A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe it was Davidm who used the word pattern. I am trying not to cause a strawman by saying the image travels in the light.

STFU you simpering liar.

I never said any such thing. It is you and the idiot Lessans who say that images "travel on wings of light."

I SAID that when light strikes the eyes, there will be greater and lesser concentrations of photons for the eye to register, just as there will be different wavelengths. As is well known by everybody except you and Lessans, the brain interprets these variations of light and dark and different wavelengths (different colors) as a pattern that we call an image. Did you forget my dart-throwing machine analogy? Oh, well, of COURSE you did, if you ever bothered to read it at all! Hey, peacegirl, when are you going to read the essay on light and sight by The Lone Ranger? Never, right?

Could someone please bump this for the asshat in case she currently has me on Pretend Ignore? I'm not going to let her distort what I said for her own dishonest ends.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Photons must be present on the surface of camera film to chemically react with the coating and produce a photographic image.

You know this is a flaw in your reasoning, so you weasel around talking about eyes and brains.

How do photons get to be at the location of the surface of camera film in your model?

Right now, in the explanation above, you have them teleporting...that's what this sentence describes "A mirror image will be present at the film, which does not travel". Is that your model, that they teleport?

I'm sorry but they are not teleporting. The lens is already aimed at the object that is within the field of view, so the mirror image has to be there, or we wouldn't see the object. The distance from the object works according to the inverse square law so as long as the object is in the field of view, the P light will be at the film instantly. In the afferent version, the light would be the only thing required which means it would have to travel to Earth to reach the film.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe it was Davidm who used the word pattern.

I used the word 'pattern'. But I never said light travels with a pattern.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying not to cause a strawman by saying the image travels in the light.

Whether you are trying to or not, that's what you're doing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry but they are not teleporting.

Then stop making claims that require teleportation.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It works the same way. If the object (the real substance) is large enough and bright enough to be seen, then that light is at the film when the lens is aimed AT THE OBJECT.

So the light is at the film. How did it get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A mirror image will be present at the film, which does not travel.

So the light is at the film and didn't travel to get there. How did it get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It isn't necessary for the light to travel to Earth for this interaction to occur.

So how does the light get to be there, at the camera on Earth, if it has not traveled there, teleported there, come into existence there, or always been there? How did it get there?

[LadyShea]

Let's try an analogy. When you look at a painting of a barn, does anyone think the image of the barn traveled in or with the paint to the canvas? Does anyone think the pattern of the barn traveled on the brush to the canvas? No.

The image was created by the paint physically contacting the canvas in a certain pattern of colors and intensities.

When we talk about vision and photography, we are saying that the light physically contacts the sensor, and that there are different colors and intensities of light contacting those sensors, and the image is created from the pattern of color and intensity of that light. The image did not exist before this physical contact. There was just light traveling.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry but they are not teleporting. The lens is already aimed at the object that is within the field of view, so the mirror image has to be there

The mirror image is made of photons? Yes or no? If yes, then the photons have to get there somehow for your model to be compatible with the laws of physics.

How do the photons get there?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Because you haven't explained or defined what these things are supposed to be in any way that makes sense. Worse, you keep contradicting yourself.

It's possible for you to believe it makes sense because you don't have the faintest idea how physics, light, vision work.

You said before that the way you approach these writings is that you assume they are correct, start from there (that's the hypothetical, as it turns out alternate reality because it doesn't match up with the real one) and then rummage around in there, constructing all sorts of mechanisms that don't have anything to do with reality.

No, Lessans had his reasons for believing efferent vision is correct, but he came about this observation indirectly. I also said that if more empirical testing is needed to support these claims, then that's what will need to be done.

Originally Posted by But

At some point, it would be the reasonable thing to return to the starting point and remember that you simply assumed the truth of what you're trying to prove at the beginning.

Not true. This was not an assumption on any level.

Originally Posted by But

If it could be made to work, there still would be no rational reason to believe it. The other problem is that it can't be made to work. Every single part of it is almost certainly false, and if your Dad (I don't know why you keep calling him Lessans) is wrong, then you're trying to do something that's impossible. Why don't you pick up a good physics book instead and start learning? You may learn that your Dad was wrong about most of those scientists after all. He never bothered trying to learn about the things he was pontificating about, that doesn't mean you have to do the same.

You didn't know him, and he was not pontificating. He was a deep thinker and would not have made these claims if he was unsure, but he also knew what he was up against. That's why he wrote the following:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 113-114

Our problem of hurting each other is very deep rooted and
begins with words through which we have not been
allowed to see reality for what it really is. Supposing I
stood up in one of our universities and said — “Ladies
and gentlemen, I am prepared to prove that man does not have five
senses, which has nothing to do with a sixth sense,” wouldn’t all the
professors laugh and say, “Are you serious or are you being funny?
You can’t be serious because everybody knows man has five senses.
This is an established fact.”

