A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop playing these semantic word games with me Spacemonkey. You know what I mean.

No, we don't. Our only guide to what you mean is what you say. And you keep appealing to an incorrect account of afferent vision which shows that you still don't understand it at all. Light does not carry images.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because you're missing the main part of all of this: the object. If the camera is aimed at the object, and if the light that is present at the film does not have to travel to Earth, then the photons that are showing up on film are not the red photons. They have joined with the other colors of the visual spectrum. The non-absorbed light that is at the film is blue because the camera is capturing the blue photons that the object has just reflected.

The object is red. So if the photons at the film are blue then the image is not in real-time. Did you get that back to front? Again?

The photons have not joined with the rest of the spectrum, because I have stipulated that the camera is inside the range at which this occurs. And if they had so joined up, then only white light would be hitting the film and no image of the object would be formed at all.

The camera cannot reach out and 'capture' photons just leaving the object. And the planet Earth was not even part of my scenario. All there is is a camera and an object. And if the photons can get from the object to the film instantly without traveling then they have teleported again.

If a red photograph requires red photons hitting the film, then those photons have to get to the film, and the only way they can get to the film instantly is to teleport there. The only other option is for traveling photons of a different wavelength to change their wavelength as they arrive. Neither of these options are physically possible, as both contradict the laws of physics, yet your model requires one or the other to be the case.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It really doesn't have to be one or the other. The only thing that changes is how we actually see. You are acting like real time vision isn't even plausible, but you're 100% wrong.

We are talking about photography, not vision. And it does have to be one or the other (i.e. teleportation or wavelength-changing photons), as you haven't provided any alternative. There is no other alternative you could give.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it takes eyes to see what exists and it takes eyes to see the image on film. If there were no objects in the world, there would be no images of anything. It would just be light from the Sun which has no color.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, Peacegirl. The EYES are absolutely not a necessary part of creating a PHOTOGRAPHIC image.

It's not absolutely necessary but it does take a pair of eyes to analyze the photograph.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you need to stop trying to explain photography in terms of things like EYES that don't even exist in the scenario you are being asked about.

You need to explain how the photons get to the camera film, and you can't appeal to anything in your explanation that doesn't exist in the scenario you are being asked to explain.

I just did. The key to all of this is that the object must be in the field of view. If you can prove to me that an image can show up when the object or event is gone, then Lessans would be wrong, but I don't believe he was wrong. And it will never be resolved in here. You may think it's already been resolved, but I don't.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the preceding red photons were being reflected at the time a photograph was taken, those red photons would be captured on film and be a mirror image of the object. You're separating the photons from the object. You can't do that in this model. If I saw a fire and it looked blue, then the blue photons would be striking my retina. If the flames started to spread out and become red, then the red photons would be striking my retina. But I would be seeing these changes in real time.

There are no "preceding red photons". What are you even talking about? Do you even know?

What do you mean when you say I am "separating the photons from the object"? All I've said is that the red photons have to be there when the photograph is taken, and they weren't there at the immediately preceding moment when the object was blue, so you need to explain where they came from and how they got there.

Why are you talking about retinas again? We are discussing photography.

All you are doing is repeating your assertion that the red photons will be there at the film because you need them to be there. I already know that. What you are not doing is answering my question, by telling me where they came from and how they got there.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not absolutely necessary but it does take a pair of eyes to analyze the photograph.

That is completely irrelevant, as no eyes are necessary for the formation of the photograph, which is what you are being asked to explain. And yet you keep insanely referring to the eyes in your failed attempts to do so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just did. The key to all of this is that the object must be in the field of view.

The object is in the cameras field of view at all times in my scenario, yet you still can't explain how the photons get to be at the film. Stating that the object must be in the field of view only sets a necessary condition. It does not explain how the nonabsorbed photons are actually getting from the object to the film. It does not provide any actual mechanism.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, we don't. Our only guide to what you mean is what you say. And you keep appealing to an incorrect account of afferent vision which shows that you still don't understand it at all. Light does not carry images.

It doesn't carry anything, but it is believed to be traveling with the pattern of the object through space and time Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because you're missing the main part of all of this: the object. If the camera is aimed at the object, and if the light that is present at the film does not have to travel to Earth, then the photons that are showing up on film are not the red photons. They have joined with the other colors of the visual spectrum. The non-absorbed light that is at the film is blue because the camera is capturing the blue photons that the object has just reflected.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The object is red. So if the photons at the film are blue then the image is not in real-time. Did you get that back to front? Again?

In the early part of this thread wasn't the object blue? I'm getting bored, sorry.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The photons have not joined with the rest of the spectrum, because I have stipulated that the camera is inside the range at which this occurs. And if they had so joined up, then only white light would be hitting the film and no image of the object would be formed at all.

