A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes. Picture the box again and the Sun has just been turned on at noon. Obviously photons are being emitted; they aren't static. If the Sun is bright enough when first being turned on, then it could be seen (we are working this backwards) if Lessans' claim regarding efferent vision is correct. This means the lens of the camera would automatically be within the field of view of the Sun because this is a closed system, just like with the eyes. The camera and the retina work the same in both cases but you're having a hard time understanding how the light could be at the sensor without the light traveling to Earth. All that is necessary in this account (which extends to cameras) is that the object (in this case the Sun) be bright enough and large enough which meets the requirements of this model whether it's a person taking a picture in real time or a person seeing the object in real time. Remember, the purpose of light is to reveal matter in the external world, and the Sun is made up of matter. I wonder how many more times will I have to repeat this?

Repeat it as many times as you like. It still doesn't answer the question of where the photons at the film came from or how they got there.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Let's try this another way, Peacegirl. Let's start by assuming that the photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Assumption #1: The photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Now lets define traveling and teleporting. Traveling is getting from A to B by passing through all intervening points. Teleporting is getting from A to B without passing through all intervening points. Clearly these are jointly exhaustive - if you get from A to B you must do so either by passing through the intervening points or by not passing through them. So...

Conclusion #1: If the photons came from the Sun then they either traveled there or teleported there.

Now you insist that they neither traveled there nor teleported, so we can conclude via modus tollens (If A then B, not B, therefore not A) that these photons cannot have come from the Sun.

Assumption #2: The photons at the film/retina did not travel or teleport there.

Conclusion #2: The photons at the film/retina did not come from the Sun.

So now the million-dollar question: Where the fuck did these photons come from? We can note also that the exact same reasoning as above will still apply for any location other than the Sun - as long as the photons are getting from A to B, they have to either travel there or teleport there - so we can know that...

Conclusion #3: The photons at the film/retina did not get there from anywhere else.

That leaves two remaining possibilities: (i) These photons were always there, i.e. sitting stationary at the film/retina surface; or (ii) They did not previously exist, and instead came into existence at the film/retina. But of course neither of these are plausible either, as photons cannot be stationary, and they do not pop into existence in our eyes or on film. But unless you accept one of these options we are forced to conclude that...

Conclusion #4: Assumption #2 was bollocks.

Basically, what we have proven is that you have only four options for the photons at the film/retina:

(i) Traveling photons.
(ii) Teleporting photons.
(iii) Stationary photons.
(iv) Newly existing photons.

So which is it going to be? (Remember, weaseling and fake-conceding are not honest responses.)

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do know what I meant by the term, but the definition that I read online may not define what I am talking about. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. Definitions can be added if the present definitions are incomplete. I believe a closed system in the case I'm describing by definition is perfectly acceptable.

I am not positing an imaginary box LadyShea. That's in your imaginary head so you can discount anything I say.

Bingo!

Still no explanation of what YOU mean when you use the term closed system. What encloses your system to prevent outside light entering and light within from escaping? What are the barriers and parameters?

Also, I didn't use a dictionary definition, as I felt "closed system" was pretty self explanatory...or it was until you used it in a way that makes no sense.

Also also, your "box" or "block" illustration was imaginary, why are you saying it isn't? WTF?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Still no explanation of why YOU mean when you use the term closed system. What encloses your system to prevent outside light entering and light within from escaping? What are the barriers and parameters?

Also, I didn't use a dictionary definition, as I felt "closed system" was pretty self explanatory...or it was until you used it in a way that makes no sense.

Also also, your "box" or "block" illustration was imaginary, why are you saying it isn't? WTF?

One day science will discover the very real and non-imaginary 92 million mile long cardboard box that encloses the closed system of the Earth and the Sun, and Lessans will be vindicated.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to you Mr. Preacher, I am condemned, a sinner, and not worthy of explaining what I know to be true because the crucifix has already been set. No further comment.

Even you are not beyond redemption. The process begins with confession and repentence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wanted to edit the post but it wouldn't let me. It took the edited page to a completely new post, so I took the old post out and put the word duplicate in, so that people don't have to read the same post twice. What is your problem Spacemonkey?

