A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I don't have a therapist. I'm beyond help. There is nothing wrong with me.

Could you ask some of your imaginary friends. I know how important a second opinion can be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The photochemical reaction that occurs during film photography requires the absorption of photons at the surface of the camera film.

What is the location of the "actual light"? If the location is "on the surface of the camera film" what is the physical mechanism by which light comes to be at the location "surface of the camera film"?

Picture that a far away object meets the requirements of efferent vision in that the object is bright enough and large enough to be seen. If that premise is true, then we must begin our reasoning from there. It follows necessarily that if we can see the object, then the reflected non-absorbed light has to be at the film/retina. Making it a requirement that light has to travel to Earth is not a physical necessity. The light is still interacting with the film.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has. It just doesn't have to travel to Earth for light to actually be at the film if the OBJECT is in view.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I've not mentioned anything about traveling to the Earth.

What is the physical mechanism by which light comes to be at the location "surface of the camera film". An object being in view is not a physical mechanism by which light can come to be at a location.

The physical mechanism is the reflection of light that is automatically at the film IF THE OBJECT IS IN VIEW. It makes no difference that the photons are being replaced because the non-absorbed photons will always reflect what the object is doing, not the light, since the light is not what is being decoded into an image.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Object = light = mirror image = photograph

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does that mean? Are the = symbols meant to be taken literally in that the object is the light which is the mirror image which is the photograph?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you answering that an = symbol is the physical mechanism by which light comes to be at the location "surface of the camera film"?

No, I just meant that first there's an object, then there's light being reflected, then there's a mirror image that shows up on film (because it meets the requirements), and then a photograph is taken in real time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is the mirror image? Is it material? What is it made of? Does it have a location? What is the physical mechanism by which the mirror images comes to be at the location?

Please think of the box and the light being reflected from the object. Picture that your lens (whether it's an eye or a camera) is within that light. Regardless of how far away the object is, it will create a mirror image. Just because it's a short cut, so to speak, doesn't mean the light isn't physically interacting. If the object appears small, then it will show up exactly that way on the retina due to the inverse square law. If your lens happens to be closer to the object which makes it appear larger, then it will show up exactly as you see it due to the inverse square law. Photons are still traveling but when we only get white light (remember, we are assuming the premise of efferent vision is correct and working backwards), then the object is out of range and we will no longer get an image.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Picture that a far away object meets the requirements of efferent vision in that the object is bright enough and large enough to be seen.

Do you know what "bright" means? You still don't, do you? I doubt you even know the definition of the word "large."

If that premise is true..

What premise did that word salad denote again?

...then we must begin our reasoning from there.

LOL

It follows necessarily that if we can see the object, then the reflected non-absorbed light has to be at the film/retina.

So the "reflected non-absorbed light has to be at the film /retina." How did it get there? Remember, you said earlier that light was not "reflected." Now it IS reflected? Still can't keep your twaddle consistent with its own twaddly nature, eh?

Making it a requirement that light has to travel to Earth is not a physical necessity.

Except the Big Dummy said that the photons would take eight and a half minutes to get to earth after the sun is switched on, yet maintained that despite this delay, we would see the sun instantly when God turned it on. How?

The light is still interacting with the film

HOW?

[davidm]

Oh, and derper? If real-time seeing is true, why does NASA used delayed-time seeing to calculate flight paths to Mars and other planets?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Thank you for finally answering. One more question: On your account do photons ever exist at any time without having a location?

Bump.

On your account do photons ever exist at any time without having a location?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That still isn't an answer. How did the light at the film get there? Where was that light 0.0001sec beforehand? Was it also at the film then? Was it traveling between the object and the film? Was it at the object? Where was it?

Fine, they work the same. So then how does the light get to the camera film? Remember that lenses can't reach out and capture light that is at a distance. A lens can only bend light that has traveled to it and is passing through it. That is all lenses ever do. So how did the light at the camera film get there?

