That's all well and good, but doesn't it seem strange that when light strikes an object, we will not get a true color of the object because the light isn't capable of providing it?
Not strange at all, this is the way the real world works, but most people just don't notice. The other factor is that the brain will fill in some of the details of an object that you have seen before. So if you look at a shirt that you have had for some time and the light is not full spectrum, the shirt may not actually be reflecting it's true color, but your brain will correct the image so that you will see the shirt as you expect to see it. Then with familiar objects you may never notice that the color is not what you expect it to be.
An extreme example of people seeing what they expect to see are highway signs. In Pa. the Yield sign was changed from 'Yellow and Black' to 'Red and White' in 1965. Most people still say the sign as 'Yellow and Black' for many years after the last ones had been replaced through attrition. As late as 1980 people would state positively that the signs were 'Yellow and Black' when thay had all been replaced by that time. People were seeing what they expected to see, even when they passed the sign and looked straight at it every day. All conditioning and observation takes place inside the brain, and not outside.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Peacegirl, something you can try, randomly ask drivers "What color is a Yield sign?" and see how many still think they are 'Yellow and Black', especially older drivers.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
So some objects reflect their true color based on the full spectrum, and others don't?
Yes, color is based on the wavelengths of the source light and reflected or obstructed light from the environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That's all well and good, but doesn't it seem strange that when light strikes an object, we will not get a true color of the object because the light isn't capable of providing it?
Not at all strange. This is exactly what optics predicts and explains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Really truly, have you thought about this rationally? We only experience true colors in a hit or miss fashion, depending on which object light happened to bounce off of before striking the next object?
You are either confused, or purposefully creating another strawman.
Your scenario in this post assumes that the reflected light off the first object is the only source of light for the second object, which is not the case in any standard viewing conditions. You need to answer my previous questions about the set up of your thought experiment.
What is the light source in this thought experiment? Is that source the only light? What objects are you talking about?
Here is a photograph showing reflected color hiding the true color of another object
Where the ball's color is reflected, and where it's shadow falls, we cannot see the true color of the table. Where the unobstructed/unreflected light hits the table we can see it's true color. This is easy to understand and see, why are you acting like it's some crazy nonsense you've never heard of?
That's all well and good, but doesn't it seem strange that when light strikes an object, we will not get a true color of the object because the light isn't capable of providing it?
Not strange at all, this is the way the real world works, but most people just don't notice. The other factor is that the brain will fill in some of the details of an object that you have seen before. So if you look at a shirt that you have had for some time and the light is not full spectrum, the shirt may not actually be reflecting it's true color, but your brain will correct the image so that you will see the shirt as you expect to see it.
Like I said, if this is an undeniable discovery that can change the world for the better, I doubt if people will be upset that Lessans used the term "scientific" in reference to this discovery instead of just saying discovery, especially when this knowledge would be the most important discovery of our times, if it actually can bring peace to our world. But you don't believe it can, therefore you have no respect. You're just nitpicking because you don't like that someone outside of the field could make such a discovery. You are offended by it.
Lessans is no more than a harmless crackpot. The only thing that keeps me interested is your dedication - the depths of your dedication to his work.
I'm sure if you could get people to accept any of Lessans' ideas, they'd be willing to forgive such dishonest nomenclature. However, the dishonesty is a barrier to acceptance.
Basically, lying is helping to guarantee the failure of Lessans' ideas.
You need to understand that Peacegirl is not looking for acceptance and agreement, that would be positive attention. Her goal is to keep getting negative attention, which she has been getting here and most other forums for the last 10 years. On one forum she was getting positive attetion, agreement, and people who were sympathetic to her ideas, at least for as long as she was there. She left on her own after only 3 pages, but part of that may have been that some of the posts were way off topic. This may, in part, explain her responses that seem to be intended to stir up controversity by constantly disagreeing and pretending to misunderstand what is being posted. This obcessiion with negative attention is one indication of her mental difficulties.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
I'm just asking. Wouldn't that mean an image would not be recognizable? Can you recognize half a face? This is not a hologram.
Why would it be unrecognizable? When you are looking at someone face to face, can you see the back of their head? Does not being able to see the back half of their body render them unrecognizable?
We can only ever see one section of the moon, does our inability to see the dark side render it unrecognizable?
That's all well and good, but doesn't it seem strange that when light strikes an object, we will not get a true color of the object because the light isn't capable of providing it?
No, it does not. It is exactly what happens, as you could verify for yourself with a darkened room, some colored cellophane, and a flashlight.
Or just go to a parking lot that uses sodium vapor lights...jeez this is not some big mystery.
