A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Can I just do it till I need glasses? Oops, too late.

I hope you at least bought him dinner first.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Non-absorbed light travels but it becomes white light when the object is too far away or too dim for the sensor to pick up. The pattern of the object does not go on forever if Lessans is right. This P light becomes a condition of sight, which means it reveals objective reality as we look out, through the eyes, as a window to the world.

That's still not an answer to what I asked. And again, there are no eyes in my example. Once more: Do you now agree that the non-absorbed light hitting an object does bounce off, and that you were wrong to previously claim otherwise?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not ignored anything.

Yes, you did. Here's the earlier post where I explained this to you. Did you respond? No, you did not. You ignored it, only to now repeat the same mistake.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The whole discussion is predicated on Lessans' claim that the object has to be within visible range. You say it's not fact, and I'm saying the claim that objects don't have to be within visible range is not fact.

In explaining how you think your model might work, you are welcome to make up what you think actually happens, but you don't get to make up facts about what you think must happen, or what cannot possibly happen. (That would be another modal fallacy.) You said: "We cannot detect an image from the past from light alone. The reasons you give aren't adding up." We don't have to explain things that we have no reason to believe to be true. Your unsupported claim that images cannot be created by light alone is not something that the afferent model has to explain. You can stipulate that things work differently on your model, but you don't get to criticize the accepted model for not explaining things that are not true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're the one that is mixing the two concepts up. I told you that light is always traveling but just as the surface of the object absorbs light, the photons just leaving the surface of the object become the mirror image when lens of the eyes, or film, is aimed at the object.

I never said light doesn't travel, but you're still missing the concept of efferent VISION. It's the eyes that cause a mirror image to be at the retina (it works the same way with cameras), and it doesn't take the light to travel to Earth for this to occur. The reason for this is when the eyes are looking at the external world in real time (whatever is seen is bright enough or large enough for it to be in one's visual range), the light becomes an instant mirror image.

And now you're back to teleporting light. Again. The light just leaving the surface of the object cannot instantly become part of an image at the film without getting from the object to the film in zero time. That would require them to either travel at an infinite speed or to teleport there. And if the camera is on Earth, and there is a mirror image at the camera film consisting of light, then yes, that light has to have traveled to Earth. If it is there without traveling there, then it has either teleported there, come into existence there, or was always there and stationary. And STOP talking about eyes! If it can work the same for cameras without eyes, then explain how it works for cameras without mentioning eyes!

[LadyShea]

The whole discussion is predicated on Lessans' claim that the object has to be within visible range. I'm saying the claim that objects don't have to be within visible range is not fact.

What is the Hubble Deep Field image? It's an image

Were the galaxies seen in the image in visual range at the time the Hubble was pointed in that direction? No

How was the image formed? Pointing the Hubble at a set of coordinates that appeared to be empty space and collecting photons on a CCD for a total of a million minutes

Can you explain the images without contradicting your own statement above? Would you answer the questions I asked differently?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All he said was a vague "If it's large enough and bright enough it can be seen", your "visual range" also means nothing more than it can be seen. So my apologies, you were making his same vacuous argument.

Neither you nor he details or defines what is large enough, close enough, or bright enough except that if we can see it it meets the criteria for seeing it so we can see it because we can see it. Circles of roundness orbiting a spherical circularity.

But those are the requirements. It's being able to see an object because of its size or brightness which means it's in visual range. This is not a vacuous argument, nor is it circular. This is pivotal because this also means that the light, being a condition of sight in this version, doesn't have to travel to Earth for the image to be seen, or for the resulting light to be a mirror image instantly, as the brain looks out, through the eyes, to see the real world as it is in real time.

[peacegirl]

Spacemonkey, you have guts to write to my sister and ask her to come on this forum, telling her you're worried about my mental health. I told you she's not interested, but what do you do? You go behind my back? What nerve you have. Here's what she emailed me.

This is crazy! They are crazy! I have no intention of interacting with these ego maniacs. Love you!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But those are the requirements. It's being able to see an object because of its size or brightness which means it's in visual range. This is not a vacuous argument, nor is it circular. This is pivotal because this also means that the light, being a condition of sight in this version, doesn't have to travel to Earth for the image to be seen, or for the resulting light to be a mirror image instantly, as the brain looks out, through the eyes, to see the real world as it is in real time.

How big is big enough? How bright is bright enough? How close is close enough?

Other than the very vacuous and circular "If we can see it, it is X enough" does your model offer any explanations?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you have guts to write to my sister and ask her to come on this forum, telling her you're worried about my mental health. I told you she's not interested, but what do you do? You go behind my back? What nerve you have. Here's what she emailed me.

This is crazy! They are crazy! I have no intention of interacting with these ego maniacs. Love you!

He told you flat out he was going to email your sister, he didn't go behind your back.