So then how did the red photons get to the camera film without traveling? They weren't there at the immediately previous moment when the object was still blue. Yet at the very next moment there must be red photons at the film to interact with it. So where did they come from and how did they get there? All your answer tells me is that they have to be there. I already know that. What I want to know is how they got there.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

MY question IS about how the light gets there, and you have no answer. "Because of how the eyes work" is a non-answer that doesn't explain anything. That doesn't tell me how the light gets to the camera film in a scenario where there are no eyes.

You are STILL not answering the question. Real-time photography requires a red photographic image to be possible at the very moment the ball first turns red. That requires red photons to be at the camera film before they've had time to travel from the now-red object to the camera. So how do red photons get to be at the camera film when at the immediately preceding moment there were no red photons anywhere near the camera?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, here's a very simple disproof of efferent vision and real-time photography. Both require a camera to be able to record the color change of a distant object in real-time. So when a distant ball changes from blue to red, a camera must be able to photograph it as red as soon as it has become red. But if the camera is inside the range where the traveling non-absorbed light has yet to return to 'white full-spectrum' light, then all that light will be blue before the color change. And at the very moment the ball changes to red (i.e. has turned into a ball that absorbs all but red photons) there are no red photons at the camera. They were previously all being absorbed by the ball, and are only now free to bounce off the ball and begin traveling towards the camera. So none of them can be at the camera yet. But the camera cannot produce a red image on film without any red photons there to chemically interact with the film. So the camera cannot produce a real-time image of the newly red ball, and real-time photgraphy and efferent vision are thereby disproved. QED.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This thread has gotten so unproductive that there is absolutely no point in continuing.

And yet you will continue, even though you yourself have said you'd have to be insane to do so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see that his first and most important discovery is being completely dismissed.

That would be the discussion you said you would not return to, and a topic you said you had no desire to continue discussing with anyone here. But of course you've forgotten this. Again.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It follows necessarily that if we can see the object, then the reflected non-absorbed light has to be at the film/retina.

No, it does not follow necessarily thst the reflected light is at the film/retina instantly, it has only been stated and not supported by Lessans. If there is light at the object there is no reason to believe that it would also instantly be at the film/retina, it is only there after the time delay of the light traveling the intervening distance. This is not a reasonable claim to make without some kind of proof that contradicts what has been observed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

On your account do photons ever exist at any time without having a location?

You know that my answer is "no", so why are you asking this?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, here's a very simple disproof of efferent vision and real-time photography. Both require a camera to be able to record the color change of a distant object in real-time. So when a distant ball changes from blue to red, a camera must be able to photograph it as red as soon as it has become red. But if the camera is inside the range where the traveling non-absorbed light has yet to return to 'white full-spectrum' light, then all that light will be blue before the color change. And at the very moment the ball changes to red (i.e. has turned into a ball that absorbs all but red photons) there are no red photons at the camera. They were previously all being absorbed by the ball, and are only now free to bounce off the ball and begin traveling towards the camera. So none of them can be at the camera yet. But the camera cannot produce a red image on film without any red photons there to chemically interact with the film. So the camera cannot produce a real-time image of the newly red ball, and real-time photgraphy and efferent vision are thereby disproved. QED.

But we're working backwards Spacemonkey. If the camera is viewing the object through the light, then the light is revealing the object as it is which is blue, not red. You keep talking about photons as if they are separate entities that are in line waiting to strike the film (where there is no connection with the object at all). It doesn't work that way.

What does QED mean? It sounds like it means that it's a tautology.

Q.E.D. is an initialism of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, which translates as "which was to be demonstrated". The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when what was specified in the enunciation — and in the setting-out — has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration.[1] The abbreviation thus signals the completion of the proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And yet you will continue, even though you yourself have said you'd have to be insane to do so.

That would be the discussion you said you would not return to, and a topic you said you had no desire to continue discussing with anyone here. But of course you've forgotten this. Again.

That's why I never make promises.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does QED mean?

Yep, you're a chip off the old blockhead, all right.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know that my answer is "no", so why are you asking this?

