A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Stop talking about eyes and vision. I am only asking you about cameras and photography. If there is light at the camera film, then how did it get there if it didn't travel there or teleport there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

There are no eyes in my scenario. None. No eyes whatsoever. What part of this do you not understand? Yes, I am asking you about what light is doing in your account. That is because this is where real-time photography falls flat on its face and reveals itself to be totally impossible given the basic nature of photons and light-sensitive film.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

There are no eyes in my example. Only a camera. And neither eyes nor cameras can 'capture' distant light that is only just leaving the object. Light-sensitive photographic film can only interact with light that is AT THE FILM and in contact with it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

There is no visual range at all, because my scenario does not involve eyes or vision. But the object remains within the photographic range of the camera at all times in my example. And if your account is not contradictory, then where are the nonabsorbed photons according to you after they hit the object? Are they travelling away at light speed as they get replaced? Or are they instantly at the distant camera film? Or are they somehow at both places at once? Which is it, Peacegirl?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

What is not the light that is captured on the film? The light has to be at the film to interact with it, and it has to be red if the image is to be real-time. So how do the red photons get there when at the immediately preceding moment there were no red photons anywhere near the camera? And joining up with other light is irrelevant, because I have stipulated that the camera is inside the range at which this happens.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

You know, if there's one thing I've learnt from being in the Army, it's never ignore a pooh-pooh. I knew a Major, who got pooh-poohed, made the mistake of ignoring the pooh-pooh. He pooh-poohed it! Fatal error! 'Cos it turned out all along that the soldier who pooh-poohed him had been pooh-poohing a lot of other officers who pooh-poohed their pooh-poohs. In the end, we had to disband the regiment. Morale totally destroyed... by pooh-pooh!

[Spacemonkey]

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?

Bump.

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

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

Sorry about that. I reversed the colors by accident. The blue wavelength light stays blue but joins with the other light in the visual spectrum. The red light will be captured as the eyes (or film) focus on the object.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

You should know by now that you can't put the moons of Jupiter and the deep field Hubble, or even Supernovas in the same category as cameras and mirrors.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

Maybe not, but when you think about the senses, it is at least obvious to me, that if dogs react to being pet (sense of touch), taste (their dog food), smell (instant recognition of their master), sound (they can hear frequencies that humans can't) --- there is something different about sight. Dogs do not respond in the same way as they do with the other senses; in fact, without the help of the other senses they do not recognize their masters from a picture (whether you believe it or not), or as Lessans said, they would not recognize their master even if their his features were lit up like a Christmas tree (if their other senses were disconnected). You keep claiming it's because dog's cognition is different than humans, but that doesn't explain why vision works differently than the other four. You're right, it has to do with language, which is exactly what Lessans said. This observation was partly responsible for how he came to his conclusions about sight.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry about that. I reversed the colors by accident. The blue wavelength light stays blue but joins with the other light in the visual spectrum. The red light will be captured as the eyes (or film) focus on the object.

So then we can position the camera inside the range at which nonabsorbed light joins up with other light, such that the traveling nonabsorbed light will hit the camera film before this happens, and we can have nonabsorbed blue light traveling along from the blue object towards the camera, right? Then according to you the object can change color to red and yet this blue light will continue along still blue rather than red and will hit the film to produce a blue rather than a red image, right?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You should know by now that you can't put the moons of Jupiter and the deep field Hubble, or even Supernovas in the same category as cameras and mirrors.

Sure we can. Only you seem to think there is some distinction. These are things we see and/or photograph and/or detect with instruments. Either we see them in real time as per Lessans or we do not and Lessans was mistaken.

Empirical observations demonstrate that we do not see or photograph them in real time. Can you explain them in your model?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe not, but when you think about the senses, it is at least obvious to me, that if dogs react to being pet (sense of touch), taste (their dog food), smell (instant recognition of their master), sound (they can hear frequencies that humans can't) --- there is something different about sight. Dogs do not respond in the same way as they do with the other senses; in fact, without the help of the other senses they do not recognize their masters from a picture (whether you believe it or not), or as Lessans said, they would not recognize their master even if their his features were lit up like a Christmas tree (if their other senses were disconnected). You keep claiming it's because dog's cognition is different than humans, but that doesn't explain why vision works differently than the other four. You're right, it has to do with language, which is exactly what Lessans said. This observation was partly responsible for how he came to his conclusions about sight.

