A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;1057685]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You need to stop doing that. There are no eyes in my scenario. None at all.

So if the light does not travel independently, then what happens to traveling nonabsorbed blue light (that has come from a previously blue object) at the very moment when that now distant blue object first becomes red? Does this traveling light magically change frequency while in transit to match that distant object?

No, but the non-absorbed red frequency has traveled to where it now joins with the other light in the visual spectrum.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You'll have to be more specific than that.

Yes, that was a very silly thing to say. Obviously the actual distances are not the same. Nor does this address my refutation.

Sorry, but you've already agreed that the nonabsorbed photons I am asking you about ARE indeed traveling, so this doesn't work.

Your model doesn't get to change actual distances. Nor does this address my objection.

There is no seeing in my example, so you are again failing to address the actual objection. You need to explain how the camera can record a real-time red image at the exact moment when the ball first turns red. There were no red photons anywhere between the ball and the camera before this moment. When the ball turns red, red photons are only just beginning to travel away from the ball (i.e. moving forwards as they get replaced) instead of being absorbed by it. But a real-time red photograph requires red photons to be at the camera film at this time. How is this possible? (You need to answer in terms of the actual location and movement of RED PHOTONS, and you CANNOT answer in terms of eyes or vision.)

The red photons would only be at the camera if they were still within the camera's field of view (up to the inverse square law). When the object is present and it's bright enough for a picture to be taken, those red photons are not traveling 8 minutes to land on the film. The red photons are captured as they leave the object because the distance for that object to be seen efferently is not the same distance as would be necessary if it was seen afferently. I'm not changing the actual distance that light travels. I'm just trying to show you why there is no contradiction in seeing the world in real time just because light travels at 186,000 miles a second. I'm really at a loss as to why you can't even understand the concept, let alone its plausibility. We're never going to come to any agreement. This is really a waste of time, don't you think?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered this but I am adding this: Having a plausible but unpopular model does not make me deluded. If Lessans turns out to be right, then YOU are deluded. Do you see how ridiculous this labeling is?

What on Earth do you mean you "answered this"? It was not a question to you. It was my answer to a question you keep repeating due to memory failure. And no, if Lessans were to turn out right you would still be the deluded one.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not why I say you are assuming the afferent account. It's the fact that you are not understanding that when the eyes are looking at the object (premise #1), then the light that is captured on the retina is virtually instant.

If it's only virtually and not actually instant then the image is not real-time, and if it is actually instant then the photons would have to be teleporting, and cannot be moving forwards as you claim. Plus this has nothing at all to do with the questions you keep dodging which concern only your own account and have nothing to do eyes or vision at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is the problem because you are not putting the object together with the eyes. You are assuming that the light that is at the retina must travel through space and time, which then goes back to the afferent position.

I am not assuming that. I am asking you about it. You have also repeatedly admitted that the light at the film had to travel through space and time to get there. If it didn't travel on your account, then how did it get there on your account? Did it come into existence there, or did it teleport there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously you did not understand my analogy of the moon and a candle.

It was stupid and made no sense. Efferent vision cannot change actual distances, and if you want to claim that it makes the actual distances irrelevant, then you have to explain how it does that without introducing teleportation. Simply asserting that distance doesn't matter won't work.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

At no point have you said anything to counter my refutation. You've simply agreed with me by saying that the nonabsorbed photons travel, and then contradicted this agreement by saying they must also be instantly at the film - when the whole point of the objection is that this can't be the case if they are instead traveling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a contradiction if you are thinking in terms of efferent vision. It is a contradiction if you are thinking in terms of afferent vision.

Does efferent vision allow the same nonabsorbed photons to be in two places at once - both traveling forwards away from the object at light speed and instantly at the camera film? Merely claiming that one must think in terms of efferent vision does not explain away this manifest contradiction.

