A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

You're lying again, peacegirl. In the very sentence before the one I quoted, you said that if Lessans' "theory" conflicts with the established Theory of Relativity then it [Relativity Theory] must be "reevaluated." So when you claim that you weren't challenging Relativity Theory, you were lying -- because in your previous post, that's exactly what you did.

And as always, when caught in a lie, you try to misdirect and distract.


In any event, as many people have tried to point out to you, Lessans' ideas could not possibly be more incompatible with Relativity theory. They can't both be true.

It's conceivable that they're both wrong. But it's impossible that they're both correct, because they're mutually exclusive.

And exactly why this is so has been repeatedly explained to you, and in great detail. But don't take our word for it; feel free to pick up a grade-school primer on modern physics and read up on it for yourself.


Not that you will do any such thing, of course ...

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No you did not. You said you were not interested but you would give me an address to some university that might be.

No, I gave you my own address. I took you up on your offer of a free book and offered to donate it to the University. What was your offer that you think I rejected? What do you think I said I was not interested in? Will you be sending me the book?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The difference, once again, is how the eyes work, which you are failing to understand.
.

Perhaps you would care to explain exactly how the eyes work in relation to light, that you are everyone is failing to understand?

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;1096819]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you want us to "think efferent" then you have to stop contradicting yourself and start making sense. How can this light be at the retina without traveling there? How does it get there in efferent vision? Where was this same light one moment beforehand?

You keep bringing that up but photons are constantly being replaced. That isn't the issue. The issue is what the eyes are doing Spacemonkey. If the eyes are efferent, that means they can see objects as long as they are in one's visual range. If they are within range, then light must be at the retina. The distance that you are imagining light must travel to be at the retina is not the distance that is required under the efferent model.

If the requirements of vision are met (brightness and size), we will see according to optics. The closer we get to the actual object, the more photons are at the retina. The farther away we get, the less photons are at the retina due to dispersion. When there are no photons at the retina because we are too far away for the object to be seen, we get white light because the pattern of the object has faded out and the image cannot be resolved.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I gave you my own address. I took you up on your offer of a free book and offered to donate it to the University. What was your offer that you think I rejected? What do you think I said I was not interested in? Will you be sending me the book?

I didn't realize that was your address. I wasn't going to send it because I didn't realize where you lived and there are many universities in the U.S. I could reach, so I'm glad you let me know that was your address. I am waiting for my proof. Then I will be ordering my first ten books. I will send you one from my first order.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep bringing that up but photons are constantly being replaced. That isn't the issue. The issue is what the eyes are doing Spacemonkey. If the eyes are efferent, that means they can see objects as long as they are in one's visual range. If they are within range, then light must be at the retina. The distance that you are imagining light must travel to be at the retina is not the distance that is required under the efferent model.

If the requirements of vision are met (brightness and size), we will see according to optics. The closer we get to the actual object, the more photons are at the retina. The farther away we get, the less photons are at the retina due to dispersion. When there are no photons at the retina because we are too far away for the object to be seen, we get white light because the pattern of the object has faded out and the image cannot be resolved.

None of this is what I am asking you about. You said there is a mirror image consisting of light at the retina. I am asking you how that light got there. Did it travel to get there? If not, then how did it get there?

You say photons are constantly being replaced. But how are the photons doing the replacing getting to the retina? Are they traveling there?

You say the issue is what the eyes are doing. But what is it that the eyes are doing that explains how a mirror image of light gets to the retina?

You say that less photons will be at the retina due to dispersion, but dispersion is something that only happens with traveling light. So is the light at the retina something that has traveled to get there?

[The Lone Ranger]

It really is a fascinating mental pathology. She really does seem to think that simply saying "Lessans' claims are true" is exactly the same thing as explaining exactly how and why "Lessans' claims are true."


But she most-definitely doesn't apply this standard of reasoning to anything other than Lessans' claims. Quite the opposite: she demands absolute proof for any claim that contradicts Lessans' -- even though such a thing is logically impossible -- even as she insists that Lessans' claims should be accepted without a single shred of evidence in their favor.


It's really an amazing display of hypocrisy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep bringing that up but photons are constantly being replaced. That isn't the issue. The issue is what the eyes are doing Spacemonkey. If the eyes are efferent, that means they can see objects as long as they are in one's visual range. If they are within range, then light must be at the retina. The distance that you are imagining light must travel to be at the retina is not the distance that is required under the efferent model.

If the requirements of vision are met (brightness and size), we will see according to optics. The closer we get to the actual object, the more photons are at the retina. The farther away we get, the less photons are at the retina due to dispersion. When there are no photons at the retina because we are too far away for the object to be seen, we get white light because the pattern of the object has faded out and the image cannot be resolved.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

None of this is what I am asking you about. You said there is a mirror image consisting of light at the retina. I am asking you how that light got there. Did it travel to get there? If not, then how did it get there?