You did edit the post, therefore you were not prevented from doing so. When you deleted the content of the post and replaced it with the word 'duplicate' you successfully edited the post. So it is simply not true that "it" (whatever you imagine that to have been) wouldn't let you edit the post.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to you Mr. Preacher, I am condemned, a sinner, and not worthy of explaining what I know to be true because the crucifix has already been set. No further comment.

ROFL :martyr:

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, you haven't heard a thing I have said. You are imitating Spacemonkey. It's no wonder we've gotten nowhere.

You are missing this entire account. You will never understand it as long as you look at traveling photons without the object.

It makes absolute sense if you are looking at it in terms of a closed system. What I mean by that is there ARE parameters to this: the object itself + the viewer (assuming for a moment that efferent vision is true) + light = real time vision or photography.

Photons on camera film or sensor is the only way in which to get a photograph. You must explain how those photons get there and where they come from or you are babbling about magic.

The object, the viewer, and light aren't parameters, nor are they mechanisms, nor do they have any explanatory power. They are merely a list of nouns you have failed to put together meaningfully.

If I said "water + flour + salt + yeast = bread" would you be able to get bread without any further explanations?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wanted to edit the post but it wouldn't let me. It took the edited page to a completely new post, so I took the old post out and put the word duplicate in, so that people don't have to read the same post twice. What is your problem Spacemonkey?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are lying again.

I am not lying, and you're not going to get away with this accusation. Who do you think you are Spacemonkey? You have an agenda to make me look like a liar so that people will think poorly of me. You know that's true.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There was no completely new post. There was never any duplicate. We are talking about post #36642. You have not prevented people from reading the same post twice - you've stopped them from reading it even once.

What the hell are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You just admitted in post #36649 that you went back and took that post out because you had said something you thought was confusing. Deleting an original post and calling it a duplicate is not honest. That is lying.

I couldn't edit the original which I wanted to do. It wouldn't let me. It created an entirely new post with the edited version, so I had to delete the original since it looked like a duplicate except for the few little changes I had made. I don't deserve the third degree, especially coming from you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not lying...

Yes, you are. You are lying. The post concerned was not a duplicate. You could and did edit the original.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the hell are you talking about?

Exactly what I just said. There was no new post. There was no duplicate. You deleted out the words of the original post and called it a duplicate when it was not. If it had been a duplicate then the original would still be there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I couldn't edit the original which I wanted to do. It wouldn't let me. It created an entirely new post with the edited version, so I had to delete the original since it looked like a duplicate except for the few little changes I had made. I don't deserve the third degree, especially coming from you.

This is all lies. None of it ever happened. You DID edit the original post. No entirely new post was ever created. Are you sure you are looking at the right post? We are talking about post #36642.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are missing the concept. You've said the light at the film came from the Sun. I explained that there are only two options for how it gets from the Sun to the film on Earth - it does so by either traveling through the intervening space, or by not traveling through the intervening space. You insisted (contrary to all logic) that there is a third option (beyond P and not-P), but you won't tell me what it is.

Nooooooo, you are failing to understand the efferent model, so how in the world are these two opposing [theories] ever going to intersect. I don't care how many times you say this, you are still expressing the afferent position which requires the light to travel and reach earth. Nothing has changed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let me repeat: Light does the same thing it has always done, but what changes is the fact that it is the object we are looking at or taking a snapshot of, not the light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What light has always done is travel. You change this whenever you claim the light at the film got there from the Sun without traveling there.

Nope, not at all, not when you come from the opposite position which does not change the properties of light, but does change what we see due to the direction that our brain and eyes see, which mathematically extends into photography.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep saying what happened to the light in the intervening spaces. What spaces are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The 92 million miles between the film and the Sun you said the light now at the film originally came from.

