A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not LadyShea. I keep telling you that this has to do with the function of the eyes. I know you now will ask me about photoreceptors and afferent nerve endings. If you want to call Lessans' claim a theory, fine. Maybe that will give people the patience to wait and see, instead of attacking his claims the way they have.

Perhaps you would explain the function of the eyes that make it appear that light behaves differently?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Ethanol fire seems to meet the conditions you have stated for seeing things. What condition is NOT met?

It obviously does not meet the conditions of sight because of the type of liquid. If it did, we would be able to see the fire. Why would this be any different whether our eyes are efferent or afferent?

Invisible fires: The flames are colorless and the combustion does not produce smoke.

Methanol Fires are Invisible | ChemBark

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What makes you think they are too far away? Where did you get that idea? How far away do you think they are and how far is too far?

Is Jupiter too far away to "be revealed" by light from the Sun? If the stars are bright enough to be seen by telescopes many billions of miles away here on Earth (about 28.000 light years away), shouldn't they be bright enough to reveal a black hole they are orbiting that is within a few light hours at most?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You need to explain how this happens and how it is possible. Light doesn't work that way. Light can't be located somewhere without getting to that location somehow.

Once again, if you insist on light being located at the retina in the efferent model, you have to explain how light got to be there, or you are talking about magic. You have evaded this simple, direct question for over a year...how does light come to be located at the retina in the efferent account.

No LadyShea, this is not magic at all. If the brain is doing the opposite of what is believed, then you have to at least admit that maybe, just maybe, you don't have a grasp of this model. Can you admit that, instead of telling me this is implausible and Lessans is wrong? Light comes to be located at the retina because of this distinction between the two models of sight. One, light travels to the eye and brings the pattern. In this model, light has to travel to Earth first because that is how we are receiving the image. In the other model, the brain is looking out at the external world as a landscape. Everything we see is in our optical range already. Because of the way the eyes function, a mirror image is produced instantly. I know this will not satisfy you. You will go right back to the gap between light and the eyes that you believe cannot be bridged in this model.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How and why are not the same word.

How: Adverb
In what way or manner; by what means

Why:Adverb
For what reason or purpose.

But the very question you're asking is leading you in the wrong direction. You aren't seeing it because of the way in which you are approaching the problem.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the brain is doing the opposite of what is believed

Light has certain physical properties which have been explained to you. Your account of efferent vision has light exhibiting properties it doesn't have.

So you are saying that the human brain works magic by changing the physical properties of light during the process of seeing. Unless you explain how this occurs, you are positing an impossibility.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the very question you're asking is leading you in the wrong direction

You led to me these questions by stating that light can be located on a piece of camera film when no light is located on the camera film because it is located 93 million miles away. That is a contradiction of your making.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not schizophrenic...

You don't know that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Stating that light physically interacts with objects across vast distances instantly is stating that light works differently in efferent vision. This is akin to you claiming you and I can shake hands over Skype.

There you go again using this analogy to make it appear that this is magic. Anyone would think it is magic if they thought in these terms. But this is not what is going on.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Stating that light that is not absorbed when it encounters matter also does not reflect and does not travel is stating that light works differently in efferent vision

No it doesn't because light energy is still traveling. We're talking only about the image that is theorized to be bouncing and traveling with the pattern of non-absorbed photons through space/time when the event or object is long gone. I feel like I'm broken record.

[LadyShea]

It obviously does not meet the conditions of sight because of the type of liquid.

Where is "the type of liquid" listed in the conditions for seeing something? You've stated the following conditions only...are there more?

The object must be bright enough, meaning it has enough light surrounding it
The object must be close enough
The object must be big enough
The object must be in the field of view/optical range/optical zone/line of sight or whatever you are calling it today

Which of these is not met in an ethanol fire taking place in the daytime?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have been answering questions all along...

Not the questions we've actually been asking.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...and nobody can get beyond the idea that light does not have to physically travel to Earth in order to interact with the retina or film.

Because you have yet to explain how light from the Sun gets to be at the retina without traveling there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What's the use of repeating the same thing over and over again when the response is going to be no different than two years ago?

I agree. It is a waste of time to keep repeating the same things over and over. So you should stop doing that and start answering the actual questions we are asking you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Those questions again, Peacegirl. In case you missed them:-

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You led to me these questions by stating that light can be located on a piece of camera film when no light is located on the camera film because it is located 93 million miles away. That is a contradiction of your making.

This is not a contradiction LadyShea, but there is no way I can convince you that as long as the object is in the camera's field of view, or the eyes visual range, a mirror image will show up in the efferent account. I'm sorry you feel I led you in the wrong direction.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There you go again using this analogy to make it appear that this is magic. Anyone would think it is magic if they thought in these terms. But this is not what is going on.

Then what exactly is going on? You've been unable to explain how it happens. The analogy is perfectly apt as it applies to physical interaction between two physical objects.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it doesn't because light energy is still traveling. We're talking only about the image that is theorized to be bouncing and traveling with the pattern of non-absorbed photons through space/time when the event or object is long gone. I feel like I'm broken record.