You keep talking about photons traveling, which does not explain what is going on with the eyes. When the eyes are looking out at the object, the light that is at the eye is a direct reflection of the object. It is not separate from the object such that you would receive photons from an earlier event.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You say photons are constantly being replaced. But how are the photons doing the replacing getting to the retina? Are they traveling there?

Again, if the eyes are efferent, nothing from the light is being interpreted in the brain, although the light that is at the retina is a necessary condition. The photons being replaced will continue to allow the eyes to see the object in real time unless something about the object changes which will change the wavelength/frequency that is at the retina. You keep thinking in terms of photons having to travel long distances, which is why you think that these photons would be bringing an older image, which is not the case.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You say the issue is what the eyes are doing. But what is it that the eyes are doing that explains how a mirror image of light gets to the retina?

I know that the word "mirror image" isn't a perfect analogy. I can't think of a better way to explain what is going on. If the eyes are able to look directly at the object (remember, this has to be the first premise), this would automatically place light at the retina or the object would not be able to be seen (we're working this backwards). In the afferent version it is assumed that the image or pattern travels long distances until it impinges on the retina which causes a delayed image to be seen in the brain. The object is not even part of this version, and light becomes the cause of sight, which is what is being disputed. I don't know what else to say Spacemonkey, and I know this will never be enough for you. I just hope you consider this version of sight as plausible. If not, I don't know what else I can say that would give you a better understanding.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You say that less photons will be at the retina due to dispersion, but dispersion is something that only happens with traveling light. So is the light at the retina something that has traveled to get there?

I never said light doesn't travel. Light is still traveling at 186,000 miles a second, but the image that is captured by the eyes is the real object that is within one's field of view, not the light that has traveled millions of miles and been interpreted by the brain. The role of light is dramatically different in efferent vision, although the properties of light remain the same.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep talking about photons traveling, which does not explain what is going on with the eyes. When the eyes are looking out at the object, the light that is at the eye is a direct reflection of the object. It is not separate from the object such that you would receive photons from an earlier event.

I'm not talking about photons traveling. I'm talking about the photons you say are at the retina and ASKING you IF they traveled to get there. If they didn't, then you can say No. I'm not asking if the light is a 'reflection of' or 'separate from' the object. I'm simply asking you how the light got to be at the retina.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, if the eyes are efferent, nothing from the light is being interpreted in the brain, although the light that is at the retina is a necessary condition. The photons being replaced will continue to allow the eyes to see the object in real time unless something about the object changes which will change the wavelength/frequency that is at the retina. You keep thinking in terms of photons having to travel long distances, which is why you think that these photons would be bringing an older image, which is not the case.

I'm not asking you about what the photons at the retina allow the eyes to do. I'm asking you how the photons doing the replacing get to be there. Did they travel there? If not, then how did they get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that the word "mirror image" isn't a perfect analogy. I can't think of a better way to explain what is going on. If the eyes are able to look directly at the object (remember, this has to be the first premise), this would automatically place light at the retina or the object would not be able to be seen (we're working this backwards). In the afferent version it is assumed that the image or pattern travels long distances until it impinges on the retina which causes a delayed image to be seen in the brain. The object is not even part of this version, and light becomes the cause of sight, which is what is being disputed. I don't know what else to say Spacemonkey, and I know this will never be enough for you. I just hope you consider this version of sight as plausible. If not, I don't know what else I can say that would give you a better understanding.

I asked you what the eyes are doing which EXPLAINS how a mirror image consisting of light gets to the retina. That we allegedly see things directly in real time certainly REQUIRES that the light be at the retina, but it does nothing at all to explain how it actually gets to be there. If you want us to have a better understanding, then you need to start answering the specific questions I have asked, instead of changing the topic to talk about something else every time you respond.

You just replied to a post with four questions and you didn't actually answer any of them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said light doesn't travel. Light is still traveling at 186,000 miles a second, but the image that is captured by the eyes is the real object that is within one's field of view, not the light that has traveled millions of miles and been interpreted by the brain. The role of light is dramatically different in efferent vision, although the properties of light remain the same.

Has the light which composes the mirror image at the retina traveled to get there or not? Why can't you answer this simple question? If you don't know the answer then say so. Why do you keep typing irrelevant nonsense instead of answering?

Think about what you just wrote: "...image that is captured by the eyes is the real object that is within one's field of view..." The eyes do not capture anything but light. The real object is not made of light, and cannot be captured by the eyes. You've said that what is at the retina is not the object, but a mirror image of the object composed of light. You need to explain where that light came from and how it got to the retina. Did it travel there or not?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It really is a fascinating mental pathology. She really does seem to think that simply saying "Lessans' claims are true" is exactly the same thing as explaining exactly how and why "Lessans' claims are true."