A real-time photographic image requires red photons to be present at the camera film at the exact moment the ball turns red. How is that possible when at the immediately preceding moment the ball was blue and there were no red photons anywhere near the camera?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by vivisectus

Not really. We have performed such experiments in many different forms and observed the outcome. Because we have observed the delay, because it is consistent with what we know of the speed of light and the distance between us and the moon, all pieces of data that we have confirmed separately and that fit together perfectly, the balance of evidence lies overwhelmingly in favour of normal sight.

Yes, but it's not conclusive evidence Vivisectus.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You have decided not to think of it as conclusive, for personal reasons.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

However, since in the mean time we just keep going on assuming sight works the way we think it does, and things keep working! Every test confirms that it indeed does work the afferent way. If efferent vision is correct, it works in such a way as to make it completely indistinguishable from afferent vision in every possible way.

Of course they keep working. This has nothing to do with technologies using the speed of light.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Just like all the observations and facts about bacterial infection, metabolism and procreation are so consistent and coherent that the balance of evidence is such that we can treat them as facts in stead of likelihood.

You cannot treat our knowledge of procreation, or our knowledge regarding bacterial infections, in the same breath as this.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You and your father seem to think that you merely have to claim a certain thing to make a point. This is not the case: you have to back it up. Please explain why it is that I cannot, and I will show you that you are mistaken.

I have backed it up but no one seems to understand why an observation regarding how we're conditioned through words can prove this.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet - the evidence is not absolute. It is this lack of absolute proof that YOU invoke and claim to be a reason to think Lessans ideas are plausible.

If afferent vision was factual, then you're right, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that there is no conclusive proof opens the door for another interpretation.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then it opens the door for an alternate explanation of bacterial infection, procreation and corpulence too. There is merely overwhelming proof for them too, not an absolute knowledge that it is so.

There is proof that bacteria causes infection and procreation causes babies and too many calories and not enough expenditure will cause corpulence although there is a lot of variation depending on metabolism.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

My response is that we would have to call that (L) plausible so we do not confuse it with what the rest of the world thinks "plausible" means.

Plausible does not mean factual. You can have a plausible theory but you are acting like it's an absolute fact. It's not right.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You seem to be under the impression that this supports your point. I do not see how though.

It doesn't.

We can't always identify the strain of bacteria that may be the source of an infection, but we do know that bacteria causes infections. That's a fact. The only reason I'm asking people to wait for further testing is because this is the only way they will be convinced that his claims had merit.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I know: you require no evidence to believe they had merit. The fact that there is none does not bother you in the slightest! In fact, no evidence in the world can convince you that they did not have merit, and the fact that you cannot explain many things we observe does not even slow you down.

Because there is, even though you don't count it as evidence.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If I wanted to, I could deny that the evidence in favour of bacterial infection is sufficient to make it conclusive. Something else could be going on! Further testing might reveal that we are wrong about it! I, for one, would like to see a bacterium through a telescope, as I distrust evidence from microscopes in the same way you distrust evidence from outer space. There is no conclusive proof for it - it is just a theory based on what scientists think is going on!

That is unfair. That's not what I'm doing and it's not what Lessans did either.

Not necessarily. Seeing shadows and patterns is not normal sight. You're assuming that with better technologies we will be able to recreate normal vision.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There should not be anything at all, is the point, as no information is supposed to be travelling that way. You are simply moving the goalpost.

No I'm not. There has to be a connection to the brain. He never said that that the brain sees through the eyes without an electric current connecting the two. That's absurd.

A hologram is just another way of recording light that is scattered from an object or scene. There are many tricks that we can do with light. This doesn't prove the direction in which we see.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is always so gratifying when you completely fail to see that you have just proven my point for me. It is very naughty of me to enjoy it, but I must confess I do. A personality flaw, no doubt.

It is you that's misunderstanding. We can see images of light patterns or scattered patterns that land on a surface efferently. You're confused.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So we create images just by redirecting light?

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So like in all the other cases I mentioned, the balance of evidence leans so strongly towards afferent sight that we can treat it as a fact for all intents and purposes.

That's why we have an innocence project. In many cases the preponderance of evidence seems overwhelming, and the 'perpetrator' is sent to prison. Even when new evidence clearly shows that there was a miscarriage of justice, it's difficult for prosecutors to admit they made a mistake because of the guilt they would feel.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Science is not like the justice system.