Because now I can prove to you that my original two questions - the ones you've been avoiding for months by repeatedly claiming they are based on afferent assumptions - do not presuppose anything at all about the afferent account, and are asking you only about aspects of YOUR EFFERENT ACCOUNT which you have now explicitly agreed to.

You have agreed that on your account there are photons which hit the object but are not absorbed. You have agreed that on your account these very photons also still exist 0.0001sec after hitting the object. You have also agreed that on your account they must have a location at this time.

You have agreed that on your account there are photons at the camera film (interacting with it and responsible for the color of the resulting image) at the time the photograph is taken. You have agreed that on your account these very photons also existed 0.0001sec before this time. You have also agreed that on your account they must have a location at this time.

That means that I am not making any afferent assumptions, or relying upon the afferent model in any way, by asking you in each case for the locations of these photons at these specified times. So, on your account...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But we're working backwards Spacemonkey. If the camera is viewing the object through the light, then the light is revealing the object as it is which is blue, not red.

No, the object is red, not blue, when the above photograph is taken. And merely saying that the red photons have to be there (which is all you are saying) does not explain how they get there, or where they were at the immediately preceding moment. It doesn't answer the objection at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep talking about photons as if they are separate entities that are in line waiting to strike the film (where there is no connection with the object at all). It doesn't work that way.

We think that photons are traveling quanta of electromagnetic radiation. You've said you are not challenging the basic nature of light. If your only point is that the object must also be present, then note that the object always is present in the above example.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does QED mean?

Quod erat demonstrandum. It signifies the end of a proof.

Can you answer the objection now? How do red photons get to be at the camera film when at the immediately preceding moment there were no red photons anywhere near the camera?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I never make promises.

Because your memory is so shot that you know you won't be able to recall what you've previously said or promised?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know that my answer is "no", so why are you asking this?

peacegirl, to be more accurate your answer is (P) "no".

[davidm]

I love this:

You keep talking about photons as if they are separate entities that are in line waiting to strike the film (where there is no connection with the object at all). It doesn't work that way.

Wholly ignorant of optics, completely unschooled about electromagnetism, devoid of any knowledge whatsoever of quantum mechanics, wave-particle duality, the black body problem, ultraviolet collapse, Einstein's initial positing of the photon, the theory of relativity, and about a billion and one other things that have been painstakingly discovered and mathematically modeled over centuries of scientific struggle, she presumes to tell others how light does and doesn't work. The audacity of such arrogance really does take one's breath away.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Picture that a far away object meets the requirements of efferent vision in that the object is bright enough and large enough to be seen. If that premise is true, then we must begin our reasoning from there. It follows necessarily that if we can see the object, then the reflected non-absorbed light has to be at the film/retina. Making it a requirement that light has to travel to Earth is not a physical necessity. The light is still interacting with the film.

This does not provide an answer to the question asked.

The photochemical reaction that occurs during film photography requires the absorption of photons at the surface of the camera film. Photons that are not on physically touching the surface of the camera film cannot be absorbed.

If the location of the non-absorbed light is "at the film/retina" -as asserted above in bold- what is the physical mechanism by which light comes to be at the location "film/retina"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The physical mechanism is the reflection of light that is automatically at the film IF THE OBJECT IS IN VIEW.

"The reflection of light that is automatically at the film" is not a physical mechanism by which light can come to be at a specific location.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I just meant that first there's an object, then there's light being reflected, then there's a mirror image that shows up on film (because it meets the requirements), and then a photograph is taken in real time.

This set of responses does not provide an answer the question asked.

Do you have an answer to the question "what is the physical mechanism by which light comes to be at the location "surface of the camera film"?

