, gravity can still apply because there is cheese in contact with the celestial body somewhere, allowing gravity to be imparted on it. I know this will seem nonsensical to you, but until more empirical tests are done to prove that I am not wrong, I am going to keep pretending this is a reasonable point of view.

[Vivisectus]

I have answered you plenty of times on this question Spacemonkey. I told you that although light travels, when we're looking at an object the photons that are captured are at the lens due to how the brain and eyes work. If you don't include this fundamental difference in your investigation, this model is going to look impossible.

I feel you pain. I keep explaining: gravity is imparted on bodies by the presence of cheese, because the fermentation of milk allows the bacteria to produce the attraction. Unless people realize this important factor and stop looking at gravity from a non-cheese point of view, they will never understand that this is how it works. And somehow they manage to blame me and my theory for this! It is exasperating that people do not understand that unless you look at gravity from a cheese point of view, which includes accepting the fact that cheese is what causes gravity, you are never going to understand the lacto-bacterial theory of gravity.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And light consists of photons. So you have photons at the film when the photograph is taken. How did they get there? Did they exist, say, 10 seconds ago? Where were those photons then? How did they get from wherever they were 10 seconds ago to the film where they are now?

Spacemonkey, you're missing the entire concept because you are imagining that the photons reflected off the object are traveling long distances. Yes, (N) light travels long distances but there is no pattern in the light itself unless the object is there. The first thing this model states is that the non-absorbed light is not bouncing off of the object and traveling. You are imagining that the photons have a life of their own (sort of like drops of water that are traveling apart from the body of water it came from) and the object is a springboard to catapult this non-absorbed light into the universe. That's the misconception. Are you here to try to get me to see where my father was wrong, or are you actually trying to see if this model is plausible?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you accept that the light at the film (comprising the mirror image) traveled to get there, then you can't reasonably reject my previous questions about this traveling light on the grounds that traveling light is not a part of your model. Because it obviously is a part of your model.

If these photons at the film didn't travel to get there (and didn't teleport), then how did they get there? "Because of how the brain and eyes work" is not an answer. There are no brains or eyes in this example, so you have to explain it without reference to vision.

I told you that white light is constantly in motion and when it is surrounding an object, that object absorbs and (P) reflects light. The fact that we can see the object indicates that the inverse square law is working. We can determine the actual distance of the object due to this phenomenon, but when we can no longer see the object, that non-absorbed light is joined, once again (so to speak) with all the other light within the visible spectrum, due to the fact that this non-absorbed light does not bounce and travel indefinitely, which is the theory. That is why people think that we will see the past from the pattern of light that existed long ago, even when the event is gone. But, if this is not what is occurring, how in the world can we see the distant past from this pattern of light when the object or event is a necessary part of this equation?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[ The first thing this model states is that the non-absorbed light is not bouncing off of the object and traveling. You are imagining that the photons have a life of their own (sort of like drops of water that are traveling apart from the body of water it came from) and the object is a springboard to catapult this non-absorbed light into the universe. That's the misconception.

No, That is the way photons work in the real world, as has been observed in very accurate tests and experiments. The only misconception was by Lessans due to ignorance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Which is a completely nonsensical statement.

How do the brain and the eyes bring photons to the lens?

Do they create these photons in situ? Do they reach out into space, snatch up photons, and deposit them onto the lens in question?

When we're looking efferently, it indicates the object must be in view. If the object is in view, the light is present due to the inverse square law. If the inverse square law is working, there are photons (P) traveling. This means that as long as the object is sucking up certain wavelength light, the non-sucked up light is being revealed to the person looking. As the photons become spread out due to distance, less and less of the pattern shows up on the retina or film. When there is no more non-absorbed light at the film/retina, all we will get on film is white light, but no image. Therefore, apart from the object, this (P) light does not continue on forever and show up thousands of years later.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

When we're looking at an object the photons that are captured are at the lens due to how the brain and eyes work" is a perfect example of a non-answer to the question of how the photons from which the image is constructed got to where they are.

I mean, honestly. That should be the example used in any textbook on logic or rhetoric for "How to pretend that you've answered a question when, in fact, you've completely avoided it."

Why? If you can get even a glimpse of what I'm talking about, this will eventually make sense. I really think it's even more difficult to get across this concept to a group of people who are interested in how light works and have grown up with the idea that this concept of afferent vision is foolproof. That's what I meant when I said the more educated a person is in a certain field, the greater the stubborn resistance when a new way of looking at something challenges an established scientific "fact". This is not the same thing as a flat-earther TLR, although I know you are trying to put me in this category. What ashame.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you're missing the entire concept because you are imagining that the photons reflected off the object are traveling long distances. Yes, (N) light travels long distances but there is no pattern in the light itself unless the object is there. The first thing this model states is that the non-absorbed light is not bouncing off of the object and traveling. You are imagining that the photons have a life of their own (sort of like drops of water that are traveling apart from the body of water it came from) and the object is a springboard to catapult this non-absorbed light into the universe. That's the misconception. Are you here to try to get me to see where my father was wrong, or are you actually trying to see if this model is plausible?

"springboard to catapult"? Really?

He is saying that photons need to be touching camera film to take a photograph, and asking you how did those photons get there?

This is about as basic and non dramatic of a question as you can get...There is something at location x. How did it come to be there?

[LadyShea]

I really think it's even more difficult to get across this concept to a group of people who are interested in how light works and have grown up with the idea that this concept of afferent vision is foolproof.

You said the laws of physics remain in effect with efferent vision. How light works is a big part of physics. Efferent vision doesn't seem to be compatible with light physics