In some ways it is very similar.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If you were to actually proffer some evidence, I know for a fact that boatloads of physicists would love it. My son is an astro-physicist and he keeps telling me that he wishes you could understand how incredibly awesome it would be to him: it would completely overthrow so much of what we think we know. Think of all the exciting new physics it would lead us to!

Scientists LIVE for things like that.

But they follow the evidence. And there is none for efferent sight! Everything we observe confirms afferent sight. Show me an observation that contradicts it, and we have something to work on. Show me something that should work or not work if afferent sight was false.

That's why we have to see if there are any better experiments here on Earth. You still think dogs can recognize their owners from a picture, and there has never been conclusive evidence that this is so. That's just one flaw among many.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If you had anything else than the unsupported claims of your father we would have something to examine, but there is nothing!

You don't even understand why he came to these conclusions. You say he has no basis for his [theory], but that's a false statement as well. And we're going to go round and round the mulberry bush again for another 1000 posts.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered this but I am adding this: Having a plausible but unpopular model does not make me deluded. If Lessans turns out to be right, then YOU are deluded. Do you see how ridiculous this labeling is?

You love to lie, don't you, liar?

Scientific models are not "popular" or "unpopular." Only you personalize science, because your entire identity is bound up with your father's claims.

Models either make contact with reality, or they don't. Those that don't are modified or discarded.

In your own case, you not only fail to have a "plausible" model, you don't have a model at all. Whenever you try to explain whatever the Great Buffoon meant, you contradict yourself, say patently false things, misuse scientific terms in laughable ways, and in general talk utter gibberish and make a fool of yourself. And you've been doing this on the Internet for a decade! It actually does surprise me that your family doesn't stage an intervention on your behalf.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but the non-absorbed red frequency has traveled to where it now joins with the other light in the visual spectrum.

What non-absorbed red frequency? When the object first turns red there is no such traveling red frequency light. The only non-absorbed photons that have had time to travel anywhere are the blue ones. What happens to the traveling non-absorbed BLUE photons if the object changes color to red before these traveling blue photons reach the point where they allegedly 'join up' with the other light in the spectrum? Do they change frequency in transit to match the now-red object, or do they stay blue?

[Vivisectus]

I answered this but I am adding this: Having a plausible but unpopular model does not make me deluded. If Lessans turns out to be right, then YOU are deluded. Do you see how ridiculous this labeling is?

Efferent sight is not plausible. It would need to appear reasonable to believe efferent sight is the case for it to be plausible, and it is not: we have no reason to assume it is the case. There is nothing that we can observe for which efferent sight is the most complete explanation. Worse: there are quite a few observations that we cannot explain if efferent sight is correct.

The reverse is true: it is implausible.

And delusional is exactly what you are: you hold a belief with strong conviction, despite superior evidence to the contrary. You will undoubtedly try to deny this, and yet you cannot explain the moons of jupiter. Or supernovas. Or explain why mirrors work. And cameras. The list is endless.

[LadyShea]

That's why we have to see if there are any better experiments here on Earth. You still think dogs can recognize their owners from a picture, and there has never been conclusive evidence that this is so. That's just one flaw among many.

You have to show there is any reason in the world to think that facial recognition in dogs has anything at all to do with the "direction we see" or is used by anyone, anywhere as evidence for the current model of sight.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The red photons would only be at the camera if they were still within the camera's field of view (up to the inverse square law). When the object is present and it's bright enough for a picture to be taken, those red photons are not traveling 8 minutes to land on the film. The red photons are captured as they leave the object because the distance for that object to be seen efferently is not the same distance as would be necessary if it was seen afferently. I'm not changing the actual distance that light travels. I'm just trying to show you why there is no contradiction in seeing the world in real time just because light travels at 186,000 miles a second. I'm really at a loss as to why you can't even understand the concept, let alone its plausibility. We're never going to come to any agreement. This is really a waste of time, don't you think?