If the camera is inside the range, then the mirror image has to be red photons, therefore the blue must already be out of range.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The camera cannot reach out and 'capture' photons just leaving the object. And the planet Earth was not even part of my scenario. All there is is a camera and an object. And if the photons can get from the object to the film instantly without traveling then they have teleported again.

I totally disagree with that. If the object can be seen through the lens, then the photons that are reflected when the snapshot is taken must also be instantly at the film IF THE PREMISE IS CORRECT THAT WE SEE IN REAL TIME.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If a red photograph requires red photons hitting the film, then those photons have to get to the film, and the only way they can get to the film instantly is to teleport there. The only other option is for traveling photons of a different wavelength to change their wavelength as they arrive. Neither of these options are physically possible, as both contradict the laws of physics, yet your model requires one or the other to be the case.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It really doesn't have to be one or the other. The only thing that changes is how we actually see. You are acting like real time vision isn't even plausible, but you're 100% wrong.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We are talking about photography, not vision. And it does have to be one or the other (i.e. teleportation or wavelength-changing photons), as you haven't provided any alternative. There is no other alternative you could give.

I don't think you understand this model yet. It really boils down to whether light brings us the world through its properties, or whether it reflects the world through its properties. The verdict is yet to be determined, as far as I'm concerned. I guess you'll have to deal with the uncertainty, or just go back to your way of thinking. Sometimes ignorance is bliss. If you're so sure he is wrong, it shouldn't be hard to forget about these claims when we are done communicating.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would just be light from the Sun which has no color.

Well this is simply wrong, Sunlight has all the colors. White light is a combination of all colors together, there is no such thing as 'white light' all photons have a frequency that corosponds to a color of the spectrum, and there is no white in the spectrum.

[davidm]

Oh, well, the thread was briefly derailed into a cool discussion of owls, with the potential to move on to other animals (see the link I provided) yet the silly shyster is back, and here you all are catering to her again. If you are seriouly worried about her mental health, stop posting to her.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't carry anything, but it is believed to be traveling with the pattern of the object through space and time Spacemonkey.

No, it isn't. Light doesn't travel with anything at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the early part of this thread wasn't the object blue? I'm getting bored, sorry.

Pay attention. The object was blue. It changes to red. You need to be able to take a real-time RED photograph at the very moment it changes to red.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It can't be outside of the range because the mirror image has to be blue photons, therefore the red is already out of range.

You are STILL getting it back to front. The object is RED when the photograph is taken, so you need RED photons at the film. Not blue. The camera is within range of the object, so any 'joining up' is irrelevant and can only happen beyond the camera.

How do these red photons get to the film? Where did they come from? Where were they at the immediately previous moment (when the object was still blue)?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I totally disagree with that. If the object can be seen through the lens, then the photons that are reflected when the snapshot is taken must also be instantly at the film IF THE PREMISE IS CORRECT THAT OBJECTS MUST BE IN RANGE.

If you have nonabsorbed photons getting instantly from the object to the film, then you have them teleporting instead of traveling. Either that or you have them at two places at once (both just leaving the object and at the film).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think you understand this model yet...

What is clear is that you don't. If you understood what you were saying you wouldn't keep repeating the same ridiculous mistakes. You would instead be capable of answering simple questions about your own account. But you can't. You have no idea how any of this is meant to work with respect to light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There are no "preceding red photons". What are you even talking about? Do you even know?

What do you mean when you say I am "separating the photons from the object"? All I've said is that the red photons have to be there when the photograph is taken, and they weren't there at the immediately preceding moment when the object was blue, so you need to explain where they came from and how they got there.

Why are you talking about retinas again? We are discussing photography.

All you are doing is repeating your assertion that the red photons will be there at the film because you need them to be there. I already know that. What you are not doing is answering my question, by telling me where they came from and how they got there.

How could a camera take a picture in real time if the light wasn't instantly at the film? This means that the very fact that the object can be seen through the lens in real time indicates that the light that is allowing the object to be seen in real time, must also be at the film in real time. Geeze!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I find it disturbing that you think your deteriorating mental health is something to joke about.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Remember how you said that you are answering my questions and that you never weasel?

Bump.

Remember how you said that you are answering my questions and that you never weasel?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How could a camera take a picture in real time if the light wasn't instantly at the film? This means that the very fact that the object can be seen through the lens in real time indicates that the light that is allowing the object to be seen in real time, must also be at the film in real time. Geeze!

Yet AGAIN all you are doing is asserting that if your real-time account is correct then the necessary (red) photons must be at the film instantly.

No-one is disputing this obvious and trivial claim.

What we are asking you to explain is how this is possible - i.e. how red photons can be instantly at the film when at the immediately previous moment there were no red photons anywhere near the film - without positing either the teleportation or duplication of photons.