Photographers need to be careful of the light source in order to get true colors in their photographs. When I was photographing items for EBay I was useing 300 watt Photo Floods that duplicated the color rendition of Sunlight. Other light sources would give false color to the object. When possible a photographer will use Sunlight, but in a studio they would use Photo Floods to duplicate sunlight. On the other hand the Photographer may want to use colored light or light with a partial spectrum for special effects, and they can do this with filters that block out certain parts of the spectrum.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Someone would have to invent equipment sensitive enough to collect the miniscule amount of light reflected by people and things on Earth without being overexposed by the enormous amount of light reflected from the everything around it plus the light from our Sun. That's the problem we experience with studying planets in other solar systems, we can't get a good picture of the planets because their starlight is so bright.
For now, the thousands of potential exoplanets discovered in the past two years are little more than curvy dips on a graph. Astronomers using the Kepler Space Telescope pick them out by examining the way they blot out their own stars’ light as they move through their orbits. But if astronomers could block out the stars themselves, they may be able to see the planets directly. A new adaptive optics system on the storied Palomar Observatory just started doing that — it’s the first of its kind capable of spotting planets outside our solar system.
Untill receintly there have been 2 methods of searching for exraterrestrial planets, one is to look for the dimming of the light of the Star as the planet passes in front of it. The other is to detect the motion of the Star. As the planet moves around a Star it will cause the Star to wobble slightly and this movment can be detected in the doppler effect of the Star moving towards us and then away from us. For an Earth sized planet the movment is very slight and requires very sensitive equipment to detect.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
That's all well and good, but doesn't it seem strange that when light strikes an object, we will not get a true color of the object because the light isn't capable of providing it?
Not strange at all, this is the way the real world works, but most people just don't notice. The other factor is that the brain will fill in some of the details of an object that you have seen before.
And this is your answer? And you don't think this is any less fundie than what the flat earthers come up with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
So if you look at a shirt that you have had for some time and the light is not full spectrum, the shirt may not actually be reflecting it's true color, but your brain will correct the image so that you will see the shirt as you expect to see it. Then with familiar objects you may never notice that the color is not what you expect it to be.
This is not normal. I know the brain fills in certain things, but to use this to correct the mistake that light caused from the very beginning is nuts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
An extreme example of people seeing what they expect to see are highway signs. In Pa. the Yield sign was changed from 'Yellow and Black' to 'Red and White' in 1965. Most people still say the sign as 'Yellow and Black' for many years after the last ones had been replaced through attrition. As late as 1980 people would state positively that the signs were 'Yellow and Black' when thay had all been replaced by that time. People were seeing what they expected to see, even when they passed the sign and loked straight at it every day. all conditioning and observation takes place inside the brain, and not outside.
That's true, but this has nothing to do with the fact that we can't be correcting thousands of mistakes because the pattern of light was inadequate from day one. Don't you see the problem, or you that blind. Sounds like fundamentalism to me.
That's all well and good, but doesn't it seem strange that when light strikes an object, we will not get a true color of the object because the light isn't capable of providing it?
No, it does not. It is exactly what happens, as you could verify for yourself with a darkened room, some colored cellophane, and a flashlight.
Or just go to a parking lot that uses sodium vapor lights...jeez this is not some big mystery.
Photographers need to be careful of the light source in order to get true colors in their photographs. When I was photographing items for EBay I was useing 300 watt Photo Floods that duplicated the color rendition of Sunlight. Other light sources would give false color to the object. When possible a photographer will use Sunlight, but in a studio they would use Photo Floods to duplicate sunlight. On the other hand the Photographer may want to use colored light or light with a partial spectrum for special effects, and they can do this with filters that block out certain parts of the spectrum.
You just said the key phrase: special effects. Light should not be bringing special effects when we don't want them.
I'm just asking. Wouldn't that mean an image would not be recognizable? Can you recognize half a face? This is not a hologram.
Why would it be unrecognizable? When you are looking at someone face to face, can you see the back of their head? Does not being able to see the back half of their body render them unrecognizable?
We can only ever see one section of the moon, does our inability to see the dark side render it unrecognizable?
You are gibbering, seriously.
I'm gibbering?
Yes
And you're not (?), which question seemed to go right over your head?
This (color correction in the brain) is not normal. I know the brain fills in certain things, but to use this to correct the mistake that light caused from the very beginning is nuts
It's not "normal" to you, who thinks we somehow see things directly. It's perfectly normal and expected to those who understand that images are created in the brain.
What color is the square on the left, and what color is the square on the right?
Like I said, if this is an undeniable discovery that can change the world for the better, I doubt if people will be upset that Lessans used the term "scientific" in reference to this discovery instead of just saying discovery, especially when this knowledge would be the most important discovery of our times, if it actually can bring peace to our world. But you don't believe it can, therefore you have no respect. You're just nitpicking because you don't like that someone outside of the field could make such a discovery. You are offended by it.