I like how one person writing an email equals "they are crazy egomaniacs"...you are both histrionic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He told you flat out he was going to email your sister, he didn't go behind your back.

I like how one person writing an email equals "they are crazy egomaniacs"...you are both histrionic.

Says Ms Judge. I told him that she was not interested; that she was too busy, and for him to talk about his concern for my mental health was absurd.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How big is big enough? How bright is bright enough? How close is close enough?

Other than the very vacuous and circular "If we can see it, it is X enough" does your model offer any explanations?

It's amazing that you're harping on this as if it's something strange to say "a material substance has to be within visual range" for it to be seen efferently. It's self-explanatory. There is no hidden circularity or vacuousness in this statement.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He told you flat out he was going to email your sister, he didn't go behind your back.

I like how one person writing an email equals "they are crazy egomaniacs"...you are both histrionic.

But is that really the text of her sisters e-mail or is it the product of Peacegirls wild imagination? Given the history of this thread there is no way to know, and I'm not to sure about relying on Peacegirl's statement.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's amazing that you're harping on this as if it's something strange to say "a material substance has to be within visual range" for it to be seen efferently. It's self-explanatory. There is no hidden circularity or vacuousness in this statement.

It's strange in the extreme to explain an allegedly scientific principle as "self explanatory". Science never does that.

You're basically saying "If you can see you can see it because you can see it" that is OPENLY circular and vacuous. There is no explanation as to the mechanisms, principles, or laws of nature involved in seeing. It's what a child would say.


And you want Lessans taken seriously by leading scientists and world leaders?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's self-explanatory.

A good answer, - if you don't have a real answer.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Says Ms Judge. I told him that she was not interested; that she was too busy, and for him to talk about his concern for my mental health was absurd.

He didn't go behind your back, and he did it because his conscience wanted to know that some member of your family was aware of your years of doing this which is also absurd.

I still find it hysterical that nobody in your family but you bothers to try to bring about the end of all evil, if they think there is an actual way to do that. "Sorry, sis, I am just to busy to spend any of my time or money ending war and poverty. You go ahead though" Makes me think they don't believe a word of it and are just keeping quiet out of personal love and respect for their family.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He didn't go behind your back, and he did it because his conscience wanted to know that some member of your family was aware of your years of doing this which is also absurd.

I still find it hysterical that nobody in your family but you bothers to try to bring about the end of all evil, if they think there is an actual way to do that. "Sorry, sis, I am just to busy to spend any of my time or money ending war and poverty. You go ahead though" Makes me think they don't believe a word of it and are just keeping quiet out of personal love and respect for their family.

Apples don't fall very far from the tree.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is the Hubble Deep Field image? It's an image

Were the galaxies seen in the image in visual range at the time the Hubble was pointed in that direction? No

How was the image formed? Pointing the Hubble at a set of coordinates that appeared to be empty space and collecting photons on a CCD for a total of a million minutes

Can you explain the images without contradicting your own statement above? Would you answer the questions I asked differently?

I told you that I can't explain what is going on. To be fair, you cannot assume anything is fact before the facts are in LadyShea, and this is far from factual in my opinion. That's all I'm saying.

[LadyShea]

I told you that I can't explain what is going on. To be fair, you don't assume anything is fact before the facts are in LadyShea. That's all I'm saying.

The image is a fact. The methods used that produced the image are known facts.

Perhaps there is another explanation, but there is no reason to think there is or that there even might be. There is certainly nothing missing in or problematic with the current explanation to prompt scientists to go looking for something else.

That you can't even try to offer one is a good indication that there isn't an alternative explanation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's still not an answer to what I asked. And again, there are no eyes in my example. Once more: Do you now agree that the non-absorbed light hitting an object does bounce off, and that you were wrong to previously claim otherwise?

I told you I could replace the word "eyes" for camera. It doesn't matter because they work the same way.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not ignored anything.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, you did. Here's the earlier post where I explained this to you. Did you respond? No, you did not. You ignored it, only to now repeat the same mistake.

I'm not going to talk about photons traveling because it will always turn out in favor of the afferent position, but has nothing to do with how the eyes work in actuality.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The whole discussion is predicated on Lessans' claim that the object has to be within visible range. You say it's not fact, and I'm saying the claim that objects don't have to be within visible range is not fact.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

In explaining how you think your model might work, you are welcome to make up what you think actually happens, but you don't get to make up facts about what you think must happen, or what cannot possibly happen. (That would be another modal fallacy.) You said: "We cannot detect an image from the past from light alone. The reasons you give aren't adding up."

They do add up.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We don't have to explain things that we have no reason to believe to be true. Your unsupported claim that images cannot be created by light alone is not something that the afferent model has to explain.