It is a waste of time because you are mentally ill and incapable of actually answering my questions or understanding the mistakes you keep repeating. A camera film cannot 'capture' distant photons instantly as they leave the surface of a distant object. It can only interact with photons that travel to it and hit it. And the nonabsorbed photons cannot be instantly at the camera film after hitting the object without teleporting.

A real-time photographic image requires red photons to be present at the camera film at the exact moment the ball turns red. How is that possible when at the immediately preceding moment the ball was blue and there were no red photons anywhere near the camera?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm on the right track for showing you that my questions aren't based on any afferent assumptions. So far there are no afferent assumptions, right? You agree that there are photons which hit the object and are not absorbed, and you agree that there are photons at the camera film when the photograph is taken. Nothing else has been presupposed or assumed at this point. Next questions:

1) Are the nonabsorbed photons which have hit the object still in existence 0.0001sec after hitting the object? [Y/N]

2) Were the photons which are at the camera film when the photograph was taken also in existence 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Y/N]

Bump.

On YOUR EFFERENT ACCOUNT do the photons which you just agreed exist, also still exist at the times I am asking about?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't even understand why he came to these conclusions.

And nor do you, you idiot! That's the point! Everyone keeps asking you, why he came to these conclusions, which fly in the face of reality! And you can't answer.

And we're going to go round and round the mulberry bush again for another 1000 posts.

I think the leniency here should be tempered with mercy, and that this and the other peacegirl thread merits a mercy locking. If that is done, maybe she will finally get some help, as she has run out of forums. Any other new forum she finds will lock her stuff before too long.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What on Earth do you mean you "answered this"? It was not a question to you. It was my answer to a question you keep repeating due to memory failure. And no, if Lessans were to turn out right you would still be the deluded one.

I responded to your answer to me that it was an unsatisfactory answer. That's what I meant.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I responded to your answer to me that it was an unsatisfactory answer. That's what I meant.

Who asked you? I couldn't care less what you think of my actual reason for being here. What I would like is for you to stop weaseling and to start actually answering some of my questions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

On YOUR EFFERENT ACCOUNT do the photons which you just agreed exist, also still exist at the times I am asking about?

Spacemonkey (I need to take a deep breath)...you have to start off with the assumption that objects have to be within visual range and that the lens (or something acting as a lens) is getting an image of the actual object. If you can't start off there, you won't follow the rest of this reasoning no matter how hard you try to make sense of this. This whole thing about photons hitting the film impies that we are receiving a delayed image because the light had to travel through space and time. In efferent vision light is still traveling but it's the location of the light (the light that provides the mirror image because it's just leaving the object) that the lens is capturing that is important here.

You're failing to see where you're reasoning is based entirely on light, even though you say the object is present. You think that there can be no light interacting with the film unless it crosses a certain distance, which obviously takes time. But this particular phenomenon does allow light to interact with the film even though the light has not traveled the actual distance as long as the requirements of efferent vision (which includes photography because it's the same light) are met.

[Vivisectus]

Wrong.

And yet you cannot make a good case for rejecting the evidence.

Of course they keep working. This has nothing to do with technologies using the speed of light.

Not what I was talking about. Every test we do confirms afferent sight: the theory keeps on working.

I have backed it up but no one seems to understand why an observation regarding how we're conditioned through words can prove this.

Ah yes - those self-proving observations of Lessans! The problem is that they consist solely of Lessans claiming something.

There is proof that bacteria causes infection and procreation causes babies and too many calories and not enough expenditure will cause corpulence although there is a lot of variation depending on metabolism.

Indeed. There is also proof that light strikes the retina, which causes impulses to go down the optic nerve and hit the brain, where they are interpreted as images.

There is no proof that efferent sight happens.

Because there is, even though you don't count it as evidence.

Yes indeed: these magical "observations" of your father. The ones he did not record. So really we just need to take his word for it that they a) happened and b) are correct.

No, just saying so does not count as evidence.

That is unfair. That's not what I'm doing and it's not what Lessans did either.