According to the definition of
epistemology which is the theory or science of the method and
grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and
validity, it is believed that all knowledge is derived through our sense
organs, but there is surprising evidence that the eyes are not a sense
organ. The idea that man has five senses originated with Aristotle
and it has never been challenged. He did this just as naturally as we
would name anything to identify it. But he made an assumption that
the eyes functioned like the other senses so he included them in the
definition. This is equivalent to calling an apple, pear, peach, orange
and potato, five fruit. The names given to these foods describe
differences in substance that exist in the real world, but we certainly
could not call them five fruit since this word excludes the potato which
is not grown in the same manner as is described by the word fruit.
Since we can see this difference, there is no controversy. Believe it or
not, the eyes, similar to the potato in the above example, were
classified in a category they did not belong.

We cannot name the
organs with which we communicate with the outside world, five senses,
when they do not function alike. Aristotle, however, didn’t know this.
His logic and renown delayed an immediate investigation of his theory
because no one dared oppose the genius of this individual without
appearing ridiculous for such audacity, which brought about almost
unanimous agreement. In fact, to disagree was so presumptuous that
nobody dared to voice their disagreement because this would only
incur disdainful criticism. Everyone believed that such a brilliant
individual, such a genius, had to know whereof he spoke. This is not
a criticism of Aristotle or of anyone. But even today, we are still in
agreement regarding a fallacious observation about the brain and its
relation to the eyes.

Those who will consider the possibility that you
might have a discovery reveal their confusion by trying to nullify any
value to it with this comment as was made to me, “What difference
does it make what we call them as a group, this isn’t going to change
what we are. Whether we call them 5 senses, or 4 senses and a pair of
eyes is certainly not going to change them in any way.” However, if
man doesn’t really have five senses, isn’t it obvious that just as long
as we think otherwise we will be prevented from discovering those
things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery?
Consequently, it does make a difference what we call them. Just as
my first discovery was not that man’s will is not free but the
knowledge revealed by opening that door for a thorough investigation,
so likewise my second discovery is not that man does not have five
senses but what significant knowledge lies hidden behind this door.

Many years later we have an additional problem which is more
difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated
dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is
actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors,
doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against
anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the
truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear any evidence to the
contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful the resentment of
these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name
of justice and truth. However, it appears that they will not be given
the opportunity because the very moment the will of God is perceived
and understood, man is given no alternative as to what direction he
must travel — which is away from condemning someone who has
uncovered a falsehood. The real truth is that there are thousands
upon thousands of differences existing in the external world but when
words do not describe these differences accurately we are then seeing
a distorted version of what exists — as with free will.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The mirror image is made of photons? Yes or no? If yes, then the photons have to get there somehow for your model to be compatible with the laws of physics.

How do the photons get there?

They travel, but this is what you're missing. If the lens is aimed at the object, then the light becomes a condition that is needed in order to see it. In this version, we're no longer waiting for the photons to get to the film. We're getting an instant snapshot of the object by means of the light which is already there, even though those same photons are being replaced by new ones every single second.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Lessans

According to the definition of epistemology which is the theory or science of the method and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity, it is believed that all knowledge is derived through our sense organs, but there is surprising evidence that the eyes are not a sense organ.

If by "surprising" he meant none whatsoever. And I thought you said he knew about epistemology? In fact I recall you claiming that he knew more about it than I do. Yet he is quite simply factually wrong here. The definition of epistemology does not say that all knowledge is derived from the senses. That is the definition of empiricism, not of epistemology. Thank you for again demonstrating his ignorance.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They travel...

Then why on earth do you keep claiming otherwise? In several of your last posts - made only minutes ago - you have insisted that they don't have to travel to get there.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It isn't necessary for the light to travel to Earth for this interaction to occur. We just wouldn't be able to take a photograph of each other because the photons have not reached Earth for another 8.3 minutes.

Are you saying now that we can't take photographs in real time?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They travel

They travel from where?

We're getting an instant snapshot of the object by means of the light which is already there, even though those same photons are being replaced by new ones every single second.

Light is already on the surface of the film? Light from where? How did it get there? Where do the "replaced" photons go?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If by "surprising" he meant none whatsoever. And I thought you said he knew about epistemology? In fact I recall you claiming that he knew more about it than I do. Yet he is quite simply factually wrong here. The definition of epistemology does not say that all knowledge is derived from the senses. That is the definition of empiricism, not of epistemology. Thank you for again demonstrating his ignorance.