Lessans is no more than a harmless crackpot. The only thing that keeps me interested is your dedication - the depths of your dedication to his work.
I'm sure if you could get people to accept any of Lessans' ideas, they'd be willing to forgive such dishonest nomenclature. However, the dishonesty is a barrier to acceptance.
Basically, lying is helping to guarantee the failure of Lessans' ideas.
You need to understand that Peacegirl is not looking for acceptance and agreement, that would be positive attention. Her goal is to keep getting negative attention, which she has been getting here and most other forums for the last 10 years. On one forum she was getting positive attetion, agreement, and people who were sympathetic to her ideas, at least for as long as she was there. She left on her own after only 3 pages, but part of that may have been that some of the posts were way off topic. This may, in part, explain her responses that seem to be intended to stir up controversity by constantly disagreeing and pretending to misunderstand what is being posted. This obcessiion with negative attention is one indication of her mental difficulties.
Is this your default position when you have no answer thedoc? This is unfair to me, and you know it deep inside. It's ashame that you have to lower yourself to this kind of false portrayal of me in order to retain some respect. I do not disagree on purpose. I am trying to understand so I can better explain Lessans' position. That's all I'm trying to do, so anything you conjure up in your mind to is pure imagination.
I'm just asking. Wouldn't that mean an image would not be recognizable? Can you recognize half a face? This is not a hologram.
Why would it be unrecognizable? When you are looking at someone face to face, can you see the back of their head? Does not being able to see the back half of their body render them unrecognizable?
We can only ever see one section of the moon, does our inability to see the dark side render it unrecognizable?
You are gibbering, seriously.
I'm gibbering?
Yes
And you're not (?), which question seemed to go right over your head?
How about you answer my questions about your statement?
That's all well and good, but doesn't it seem strange that when light strikes an object, we will not get a true color of the object because the light isn't capable of providing it?
Not strange at all, this is the way the real world works, but most people just don't notice. The other factor is that the brain will fill in some of the details of an object that you have seen before. So if you look at a shirt that you have had for some time and the light is not full spectrum, the shirt may not actually be reflecting it's true color, but your brain will correct the image so that you will see the shirt as you expect to see it.
So right from the start, we have to make corrections? Doesn't this seem rather odd considering that everything that happens is so precise that the slightest change is immediately recognized and corrected? This is getting more absurd by the minute, even based on your own standards. BTW, I am not talking about artificial light. I am talking about daylight. Why are you trying to confuse things?
...You need to understand that Peacegirl is not looking for acceptance and agreement, that would be positive attention. Her goal is to keep getting negative attention, which she has been getting here and most other forums for the last 10 years...
It does seem as though being martyred by ridicule is an essential ingredient to the presentation and reaction to this information as if it were far more important to feel like he was standing up to and smarter than the scientific establishment than it was to save the world with his "discovery". Maybe Peacegirl is more invested in that same delusion of grandiosity than she is in actually spreading his ideas in a way that someone could accept with a straight face.
That's all well and good, but doesn't it seem strange that when light strikes an object, we will not get a true color of the object because the light isn't capable of providing it?
Not strange at all, this is the way the real world works, but most people just don't notice. The other factor is that the brain will fill in some of the details of an object that you have seen before. So if you look at a shirt that you have had for some time and the light is not full spectrum, the shirt may not actually be reflecting it's true color, but your brain will correct the image so that you will see the shirt as you expect to see it.
So right from the start, we have to make corrections? Doesn't this seem rather odd considering that everything that happens is so precise that the slightest change is immediately recognized and corrected? This is getting more absurd by the minute, even based on your own standards.
Not odd at all if you understand the standard model of optics, and if you've worked with color at all such as photography.
Quote:
BTW, I am not talking about artificial light. I am talking about daylight. Why are you trying to confuse things?
Light is light, why are you trying to limit things?
Actually, if sight works efferently, then the colour of the light should not matter: light is only a condition, and does not change the colour of the object... so why do we see a difference? Why does a white ball look red under red light?
And since light does change the way we see an object, it cannot be happening instantly: the light requires time to get there, and then to reach the eye.
You are looking at this the wrong way round: since light does cause "special effects", sight cannot work the way you say it does.
Tell me which square is darker, the one marked A or the one marked B?
They are the same color. I cannot see it even knowing the truth, because my brain is seeing what it expects to see. I had to open a photo editor and use the color tool to get the value and verify that they are identical. This is the color of both squares
...You need to understand that Peacegirl is not looking for acceptance and agreement, that would be positive attention. Her goal is to keep getting negative attention, which she has been getting here and most other forums for the last 10 years...