That your account requires certain photons to be instantly at the film DOES NOT EXPLAIN how this feat is to be achieved. You cannot just assume that something must be physically possible just because your account requires it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, it isn't. Light doesn't travel with anything at all.

No, it doesn't travel with anything but it is a particular wavelength and frequency.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the early part of this thread wasn't the object blue? I'm getting bored, sorry.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Pay attention. The object was blue. It changes to red. You need to be able to take a real-time RED photograph at the very moment it changes to red.

If the object itself is not traveling, then, yes, we would be able to take a real time photograph of red, not blue, because the blue light would be out of range and joining the other colors of the spectrum.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It can't be outside of the range because the mirror image has to be blue photons, therefore the red is already out of range.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are STILL getting it back to front. The object is RED when the photograph is taken, so you need RED photons at the film. Not blue. The camera is within range of the object, so any 'joining up' is irrelevant and can only happen beyond the camera.

But there is no way we would be getting blue if the camera was in visual range of the object.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How do these red photons get to the film? Where did they come from? Where were they at the immediately previous moment (when the object was still blue)?

They were being absorbed by the blue object.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I totally disagree with that. If the object can be seen through the lens, then the photons that are reflected when the snapshot is taken must also be instantly at the film IF THE PREMISE IS CORRECT THAT OBJECTS MUST BE IN RANGE.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you have nonabsorbed photons getting instantly from the object to the film, then you have them teleporting instead of traveling. Either that or you have them at two places at once (both just leaving the object and at the film).

What is clear is that you don't. If you understood what you were saying you wouldn't keep repeating the same ridiculous mistakes. You would instead be capable of answering simple questions about your own account. But you can't. You have no idea how any of this is meant to work with respect to light.

The whole debate rests on whether light can be at the film instantly, without teleporting, when the actual object is being photographed, for then light would necessarily be at the film. I do not believe we ever get a picture from light alone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yet AGAIN all you are doing is asserting that if your real-time account is correct then the necessary (red) photons must be at the film instantly.

No-one is disputing this obvious and trivial claim.

Trivial? This whole debate rests on whether the lens is able to capture those photons and interact with the film even though that same light hasn't reached Earth.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What we are asking you to explain is how this is possible - i.e. how red photons can be instantly at the film when at the immediately previous moment there were no red photons anywhere near the film - without positing either the teleportation or duplication of photons.

That your account requires certain photons to be instantly at the film DOES NOT EXPLAIN how this feat is to be achieved. You cannot just assume that something must be physically possible just because your account requires it.

I realize that Spacemonkey, but this feat, as you call it, would not violate the laws of physics in any way if we actually see in real time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it doesn't travel with anything but it is a particular wavelength and frequency.

But you AGREE with that. The strawman claim you started with was meant to be what you think the afferent view wrongly assumes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the object itself is not traveling, then, yes, we would be able to take a real time photograph of red, not blue, because the blue light would be out of range and joining the other colors of the spectrum.

How does all the blue light get to be out of range at this time? At the immediately preceding moment there were blue photons only just beginning to travel away from the surface of the object after not being absorbed. How do they get to be beyond the camera at the very next instant in time? Now you even have the light which is not being used to form the image teleporting!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there is no way we would be getting blue if the camera was in visual range of the object.

At the immediately preceding moment there were blue photons striking the film and other blue photons right behind them ready to replace them. Where do those next blue photons go at the next moment (when the object turns red and the photograph is taken)? Why don't they turn up at the film?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They were being absorbed by the blue object.

Nope. If they were previously absorbed by the object then they have been used up and no longer exist. The same photons cannot then later turn up at the camera film.

You have given me an answer for red photons in general rather than for the specific red photons I am referring to. At the previous moment the object was blue and all red photons hitting the object are getting absorbed. But those photons cease to exist, as they get absorbed and used up. So none of those photons can ever turn up at the film.

I am asking you about the specific red photons which are at the film when the photograph is taken. How do they get to the film? Where did they come from? Where were they at the immediately previous moment (when the object was still blue)?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The whole debate rests on whether light can be at the film instantly, without teleporting, when the actual object is being photographed, for then light would necessarily be at the film.

No, the debate rests upon whether or not light with wavelengths representing the real-time nature of the object can be at the film instantly. And so far you have not been able to explain how this could be possible without either the teleportation or duplication of light.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Trivial?

Yes. It is utterly trivial that if your real-time account is correct then the needed photons must be instantly at the film. Again, no-one is challenging this conditional claim.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This whole debate rests on whether the lens is able to capture those photons and interact with the film even though that same light hasn't reached Earth.