No, that is exactly what you (try) to do. You keep insisting that evidence from outer space somehow does not count. You dismiss evidence without giving sufficient grounds to do so - often without giving ANY grounds to do so.

No I'm not. There has to be a connection to the brain. He never said that that the brain sees through the eyes without an electric current connecting the two. That's absurd.

That is beside the point. No image - no matter how vague - should appear at all. In stead, an otherwise blind person can make out what is there. This is achieved by stimulating the optic nerve, which is not supposed to send any visual information in your theory.

It is you that's misunderstanding. We can see images of light patterns or scattered patterns that land on a surface efferently. You're confused.

That is not how a hologram works.

Absolutely.

Excellent! Then we can put efferent sight to bed permanently.

In some ways it is very similar.

Lessanese science, maybe! Real science, no.

That's why we have to see if there are any better experiments here on Earth. You still think dogs can recognize their owners from a picture, and there has never been conclusive evidence that this is so. That's just one flaw among many.

We have done the experiments. It is just that you did not like the results.

You don't even understand why he came to these conclusions. You say he has no basis for his [theory], but that's a false statement as well. And we're going to go round and round the mulberry bush again for another 1000 posts.

it is not coherent enough to call a theory. And no - he had no basis for them. he had an idea, which he did not test, and he called it a discovery. Then he kept tacking more and more ideas on to it, until he created the cloud-castle that we know and love today.

All this without a shred of evidence.

[davidm]

So, what have we learned, class? Let Perfesser Peacegirl sum it up:




Also, let's not forget that the Perfesser spent a whole bunch of pages agreeing that film made pictures in delayed time, until the inconvenient little fact was pointed out to her that if this were so, what we see with the eye, and what is in a photograph, should differ. Even her little bubblegum brain was able to grasp the problem, and then, without an ounce of shame, she simply shifted course and declared that photography is also real time -- even though it does not involve eyes or a mind! And how many times has she lectured us that her mythical "efferent seeing" depends on eyes and a mind to work. It's all about the eyes and the mind.

But cameras don't have eyes or a mind.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey (I need to take a deep breath)...you have to start off with the assumption that objects have to be within visual range and that the lens (or something acting as a lens) is getting an image of the actual object. If you can't start off there, you won't follow the rest of this reasoning no matter how hard you try to make sense of this. This whole thing about photons hitting the film impies that we are receiving a delayed image because the light had to travel through space and time. In efferent vision light is still traveling but it's the location of the light (the light that provides the mirror image because it's just leaving the object) that the lens is capturing that is important here.

You're failing to see where you're reasoning is based entirely on light, even though you say the object is present. You think that there can be no light interacting with the film unless it crosses a certain distance, which obviously takes time. But this particular phenomenon does allow light to interact with the film even though the light has not traveled the actual distance as long as the requirements of efferent vision (which includes photography because it's the same light) are met.

You are weaselling. You've said that these photons exist. Do they or do they not also exist in your model at the times I am asking you about?

[LadyShea]

[LadyShea]

But this particular phenomenon does allow light to interact with the film even though the light has not traveled the actual distance

Camera film and photons cannot come into physical contact and actually touch if they are at a physical distance from each other. What you have described is not the kind of physical interaction required to create a photographic image.

So, you are basically saying that this "phenomena" is magic and/or impossible within the laws of physics.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by davidm

So, what have we learned, class? Let Perfesser Peacegirl sum it up:




Also, let's not forget that the Perfesser spent a whole bunch of pages agreeing that film made pictures in delayed time, until the inconvenient little fact was pointed out to her that if this were so, what we see with the eye, and what is in a photograph, should differ. Even her little bubblegum brain was able to grasp the problem, and then, without an ounce of shame, she simply shifted course and declared that photography is also real time -- even though it does not involve eyes or a mind! And how many times has she lectured us that her mythical "efferent seeing" depends on eyes and a mind to work. It's all about the eyes and the mind.

But cameras don't have eyes or a mind.

And obviously neither does peacegirl.