Uh oh, I wrote that part. I'll have to correct that sentence. I should have defined empiricism, not epistemology. Thanks for your input, but don't blame Lessans for this.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Uh oh, I wrote that part. I'll have to correct that sentence. I should have defined empiricism, not epistemology. Thanks for your input, but don't blame Lessans for this.

You should change the bit about there being evidence too, seeing as no evidence is provided in the subsequent paragraphs.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? [Insert answer here]

2) Where were the photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Insert answer here]

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Uh oh, I wrote that part. I'll have to correct that sentence. I should have defined empiricism, not epistemology. Thanks for your input, but don't blame Lessans for this.

ROFL, every single time you've admitted there was a mistake in the text you say "I wrote that part" or "I added that" and some form of "don't blame Lessans".

I thought you "only added examples"?

Also before that quoted bit you wrote "That's why he wrote the following:"

[peacegirl]

I'm glad you pointed that out Spacemonkey. That was one sentence in the book that I was unsure about. I fixed it. Thanks for your help!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

ROFL, every single time you've admitted there was a mistake in the text you say "I wrote that part" or "I added that" and some form of "don't blame Lessans".

I thought you "only added examples"?

Also before that quoted bit you wrote "That's why he wrote the following:"

He did write this chapter. I was just trying to bridge the idea of epistemology, and how knowledge is acquired, with the empirical position that through our senses we learn about the world, which would then lead into the chapter. It was a mistake on my part, but it wasn't a fatal mistake. His discovery still stands. Even here, I didn't touch the concept in the book, so this is no different than any other example I may have used to clarify something he wrote.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm glad you pointed that out Spacemonkey. That was one sentence in the book that I was unsure about. I fixed it. Thanks for your help!

You're welcome. But how did you fix it? I thought the book was already published. Also, what about the claim of evidence? Why are you adding claims about there being supporting evidence - claims which Lessans apparently did not make?

[Vivisectus]

The lens is already aimed at the object that is within the field of view, so the mirror image has to be there, or we wouldn't see the object. The distance from the object works according to the inverse square law so as long as the object is in the field of view, the P light will be at the film instantly. In the afferent version, the light would be the only thing required which means it would have to travel to Earth to reach the film.

let us analyse!

The lens is already aimed at the object

the aiming of a lense makes no difference

that is within the field of view

this just means "that can be seen"

so the mirror image has to be there

Circular - you are saying "if efferent vision works as I say it does, then this has to happen, because efferent vision would work the way I say it does."

or we wouldn't see the object

Same circularity as above

The distance from the object works according to the inverse square law

The inverse square law would no apply - the light you use to see does not travel, so it cannot be scattered.

so as long as the object is in the field of view

if the object can be seen

the P light will be at the film instantly

(Re-stating of the same circular argument:"if efferent works the way I say it works, the light has to be at the film instantly, because that is how I say efferent vision works."

In the afferent version, the light would be the only thing required which means it would have to travel to Earth to reach the film.

For any light to reach the film it would have to travel. Hence the word reach. this is why your model is nonsensical - images reach the film without travelling.

[LadyShea]

I read an updated Dr. Spock book (the child-rearing guy not the Star Trek guy). Dr. Spocks original words were all italicized and indented, and the words of the doctor who did the compiling and updating and additions were not italicized or indented , so the reader knew exactly who said what at all times.

You really should have done that.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then why on earth do you keep claiming otherwise? In several of your last posts - made only minutes ago - you have insisted that they don't have to travel to get there.

Peacegirl, how on earth do you expect anyone to make sense of what you're saying when you keep flip-flopping like this?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We could not see without light, but as I said many times, it doesn't have to travel or teleport anywhere if this version of sight is correct...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A mirror image will be present at the film, which does not travel. It isn't necessary for the light to travel to Earth for this interaction to occur.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They travel...

Seriously, this question of whether or not the light at the film has to travel to get to the film is the exact same one you were flip-flopping on back in October of last year (link). You haven't made an inch of progress in understanding your own account since then. You're still stuck on the very same contradiction.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

STFU you simpering liar.

I never said any such thing. It is you and the idiot Lessans who say that images "travel on wings of light."

I SAID that when light strikes the eyes, there will be greater and lesser concentrations of photons for the eye to register, just as there will be different wavelengths. As is well known by everybody except you and Lessans, the brain interprets these variations of light and dark and different wavelengths (different colors) as a pattern that we call an image. Did you forget my dart-throwing machine analogy? Oh, well, of COURSE you did, if you ever bothered to read it at all! Hey, peacegirl, when are you going to read the essay on light and sight by The Lone Ranger? Never, right?

Could someone please bump this for the asshat in case she currently has me on Pretend Ignore? I'm not going to let her distort what I said for her own dishonest ends.

Another wasted effort on my part. But sincere.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

?

It's just not worth the effort.