Do you know what a physical mechanism is? Do you need some explanations or definitions in order to answer the question?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please think of the box and the light being reflected from the object. Picture that your lens (whether it's an eye or a camera) is within that light. Regardless of how far away the object is, it will create a mirror image. Just because it's a short cut, so to speak, doesn't mean the light isn't physically interacting. If the object appears small, then it will show up exactly that way on the retina due to the inverse square law. If your lens happens to be closer to the object which makes it appear larger, then it will show up exactly as you see it due to the inverse square law. Photons are still traveling but when we only get white light (remember, we are assuming the premise of efferent vision is correct and working backwards), then the object is out of range and we will no longer get an image.

This response does not provide any answers to the 5 separate questions asked.

The photochemical reaction that occurs during film photography requires the absorption of photons at the surface of the camera film. Photons that are not on physically touching the surface of the camera film cannot be absorbed. What is the mechanism by which photons come to be located at the surface of camera film?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please think of the box and the light being reflected from the object. Picture that your lens (whether it's an eye or a camera) is within that light.

If the lens is within the light then either the lens has traveled in order to enter the light or the light has traveled in order to encompass the lens. If the lens remains stationary and the light has not crossed the distance between the lens and the object then the lens is not yet within the light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because now I can prove to you that my original two questions - the ones you've been avoiding for months by repeatedly claiming they are based on afferent assumptions - do not presuppose anything at all about the afferent account, and are asking you only about aspects of YOUR EFFERENT ACCOUNT which you have now explicitly agreed to.

Yes, you are basing your entire position on what light does and are forgetting the requirements of efferent vision by the very fact that you say it doesn't matter if the object is even there. You are only thinking in terms of light which presupposes that it is entering the brain and being interpreted through signals. Can't you see this? How else could light bring the pattern if you weren't thinking in terms of afferent vision?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have agreed that on your account there are photons which hit the object but are not absorbed. You have agreed that on your account these very photons also still exist 0.0001sec after hitting the object. You have also agreed that on your account they must have a location at this time.

That's true, they must have a location. This is not magic Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have agreed that on your account there are photons at the camera film (interacting with it and responsible for the color of the resulting image) at the time the photograph is taken. You have agreed that on your account these very photons also existed 0.0001sec before this time. You have also agreed that on your account they must have a location at this time.

That means that I am not making any afferent assumptions, or relying upon the afferent model in any way, by asking you in each case for the locations of these photons at these specified times. So, on your account...

You are not recognizing, once again, the importance of the object which reflects the mirror image due to this phenomenon. You are not working this problem backwards, which is to assume that the object is necessary for sight; the efferent premise. You are still assuming that all that is necessary is light, so red would come before blue because location of those "traveling" photons determines what we see. This is the afferent position.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

Don't you see what you're doing, or you still don't have a clue?

Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]

I can't do this anymore.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because your memory is so shot that you know you won't be able to recall what you've previously said or promised?

I am frustrated beyond imagination, which is why I react by saying I have to move on. Eventually I will find a better home for this discussion. It's definitely not here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This does not provide an answer to the question asked.

The photochemical reaction that occurs during film photography requires the absorption of photons at the surface of the camera film. Photons that are not on physically touching the surface of the camera film cannot be absorbed.

If the location of the non-absorbed light is "at the film/retina" -as asserted above in bold- what is the physical mechanism by which light comes to be at the location "film/retina"?

"The reflection of light that is automatically at the film" is not a physical mechanism by which light can come to be at a specific location.

This set of responses does not provide an answer the question asked.

Do you have an answer to the question "what is the physical mechanism by which light comes to be at the location "surface of the camera film"?

Do you know what a physical mechanism is? Do you need some explanations or definitions in order to answer the question?

This response does not provide any answers to the 5 separate questions asked.

The photochemical reaction that occurs during film photography requires the absorption of photons at the surface of the camera film. Photons that are not on physically touching the surface of the camera film cannot be absorbed. What is the mechanism by which photons come to be located at the surface of camera film?

Why do you keep singling out photography when light has to interact with the retina also? I told you that if the object is reflecting a mirror image of itself, then when a picture is taken of the OBJECT, or we're viewing the OBJECT (which seems to be completely forgotten), it is only because the reflected light is interacting.