But she most-definitely doesn't apply this standard of reasoning to anything other than Lessans' claims. Quite the opposite: she demands absolute proof for any claim that contradicts Lessans' -- even though such a thing is logically impossible -- even as she insists that Lessans' claims should be accepted without a single shred of evidence in their favor.


It's really an amazing display of hypocrisy.

She may demand absolute proof of opposing claims, but no amount of proof of any kind would be sufficient to change her mind. She is batshit insane.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to tell you that light is not required to travel to Earth for a mirror image to show up on the retina if the eyes are efferent. If the eyes are afferent, this wouldn't make sense because there would be nothing that allows this phenomenon to occur. For me to continue arguing with you is a waste of time. Do you think we're going to make progress? No, we're not. I don't know how to convince you or get you to see that efferent vision, which allows a mirror image to show up on the retina because this has more to do with the properties of the eye and brain than with light, does not violate the laws of physics. Light continues to travel at 186,000 miles per second.

You are not answering the question because you are a weasel.

For light to have a location, Physics requires that the light either

1. Traveled to that location
2. Came into existence at that location (which requires light emitting processes)

There are no other mechanisms allowed by physics by which light comes to be at a specific physical location. Teleportation is also a possible mechanism, however that is not allowed by physics that I am aware of

How the eyes work does not have any effect on the mechanism involved in light coming to be located somewhere

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't even relate because efferent vision has nothing to do with the speed of light or time.

Real time
Instantaneous
No time at all

These are claims about time. Just as zero is a number. So efferent vision has everything to do with time.

[koan]

The most horrid thing written in this book is
"I only hope that my three children; Linda, Janis, and Marc will understand this knowledge sufficiently so that they can perhaps bring this knowledge to light at least in their lifetime."

What a terrible thing to do to your children.

As to the problem with eyes being organs and all scientific and non scientific evidence confirming this unless you follow Lessans' advice and kill words quickly and efficiently before allowing discussion... he said "Frankly, it makes no difference to me that the eyes are not a sense organ." (p122) Cling to that above all else, Janis. Take daddy at his word and let that one go.

[Vivisectus]

Now you guys: it is so simple. If the efferent account is true, then a mirror image that is the other side of the coin can be instantly at the retina, because the brain can look out of the eyes at objects that are within it's field of view!

You can just call that a mere assertion, but then it is your fault that it does not make sense.

[Vivisectus]

When the eyes are looking out at the object, the light that is at the eye is a direct reflection of the object.

So it is your position that when the eyes look at something, they produce photons in such a way that they are indistinguishable from photons that would have arrived by travelling across space, apart from the fact that no time delay is involved.

And that a sensor somehow does the exact same thing, despite the fact that we did not design them that way.

These photons are also somehow used up in the process as they are undetectable. Nor does the production of these photons use any energy or matter.

So according to you, not just relativity needs to be re-examined, but also the conservation of mass / energy.

Clearly the implications of this idea lead to absurdities. And we still have no explanation for the strange behaviour of the universe, which keeps operating just as if sight is delayed: we still do not know why we keep hitting those pesky planets, or how come the moons of jupiter seem to orbit faster and slower depending on how far the planet is at the moment.

As such the only rational conclusion is that efferent sight is wrong.

[koan]

I don't "see" the point of arguing what everyone except peacegirl and her father accept to be true. Eyes interpret colours(colors) via vibrations that the sense organ of the eye receives second hand as carried by air the same way the ear receives vibrations of sound carried by the air. If eyes are not organs then ears are not organs as neither one has the object of origin touch it. The same way an object of smell isn't generally shoved up the nose. How these things are carried was the pretence of argument and Lessans cherry picked his arguments against eyes because his voice had timbre but his countenance was below average. Nevertheless, if eyes are not an organ because things we see don't touch our eyeballs directly, then ears are not an organ because sound doesn't reach out and touch us like the yellow pages in the phone book. So he was wrong about eyes or he was wrong about ears or he was wrong about everything. The last is probably the best conclusion.

Meanwhile, peacegirl can take solace in the knowledge that her dad said it didn't matter. She could benefit from focusing on the things that other people also try to defend... like various forms of determinism. Then just delete certain parts of the book and act like her dad never tried to sue Jimmy Carter because he wouldn't invite her dad for tea and a chat.

[Vivisectus]

That does not seem to be an option: his ideas about sight were closely linked to his ideas about not-reincarnation. Because it is a cloud-castle built on very narrow foundations, the moment a small part of it is shown to be untrue, the whole thing starts to unravel.