The afferent model only has to explain what is believed to be going on, but it doesn't make it correct.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can stipulate that things work differently on your model, but you don't get to criticize the accepted model for not explaining things that are not true.

What do you mean "not true"? How do you know what's true or not? You're just using the theory that the eyes are a sense organ to fit the premise. Does this mean that just because it's the accepted model, and gives the appearance of being foolproof, that it's factual? No.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're the one that is mixing the two concepts up. I told you that light is always traveling but just as the surface of the object absorbs light, the photons just leaving the surface of the object become the mirror image when lens of the eyes, or film, is aimed at the object.

I never said light doesn't travel, but you're still missing the concept of efferent VISION. It's the eyes that cause a mirror image to be at the retina (it works the same way with cameras), and it doesn't take the light to travel to Earth for this to occur. The reason for this is when the eyes are looking at the external world in real time (whatever is seen is bright enough or large enough for it to be in one's visual range), the light becomes an instant mirror image.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And now you're back to teleporting light. Again. The light just leaving the surface of the object cannot instantly become part of an image at the film without getting from the object to the film in zero time. That would require them to either travel at an infinite speed or to teleport there. And if the camera is on Earth, and there is a mirror image at the camera film consisting of light, then yes, that light has to have traveled to Earth. If it is there without traveling there, then it has either teleported there, come into existence there, or was always there and stationary. And STOP talking about eyes! If it can work the same for cameras without eyes, then explain how it works for cameras without mentioning eyes!

I will talk about the eyes because that's where the information comes from. You can replace eyes for film, if you choose. This has nothing to do with teleportation because of the fact that the first premise in efferent vision is that the eyes are seeing the real object in real time. If this is true, then the image shows up on the film/retina instantly as a mirror image because the light is not bringing the image to the eyes (which would require travel time). You continue to come from the afferent position, without considering the first premise in efferent vision, which is causing major confusion.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

In explaining how you think your model might work, you are welcome to make up what you think actually happens, but you don't get to make up facts about what you think must happen, or what cannot possibly happen. (That would be another modal fallacy.) You said: "We cannot detect an image from the past from light alone. The reasons you give aren't adding up."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They do add up.

Arguing with your own words again

[peacegirl]

Intermission: Very cool video:

Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth -- visualized - YouTube

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Arguing with your own words again

I'm reading the posts quickly these days and could easily make this mistake. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[LadyShea]

This has nothing to do with teleportation because of the fact that the first premise in efferent vision is that the eyes are seeing the real object in real time. If this is true, then the image shows up on the film/retina instantly as a mirror image because the light is not bringing the image to the eyes (which would require travel time). You continue to come from the afferent position

It has nothing to do with afferent vision, it has to do with the properties of light and the physical laws that govern light. Those laws require that light in a location had to physically come to be at that location by some physical mechanism. You keep weaseling away from this fact with your whining about the premises of vision.

Your model so far has eyes/camera lenses causing photons to teleport from one location to another. Until you can offer some other mechanism for how the photons come to be at the location known as the surface of camera film, it will remain teleportation as that is what you've described.

[Vivisectus]

We have a mechanism: "The light at the object allows (how?) a snapshot (what does that even mean?) to be taken (taken? How is it "taken"?) which instantly forms a mirror image (that word, I don't think it means what you think it means) at the lens (or retina)"

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We have a mechanism: "The light at the object allows (how?) a snapshot (what does that even mean?) to be taken (taken? How is it "taken"?) which instantly forms a mirror image (that word, I don't think it means what you think it means) at the lens (or retina)"

You mean that you can see something because you can see it??!! Astounding, call all the scientists!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We have a mechanism: "The light at the object allows (how?) a snapshot (what does that even mean?) to be taken (taken? How is it "taken"?) which instantly forms a mirror image (that word, I don't think it means what you think it means) at the lens (or retina)"

Never mind the fact that it has already been proven that we do not see in real time, nor could we even in principle. Hence why I find this continuing discussion, which goes round and round in endless circles and covers the exact same ground over and over, so odd. Why discuss the supposed mechanism of a nonexistent phenomenon? It would be like discussing the physical mechanisms that make the earth flat. But since the earth is not flat, why discuss the non-existent mechanisms that cause flatness, even if they could be coherently stated? Here, it is even worse: not only are you indulging peacegirl's obsessive-compulsive fantasy world by discussing the supposed mechanisms of a nonexistent phenomenon, even her mechanisms are nonexistent because she has failed to explain HOW they are supposed to work.

That this thread has gone on this long essentially discussing nothing at all, is fairly surreal.

[LadyShea]

I am glad to see her at least thinking in the general vicinity of mechanisms and problems in need of solving by trying to extend the ideas, rather than only parroting Lessans assertions. Most of her proposed model is directly from her.

It is a step in the right direction for any True Believer to try to deconstruct their own POV and examine the parts.