[Vivisectus]

Considering the amount of time spent trying, I think we can at least conclude that "how cameras work" is another area where efferent vision struggles to explain what we see happening.

Another thing I am curious about is just how it is supposed to work. If we project things outward "unto a screen of undeniable essence", whatever that is supposed to be, then how come we detect anything to project anything unto in the first place?

To project the appropriate slide, we would have to know what is out there: we would need to know we have to project a dog in stead of a cat, for instance. We do not start out knowing what is out there. How do we detect what is out there for us to project a slide unto, and is that process not essentially afferent: information from outside reaching the brain via the eyes?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not why I say you are assuming the afferent account. It's the fact that you are not understanding that when the eyes are looking at the object (premise #1), then the light that is captured on the retina is virtually instant.

Originally Posted by "Spacemonkey

If it's only virtually and not actually instant then the image is not real-time, and if it is actually instant then the photons would have to be teleporting, and cannot be moving forwards as you claim. Plus this has nothing at all to do with the questions you keep dodging which concern only your own account and have nothing to do eyes or vision at all.

Virtual only means that what we see is not dependent on travel time. The visual cortex interprets the actual distance. We know the distance from the moon to Earth is a lot farther than a candle to our eyes, but it follows the same principle when it comes to the requirements for seeing in real time. Photons are never teleporting. How many times do I have to say that light energy is in constant motion, but you are still assuming that light has to travel TO the eyes, and you are completely failing to grasp why this is not necessary.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is the problem because you are not putting the object together with the eyes. You are assuming that the light that is at the retina must travel through space and time, which then goes back to the afferent position.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I am not assuming that. I am asking you about it. You have also repeatedly admitted that the light at the film had to travel through space and time to get there. If it didn't travel on your account, then how did it get there on your account? Did it come into existence there, or did it teleport there?

Once again, you are not thinking in terms of the efferent account and what the eyes are doing. You are thinking only in terms of what light is doing, which is confusing you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously you did not understand my analogy of the moon and a candle.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It was stupid and made no sense. Efferent vision cannot change actual distances, and if you want to claim that it makes the actual distances irrelevant, then you have to explain how it does that without introducing teleportation. Simply asserting that distance doesn't matter won't work.

What do you think I'm trying to do? I'm trying to show you that IF the eyes can see the object, then it is obvious that the light that is reflected is not light that has traveled millions of miles, but it is the light that is just leaving the object which is being captured by the eye. It's the opposite of your account.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

At no point have you said anything to counter my refutation. You've simply agreed with me by saying that the nonabsorbed photons travel, and then contradicted this agreement by saying they must also be instantly at the film - when the whole point of the objection is that this can't be the case if they are instead traveling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a contradiction if you are thinking in terms of efferent vision. It is a contradiction if you are thinking in terms of afferent vision.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Does efferent vision allow the same nonabsorbed photons to be in two places at once - both traveling forwards away from the object at light speed and instantly at the camera film? Merely claiming that one must think in terms of efferent vision does not explain away this manifest contradiction.

It's not a contradiction at all. Light travels. Just know that I'm not changing the properties of light. I'm showing that the premise that the object must be in visual range changes everything. You say you have included this in your reasoning, but not really.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

A real-time photographic image requires red photons to be present at the camera film at the exact moment the ball turns red. How is that possible when at the immediately preceding moment the ball was blue and there were no red photons anywhere near the camera?

Because that's not the light that is captured on the film/retina. It's already past the point at which it would show up which means it has already joined the other light in the visual spectrum to form white light.

[Vivisectus]

I love these completely insane replies you find regularly:

I'm showing that the premise that the object must be in visual range changes everything.

So the premise that something must be visible to be seen changes everything?

Because we do not know how efferent vision would work even if we had any reason to assume it exists. So we do not know why distance would be a factor. That means that "in visual range" merely means "visible".

So your "premise" is - we need to be able to see something in order for us to be able to see something, and that changes everything even though I can still not dream up a plausible explanation why cameras work the way they do.