However, as far as I can tell you can chalk the way we see up to conditioning, make that happen only in the brain, and then keep your entire "mankind" system minus not-reincarnation and sight. It is unfalsifiable except through an experiment involving entire communities over about 3 generations, so you are on fairly safe ground there.

[koan]

That's the sad part. She could salvage out the little bits that other people have invested lots of time and energy into defending if she was willing to drop the insane bits. But she won't. It doesn't unravel. It helps her make sense of the little bits of sanity her dad might have possessed. Instead, she has taken up the legacy he cursed her with. I am all right or my life had no meaning. You are the last of my progeny who can defend my honour. If you fail my life and, by association, yours, has no meaning.

To hell with that. Clear your mind. Stop taking daddy drug and think about what else you can do that will make people remember you. Terror Management Theory. Learn it. Love it. Find out what it can do for you.

[Dragar]

I agree it's sad. As Phillip Larkin wrote,

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So it is your position that when the eyes look at something, they produce photons in such a way that they are indistinguishable from photons that would have arrived by travelling across space, apart from the fact that no time delay is involved.

And that a sensor somehow does the exact same thing, despite the fact that we did not design them that way.

These photons are also somehow used up in the process as they are undetectable. Nor does the production of these photons use any energy or matter.

That is one option for explaining the presence of these mysterious 'mirror image' photons. Yet to be fair, she has previously rejected this idea that they are coming into existence as newly created photons at the retina or film. But of course she has rejected every other possible explanation as well. She insists they are there in real time (because they have to be if Lessans was correct), but also firmly rejects all possible explanations for how they could possibly be there.

These 'mirror image' photons at the retina or film do not travel there at light speed, because that would introduce a time delay.

They don't travel there instantaneously, because that would involve light traveling faster than the speed of light.

They don't come into existence there for the first time as newly existing photons, because this spontaneous generation of energy would be magical (and detectable).

They don't appear there instantly after arriving from some other location without having traveled the intervening distance, because that would be teleportation.

And they were not always there at the film/retina, because then they would be stationary photons in violation of physics.

But of course those are the only possible options. (These photons either previously existed or they didn't. If they did previously exist, then they either existed in the same place, or in some other place. If some other place, then they either traveled to the film/retina or they got there without traveling the intervening distance. If they traveled there, then they either traveled at, above, or below light speed.) Peacegirl rejects all of these options, and then refuses to answer questions about it because she knows she has thereby reduced her position to utter nonsense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're lying again, peacegirl. In the very sentence before the one I quoted, you said that if Lessans' "theory" conflicts with the established Theory of Relativity then it [Relativity Theory] must be "reevaluated." So when you claim that you weren't challenging Relativity Theory, you were lying -- because in your previous post, that's exactly what you did.

And as always, when caught in a lie, you try to misdirect and distract.


In any event, as many people have tried to point out to you, Lessans' ideas could not possibly be more incompatible with Relativity theory. They can't both be true.

It's conceivable that they're both wrong. But it's impossible that they're both correct, because they're mutually exclusive.

And exactly why this is so has been repeatedly explained to you, and in great detail. But don't take our word for it; feel free to pick up a grade-school primer on modern physics and read up on it for yourself.


Not that you will do any such thing, of course ...

I don't know why you are so resentful of Lessans TLR. There is no "mutually exclusive" issue here. You're making stuff up because you think I'm a hypocrite since I don't give the same time to your explanation as I do to Lessans'. If efferent sight does not involve time, or the speed of light, then there is no conflict and one does not negate the other.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I agree it's sad. As Phillip Larkin wrote,

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

My parents were wonderful Dragar. Don't project something that didn't exist, just like Vivisectus has tried to do. That's foul play, and going below the belt.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Real time
Instantaneous
No time at all

These are claims about time. Just as zero is a number. So efferent vision has everything to do with time.

That is not what Einstein was referring to when he said that nothing can go faster, or no information can be gotten any quicker than what the speed of light can bring to us. This is a totally different position that relativity cannot negate because we're talking about two different animals. Einstein himself would not have negated Lessans' observations based on his own findings. It's amazing how people can justify their positions by changing what something actually means or is intended to mean.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My parents were wonderful Dragar. Don't project something that didn't exist, just like Vivisectus has tried to do. That's foul play, and playing below the belt.

The last thing I'm doing is playing below the belt, I assure you.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not what Einstein was referring to when he said that nothing can go faster, or no information can be gotten any quicker than what the speed of light can bring to us. This is a totally different position that relativity cannot negate because we're talking about two different animals. Einstein himself would not have negated Lessans' observations based on his own findings. It's amazing how people can justify their positions by changing what something actually means or is intended to mean.

That's exactly what Einstein was referring to, and he would indeed have considered Lessans claims nonsense, as well in contradiction to relativity.

You don't know, because you've never cracked open a physics textbook in your life.