Dogs react to seeing things as well. Dogs can certainly see and use their vision to maneuver around the world. A blind dog will run into things and such in unfamiliar surroundings; my mom's blind walked right into the pool when they were visiting me, because he couldn't see it.

What do you mean I am "right, it has to do with language"? Where did I say that?

Only you and Lessans seem to think there is some quantifiable and qualitative difference between vision and the other senses, and there is no rational reason to conclude that.

[LadyShea]

The red light will be captured as the eyes (or film) focus on the object.

Film cannot focus on anything. Film cannot reach out of the camera to "capture" photons that are at a physical distance. Photons must come into physical contact (meaning photons and film must be in the same physical location) with the film for a photographic image to be created.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure we can. Only you seem to think there is some distinction. These are things we see and/or photograph and/or detect with instruments. Either we see them in real time as per Lessans or we do not and Lessans was mistaken.

Empirical observations demonstrate that we do not see or photograph them in real time. Can you explain them in your model?

Yes, but not through the same processes that scientists are using as their proof. Of course we can detect images from instruments and it is obvious that there is an image. No doubt about that. The dilemma is are we seeing the actual thing, or are we seeing a delayed image, which is the very point of this thread. I can't tell you from these images what they actually are. I can only infer based on new information. You can reject that information. Who cares? This does not prove anything.

[LadyShea]

The dilemma is are we seeing the actual thing, or are we seeing a delayed image, which is the very point of this thread. I can't tell you from these images what they actually are. I can only infer based on new information.You can reject that information.

Okay, so using the new information from your efferent model, what can you infer about the Hubble deep field images?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Film cannot focus on anything. Film cannot reach out of the camera to "capture" photons that are at a physical distance. Photons must come into physical contact (meaning photons and film must be in the same physical location) with the film for a photographic image to be created.

LadyShea, you're right, film cannot do that, but the fact that the object is in the field of view is what matters most.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you're right, film cannot do that, but the fact that the object is in the field of view is what matters most.

How does it matter most? How does the object being in the field of view cause the photons and camera film to come into physical contact by coming to be in the same physical location as is required for a photographic image to be created?

How do the photons get to the surface of the film?

[Vivisectus]

You should know by now that you can't put the moons of Jupiter and the deep field Hubble, or even Supernovas in the same category as cameras and mirrors.

I know you decided that it was so, but no-one else believes you gave a reasonable explanation. Mirrors should not work: we should see what is really there if efferent sight is correct. But we see an image, even though a mirror does nothing but reflect light.

So what then? Do we interpret light as an image, only efferently, at the glass? But how come it looks just like something we normally see? When we see something that is not in a mirror, according to you, we do not interpret light at all: light is merely the condition. Should we not have noticed that we have switched to a different kind of image interpretation?

Finally - how come the stars are in the same spot in a mirror as they are when you look at them? The mirror needs to wait for the light to hit it before images can be seen on them efferently. They should show us stars where they were thousands of years ago, while our eyes show us where they are now.

How come that does not happen?

So you see - mirrors are not at all explained in efferent vision. That is ok though, because neither is anything else on that list.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I know you decided that it was so, but no-one else believes you gave a reasonable explanation. Mirrors should not work: we should see what is really there if efferent sight is correct. But we see an image, even though a mirror does nothing but reflect light.

So what then? Do we interpret light as an image, only efferently, at the glass? But how come it looks just like something we normally see? When we see something that is not in a mirror, according to you, we do not interpret light at all: light is merely the condition. Should we not have noticed that we have switched to a different kind of image interpretation?

Where did you ever get the idea that light is not involved? That we see objects without the light as the bridge. I never said that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus']Finally - how come the stars are in the same spot in a mirror as they are when you look at them? The mirror needs to wait for the light to hit it before images can be seen on them efferently. They should show us stars where they were thousands of years ago, while our eyes show us where they are now.

How come that does not happen?[/quote]

The mirror does not have to wait. It is capturing an image that exists now because of the location of the photons as they are projected onto the retina.