Then there is no debate. Because lenses are not magic and have no capacity for reaching out across space and interacting with light that is not traveling through them. All lenses do is bend the light that passes through them. That is optics - something you've said you are not challenging. If the lens is on Earth, then it can't do anything with light that has not reached Earth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize that Spacemonkey, but this feat, as you call it, would not violate the laws of physics in any way if we actually see in real time.

But it would. It would require either the teleportation or duplication of photons. You are utterly failing to show that this feat can be otherwise achieved.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by thedoc

My mother was like that toward the end. Also we could go in, in the morning and visit awhile, go for lunch, and when we came back she didn't remember and it was like another visit. It was a 3 hour drive and every 15 or 20 minutes her memory would reset and we would start over again.

If confronted with the fact that my Grandfather was dead, my Grandmother would retreat into severe confusion - another parallel between her and peacegirl.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

If confronted with the fact that my Grandfather was dead, my Grandmother would retreat into severe confusion - another parallel between her and peacegirl.

I don't think my mother was ever quite that bad, if she said something about Dad we would look at her and after asking her if she knew where Dad was, she would think for a second or 2 and then say "He's dead isn't he." and we would confirm it. Once she was at the doctors office for an exame and they were checking her mental awareness and asked her what year it was, she thought for a moment looking around and then told them the correct year. There was a calander on the wall that she had looked at to see the year, otherwise she would not have known, so in some ways she was still pretty sharp. Another thing she wanted to do when we showed up was to get us something to eat even though she was in a room and not a house with a kitchen. A few times she said she had gone to church with her Mom and Dad, even though they had been dead for many years. Even now I don't know how I was able to be so patient with her, I guess it was training for the grandchildren.

[LadyShea]

I do not believe we ever get a picture from light alone.

Perhaps not, however it is a known fact that 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.

In the efferent vision model, what is the physical mechanism by which photons come to be located at the surface of camera film?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Angakuk, that's a good question. In efferent vision it is the brain that is looking out through the eyes, which allows the eyes to see the object, not the object to travel to the eyes. But that doesn't mean light isn't necessary. It's the essential link that connects the internal to the external world.

First off, I didn't ask a question. I made a statement of fact. That fact being that for the lens to be within the light the light and lens must be occupying the same space. Unless the light originated at the lens (and we know that is not the case) then there are only two options available. Either the lens moves to the location of the light or the light moves to the location of the lens. Which is it?

Secondly, your response to my post was not in any way germane to the subject of my post.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not mean to be disrespectful to you Spacemonkey because I know you're trying very hard to get to the truth. You are very determined to prove him wrong (which is a problem) just because you want to be right at all costs.

Either Spacemonkey is trying very hard to get to the truth or he wants to be right at all costs. As they are mutually contradictory those statements cannot both be true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How could a camera take a picture in real time if the light wasn't instantly at the film?

It couldn't and it doesn't. That was easy. Go ahead and ask another one.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Based upon which part(s) of the visual cortex light(s) up, you can tell where in the person's visual field (s)he is seeing something.

I am sorry TLR, but have obviously been misled. The statement above is not consistent with efferent vision. I think you need to go back to scientification school.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

If confronted with the fact that my Grandfather was dead, my Grandmother would retreat into severe confusion - another parallel between her and peacegirl.

One of the mistakes that people frequently make when communicating with those suffering dementia is the attempt to compel them to accept such facts. The usual result is that the person simply experiences the grief over such a loss all over again, repeatedly. The emotional pain, while transient, is nonetheless quite real while it lasts. During the time I was working as a chaplain in a nursing home I observed this phenomenon on several occasions. Unfortunately, the desire to make the person accept and acknowledge facts about the present is almost irresistable to family members. I suspect that it is an expression of the family members' state of denial over the severity of the loved one's dementia.

Let me try to tie this into the discussion with peacegirl. Is it possible that our repeated attempts to force peacegirl to acknowledge the irrationality of her position are expressions of our unwillingness to believe that someone who is capable carrying on a discussion of this sort is really as demented as she appears to be?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I find it disturbing that you think your deteriorating mental health is something to joke about.

I think it's funny that you resort to my mental health when you can't get me to agree with you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think it's funny that you resort to my mental health when you can't get me to agree with you.

I direct your attention to your own mental illness when you post things that are clearly the product of a delusional mind.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope. If they were previously absorbed by the object then they have been used up and no longer exist. The same photons cannot then later turn up at the camera film.

You have given me an answer for red photons in general rather than for the specific red photons I am referring to. At the previous moment the object was blue and all red photons hitting the object are getting absorbed. But those photons cease to exist, as they get absorbed and used up. So none of those photons can ever turn up at the film.

I am asking you about the specific red photons which are at the film when the photograph is taken. How do they get to the film? Where did they come from? Where were they at the immediately previous moment (when the object was still blue)?

Bump.