I, for one, cannot wait for you to present this breakthrough piece of thinking to the scientific community. I am sure they will be deeply impressed with it.

[peacegirl]

Wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet you cannot make a good case for rejecting the evidence.

I have a good case and it has to do with Lessans' observations regarding how the brain forms word relationships. You don't grasp how significant this is. You keep pooh poohing it.

Of course they keep working. This has nothing to do with technologies using the speed of light.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not what I was talking about. Every test we do confirms afferent sight: the theory keeps on working.

Because the premise has never been questioned. It's very easy for this slight error to make it look like everything falls into place.

I have backed it up but no one seems to understand why an observation regarding how we're conditioned through words can prove this.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah yes - those self-proving observations of Lessans! The problem is that they consist solely of Lessans claiming something.

It's not just a claim. He explained exactly what is going on. Of course, he couldn't actually see what was going on in the brain, but he was able to observe the results, just like we were able to observe how Helen Keller learned words and then make inferences.

There is proof that bacteria causes infection and procreation causes babies and too many calories and not enough expenditure will cause corpulence although there is a lot of variation depending on metabolism.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Indeed. There is also proof that light strikes the retina, which causes impulses to go down the optic nerve and hit the brain, where they are interpreted as images.

There is no proof that efferent sight happens.

And there's no proof that the brain is interpreting the light and forming images, even though the mapping that shows the pathways to the brain may be correct.

Because there is, even though you don't count it as evidence.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yes indeed: these magical "observations" of your father. The ones he did not record. So really we just need to take his word for it that they a) happened and b) are correct.

No, just saying so does not count as evidence.

He didn't say that. He observed certain things and he urged people to test it. He never expected people to accept at face value that his observations were spot on, but he hoped that they wouldn't be ignored.

That is unfair. That's not what I'm doing and it's not what Lessans did either.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, that is exactly what you (try) to do. You keep insisting that evidence from outer space somehow does not count. You dismiss evidence without giving sufficient grounds to do so - often without giving ANY grounds to do so.

Because that's not conclusive. It's circumstantial even though it looks like everything fits. We can't find answers when we cannot manipulate the variables.

No I'm not. There has to be a connection to the brain. He never said that that the brain sees through the eyes without an electric current connecting the two. That's absurd.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is beside the point. No image - no matter how vague - should appear at all. In stead, an otherwise blind person can make out what is there. This is achieved by stimulating the optic nerve, which is not supposed to send any visual information in your theory.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I can see something efferently and there can still be residual images in my mind's eye, but I will never be able to close my eyes and have "normal" vision.

It is you that's misunderstanding. We can see images of light patterns or scattered patterns that land on a surface efferently. You're confused.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is not how a hologram works.

It is a trick of light that allows us to see images of a representation or an actual living object, but this scattered light does not come into our brain where it is interpreted. We see the image but that image is external to us, just like we see rainbows, which is made up of light, or pixels that form words, which is made up of light. I don't think you get what I'm saying.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Excellent! Then we can put efferent sight to bed permanently.

No, it just means light can do various things and produce all kinds of visuals, but that does not mean the light is entering our minds and being formed in our brains to produce the image.

In some ways it is very similar.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Lessanese science, maybe! Real science, no.

I made an appropriate analogy because we are trying to gain facts, whether it be scientific facts, or facts that occurred in order to prosecute or exonerate.

That's why we have to see if there are any better experiments here on Earth. You still think dogs can recognize their owners from a picture, and there has never been conclusive evidence that this is so. That's just one flaw among many.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We have done the experiments. It is just that you did not like the results.

In legal terms, the verdict is still out.

You don't even understand why he came to these conclusions. You say he has no basis for his [theory], but that's a false statement as well. And we're going to go round and round the mulberry bush again for another 1000 posts.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

it is not coherent enough to call a theory. And no - he had no basis for them. he had an idea, which he did not test, and he called it a discovery. Then he kept tacking more and more ideas on to it, until he created the cloud-castle that we know and love today.

All this without a shred of evidence.

It works both ways. Just remember that cloud castles are built on false premises.