It does seem as though being martyred by ridicule is an essential ingredient to the presentation and reaction to this information as if it were far more important to feel like he was standing up to and smarter than the scientific establishment than it was to save the world with his "discovery". Maybe Peacegirl is more invested in that same delusion of grandiosity than she is in actually spreading his ideas in a way that someone could accept with a straight face.
I think she would love positive attention for the book. The problem is that any serious attention reveals the enormous flaws in the book, while even the smallest criticism is automatically considered to be caused by either ignorance, malice or bias. As a result all attention turns into negative attention, because she seem incapable of admitting to even the slightest flaw in the book, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Photographers need to be careful of the light source in order to get true colors in their photographs. When I was photographing items for EBay I was useing 300 watt Photo Floods that duplicated the color rendition of Sunlight. Other light sources would give false color to the object. When possible a photographer will use Sunlight, but in a studio they would use Photo Floods to duplicate sunlight. On the other hand the Photographer may want to use colored light or light with a partial spectrum for special effects, and they can do this with filters that block out certain parts of the spectrum.
You just said the key phrase: special effects. Light should not be bringing special effects when we don't want them.
But light does bring 'special effects' when we don't want them, that is why good photography is so difficult. Any one can point and shoot and get acceptable snaps, but to get really accurate photographs care must be taken with the light used to illuminate the scene. People can study photography for several years in High School, and then go on to 4 years of college to become a good professional photographer. Check out some of the Art Schools that offer majors in Photography, and while you are at it check out the Rochester Institute of Technology in Rochester NY where both Kodak and Bausch and Lomb gave the college a great deal of support. Both companies and the college were involved in optics and the level of expertise would be well above the average.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
I think she would love positive attention for the book. The problem is that any serious attention reveals the enormous flaws in the book, while even the smallest criticism is automatically considered to be caused by either ignorance, malice or bias. As a result all attention turns into negative attention, because she seem incapable of admitting to even the slightest flaw in the book, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Maybe I have a bad habit of assuming that in the absence of mental health issues or developmental disabilities people generally do things in a way that achieves their goal and when their tactics don't work they change them. She won't change hers no matter how many decades this ridicule goes on for so it seems to me like the payoff is in the ridicule for her. I'm not going to assume that she has a serious mental health problem since I'm not a psychiatrist and if I were I wouldn't be diagnosing strangers online. There's lots of room for weird in between neurotypical and crazy IMO.
Light should not be bringing special effects when we don't want them.
Light gives a shit what humans want? LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am talking about daylight
You are aware that daylight is not constant when it comes to color, either? It is filtered through the atmosphere, and it is reflected off the ground and nearby objects, and the wavelengths received are dependent on our angle to the Sun (which is why Sunrise and Sunset are so colorful).
I think she would love positive attention for the book. The problem is that any serious attention reveals the enormous flaws in the book, while even the smallest criticism is automatically considered to be caused by either ignorance, malice or bias. As a result all attention turns into negative attention, because she seem incapable of admitting to even the slightest flaw in the book, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Maybe I have a bad habit of assuming that in the absence of mental health issues or developmental disabilities people generally do things in a way that achieves their goal and when their tactics don't work they change them. She won't change hers no matter how many decades this ridicule goes on for so it seems to me like the payoff is in the ridicule for her. I'm not going to assume that she has a serious mental health problem since I'm not a psychiatrist and if I were I wouldn't be diagnosing strangers online. There's lots of room for weird in between neurotypical and crazy IMO.
If you read the book you will find she really doesn't have much of a choice. If her ideas about free will are even slightly tempered, the whole teetering edifice comes crashing down: this is a text-book example of an entire system being built on extremely narrow foundations.
We already offered an explanation that allows sight to be normal while not conflicting with the book as she shared it. However, she herself has intimated that this would have consequences for the the ideas about not-reincarnation as described in the part of the book that is missing from my version.
The entire cloud-castle is so lacking in robustness that smallest change would bring the whole thing crashing down, and then where is she? No eternally happy afterlife, no Brave New World, ten years wasted, and stacks and stacks of what has now suddenly become the worlds most expensive toiletpaper in stead of the Bible, Part 2.
I'm just asking. Wouldn't that mean an image would not be recognizable? Can you recognize half a face? This is not a hologram.
Why would it be unrecognizable? When you are looking at someone face to face, can you see the back of their head? Does not being able to see the back half of their body render them unrecognizable?
We can only ever see one section of the moon, does our inability to see the dark side render it unrecognizable?
You are gibbering, seriously.
I'm gibbering?
Yes
And you're not (?), which question seemed to go right over your head?
And your question indicated a complete lack of understanding of optics and vision, or it was a deliberste attempt to confuse the issue and distract by asking nonsensical questions
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Re: A revolution in thought
Linear Mode