[quote="Vivisectus

So you see - mirrors are not at all explained in efferent vision. That is ok though, because neither is anything else on that list.

Whatever you say Vivisectus. You are God's gift to ALL KNOWLEDGE.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dogs react to seeing things as well.

Of course they do, when there are other senses to help them along.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dogs can certainly see and use their vision to maneuver around the world. A blind dog will run into things and such in unfamiliar surroundings; my mom's blind walked right into the pool when they were visiting me, because he couldn't see it.

Dogs have a definite sense as to where things are when they are blind (my friend's dog could stop when there was a curb; this might have to do with sonar). So now what LadyShea. Prove to me that he was wrong with your ridiculous refutations.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean I am "right, it has to do with language"? Where did I say that?

Your memory is very clouded.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Only you and Lessans seem to think there is some quantifiable and qualitative difference between vision and the other senses, and there is no rational reason to conclude that.

Keep telling yourself that and eventually you will come to believe it.

[LadyShea]

Sonar? WTF?

Yes, just like blind people, blind dogs can and will use their other senses to get around. That doesn't mean that they do not use sight as well, that doesn't mean that loss of sight is a loss of important information about the world around them

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So now what LadyShea. Prove to me that he was wrong with your ridiculous refutations.

LOL, well obviously since I'd no idea that dogs use biosonar, you win.

Seriously though, your point was

that if dogs react to being pet (sense of touch), taste (their dog food), smell (instant recognition of their master), sound (they can hear frequencies that humans can't) --- there is something different about sight.

My refutation was that they also react to visual stimulus, as you conditionally agreed to here

Of course they do, when there are other senses to help them along.

What reason should we assume that they require their other senses to help them along? Do you have any rational, logical, or scientific basis for that assertion or is it just more faith in Lessans and you believe it because he said it?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your memory is very clouded.

I may have forgotten, sure. Can you find me the quote?

Keep telling yourself that and eventually you will come to believe it.

Oh? Can you name other people who think there is some quantifiable and qualitative difference in the mechanisms between vision and the other senses? Do you have any rational reason to conclude that is so, other than Lessans said so?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

Bump

[LadyShea]

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I may have forgotten, sure. Can you find me the quote?

Oh? Can you name other people who there is some quantifiable and qualitative difference between vision and the other senses? Do you have any rational reason to conclude that is so, other than Lessans said so?

Now there's an approach that is sure to convince her.

[Vivisectus]

Where did you ever get the idea that light is not involved? That we see objects without the light as the bridge. I never said that.

Ah! Lessanese refutation! The act of finding a minuscule but completely irrelevant detail to disagree with, and count that as a refutation of a huge amount of evidence, even though you have not addressed anything at all.

The mirror does not have to wait. It is capturing an image that exists now because of the location of the photons as they are projected onto the retina.

I love it when you talk your strange crazytalk and then just claim it is an explanation.

Let me respond with this brilliant piece of Lessanese repartee: The eyes detect an image that existed then because of the interference of the angle of deflection that the retina projected into the inverse square law, which means that the photons are like a mirror image!

I cannot wait for you to start publicly explaining things like that, hopefully when there is a camera about. Hey! Maybe we have solved your marketing problem! A youtube video of you earnestly saying the sentence

The mirror does not have to wait. It is capturing an image that exists now because of the location of the photons as they are projected onto the retina.

in response to being asked questions about light and sight! It would be sure to go viral!

Whatever you say Vivisectus. You are God's gift to ALL KNOWLEDGE.

Only compared to you and your father, darling.

[Vivisectus]

By the way, since

The mirror does not have to wait. It is capturing an image that exists now because of the location of the photons as they are projected onto the retina.

is not even close to an explanation that anyone sane could accept, you still have not explained mirrors.

You do realize that that was gobbledygook, right? I mean you are not REALLY batty, are you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure we can. Only you seem to think there is some distinction. These are things we see and/or photograph and/or detect with instruments. Either we see them in real time as per Lessans or we do not and Lessans was mistaken.

Empirical observations demonstrate that we do not see or photograph them in real time. Can you explain them in your model?

No one is denying that instruments are getting a photograph of something. As to whether this light is an exact copy of an event that happened billions of years ago is the question. All I can do is offer Lessans' observations and hope that scientists want to test his [theory].