No, as we have explained many times, and as you've agreed to be true, nobody thinks or theorizes or believes that images bounce or travel anywhere. This is the same misrepresentation of the standard model of vision that Lessans made and that you continue to make even after many corrections.

We've only ever stated that light reflects and travels, not images, light. You've stated light does not reflect and travel. That is stating that light works differently in the efferent model.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not a contradiction LadyShea, but there is no way I can convince you that as long as the object is in the camera's field of view, or the eyes visual range, a mirror image will show up in the efferent account. I'm sorry you feel I led you in the wrong direction.

How does the efferent account explain this bi-location of light?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where is "the type of liquid" listed in the conditions for seeing something? You've stated the following conditions only...are there more?

The object must be bright enough, meaning it has enough light surrounding it
The object must be close enough
The object must be big enough
The object must be in the field of view/optical range/optical zone/line of sight or whatever you are calling it today

It doesn't matter what word I use, so please don't use that against me to make me look ditsy. I like the phrase "optical range" because this account is supported by optics and I was hoping you could picture what is going on better. But I guess it's not working.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which of these is not met in an ethanol fire taking place in the daytime?

The chemical process that produces heat and LIGHT as a byproduct which occurs during combustion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does the efferent account explain this bi-location of light?

A mirror image does not have a bi-location. It is the opposite side of the same hypotheical coin. But you won't get that either only because of your stubbornness at failing to take this account seriously.

[Spacemonkey]

If you want us to understand you, you'll need to start answering the questions I have been asking.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Not the questions we've actually been asking.

Because you have yet to explain how light from the Sun gets to be at the retina without traveling there.

I agree. It is a waste of time to keep repeating the same things over and over. So you should stop doing that and start answering the actual questions we are asking you.

Another day maybe, but not today, not after supporting a woman who does not know me at all, and neither do you. You couldn't let it go, could you?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The chemical process that produces heat and LIGHT as a byproduct which occurs during combustion.

But if there is enough light surrounding the object, like sunlight in this case, why must it emit light to be seen? Many objects do not emit light and they can be seen using the surrounding light

You stated previously that when we see a regular candle flame, we see the actual combusting hot gases, not the light. So why can we see a candle flame but not an ethanol flame? They are both combusting hot gases.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Another day maybe, but not today, not after supporting a woman who does not know me at all, and neither do you. You couldn't let it go, could you?

What the hell are you even talking about? Why are you still evading legitimate questions about your own claims?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A mirror image does not have a bi-location. It is the opposite side of the same hypotheical coin. But you won't get that either only because of your stubbornness at failing to take this account seriously.

You are stubbornly refusing to answer the very relevant and valid questions.

The retina is a location and the Sun is a location. If the Sun is newly turned on at noon, and the photons are on the retina at noon as well as being emitted by the Sun at noon, that means light is in two places at the same time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But if there is enough light surrounding the object, like sunlight in this case, why must it emit light to be seen? Many objects do not emit light and they can be seen using the surrounding light

So what? Light is reflected or emitted, but the pattern that is the light (not the basket) gets dispersed to a certain point beyond which the object can no longer be seen. This pattern does not go on forever. Sorry, but this cannot be understood coming from your vantage point. The twain shall never meet.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You stated previously that when we see a regular candle flame, we see the actual combusting hot gases, not the light. So why can we see a candle flame but not an ethanol flame? They are both combusting hot gases.

Why are you grilling me on this, as if this somehow disproves his claim? I've answered you already. It has to do with the combusion of a particular fuel. Obviously, in invisible fires, it produces heat but not light, therefore, it does not meet the conditions of sight. This kind of fire is rare and has to do with the ethanol and the chemical reaction when it reaches the flashpoint.

Fire is not invisible; fire is the chemical chain reaction from combustion that creates heat and light. Combustion, which is the actual burning process, is strictly chemical rearrangement and is invisible - but once you add oxygen to it, it becomes visible as fire.

Is fire invisible

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What the hell are you even talking about? Why are you still evading legitimate questions about your own claims?

You know what I'm talking about. Scroll back if you don't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are stubbornly refusing to answer the very relevant and valid questions.

The retina is a location and the Sun is a location. If the Sun is newly turned on at noon, and the photons are on the retina at noon as well as being emitted by the Sun at noon, that means light is in two places at the same time.

No it does not. It means the photons are at the retina, and the object is in one's visual field.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what I'm talking about. Scroll back if you don't.

I have no idea what you are talking about. You've been evading my questions for YEARS, so don't pretend it's because of something I've allegedly done within the last few pages.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it does not. It means the photons are at the retina, and the object is in one's visual field.

So when the Sun is first ignited at noon, there are no photons being emitted from its surface? The newly ignited Sun is not emitting any light?

[peacegirl]

This is an interesting debate between Sam Harris and Deepak Chopra and two others.

http://www.samharris.org/debates (Scroll down to where it says: Does God Have a Future)