Right, due to the requirements necessary. These requirements, if looked at carefully, do not change any properties of light whatsoever but you can't wrap your head around it because you cannot understand why photons do not have to reach Earth first. Why are you even here Spacemonkey? Why are you spending so much time arguing with me? If you know I'm wrong, why are you so invested in trying to get me to change my position. Is this ego centered?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In this account, there are no spaces, no time, and no distance to traverse.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, there is. Unless you are claiming our eyes and cameras to be literally in physical contact with the surface of the Sun, there is 92 million miles of intervening space between them. Any photons from the Sun now present at the camera film had to have either traveled through that intervening space (travel) or not traveled through it (teleportation).

I am not even going to repeat myself for the hundredth time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember: If we can see the object as we turn our gaze toward it, that means that we are within the field of view of the object.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Objects don't have fields of view.

No, but people do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Distance and time have no place in this model...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yet distance and time exist in reality, so your model is plainly flawed.

You just don't see the validity because of your inability to understand the efferent model.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think you have come close to thinking this through in a serious and intentional manner.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You obviously haven't. Taking your model seriously means honestly facing up to the photon problem instead of dishonestly evading it.

There IS no photon problem; that's just it.

[peacegirl]

I just want to let everyone know that last night I had to put my sweet 15 year old Sheepdog to sleep. She has crossed the rainbow into doggy heaven. I will miss her very very much (she was my buddy) but I know she is in a better place. It was very hard to see her decline and I kept hoping that she would gain her strength back after a bout of bronchitis but she never did. She stopped eating and I had to feed her with a syringe of raw egg and probiotics. This allowed her to keep some of her strength but it would never sustain her over the long term. I had to come to terms with the fact that it was her time to go. I had to say goodbye for the last time. She went peacefully and quickly. Zoe, you will always be in my heart and I will remember your loving companionship forever.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nooooooo, you are failing to understand the efferent model, so how in the world are these two opposing [theories] ever going to intersect. I don't care how many times you say this, you are still expressing the afferent position which requires the light to travel and reach earth. Nothing has changed.

You don't understand the efferent model either. And you still haven't told me what your mysterious third option is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, not at all, not when you come from the opposite position which does not change the properties of light...

You are changing the properties of light whenever you say the light at the film or retina can be there without having traveled there and without having been emitted there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, due to the requirements necessary. These requirements, if looked at carefully, do not change any properties of light whatsoever but you can't wrap your head around it because you cannot understand why photons do not have to reach Earth first.

Your requirements do not explain how the light got from the Sun to the film. There is a very real 92 million mile distance between these two locations. If the photons get from the one location to the other, then they must either pass through the intervening space (i.e. travel), or not pass through the intervening space (i.e. teleport).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not even going to repeat myself for the hundredth time.

Good. Instead of repeating weaseling evasions, try actually answering honestly for once.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but people do.

Then try speaking of the fields of view of people, instead of mindless nonsense about the fields of view of objects.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just don't see the validity because of your inability to understand the efferent model.

No-one can understand what you refuse to explain. You don't understand it either.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There IS no photon problem; that's just it.

Denial will not make it go away. The photon problem is that you need photons at the film on Earth at the very same moment the Sun 92 million miles away first starts emitting them, and you have absolutely no explanation for how this can be achieved.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you used my example with the box, you would see that if we see the object it is only because enough light was present to put our eyes or sensor in the field of view of that object. It isn't magical. It is difficult to grasp because all of your life you were taught that light alone is all that is necessary to create an image. This is a big stumbling block.

Define "present", present WHERE? How do objects have a field of view? You are still merely be saying "If it can be seen, we can see it and photograph it". That doesn't explain anything at all.

You are still completely avoiding the simple question: in order to create a photographic image, light photons must be present inside the camera, where do those light photons comes from and how to they get inside the camera in the efferent account?

Answer the question, Weasel. "Field of view" and "optical range" do not explain how light gets inside the camera. "Brightness" doesn't explain it, either. You need to provide a physical mechanism.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just want to let everyone know that last night I had to put my sweet 15 year old Sheepdog to sleep. She has crossed the rainbow into doggy heaven. I will miss her very very much (she was my buddy) but I know she is in a better place. It was very hard to see her decline and I kept hoping that she would gain her strength back after a bout of bronchitis but she never did. She stopped eating and I had to feed her with a syringe of raw egg and probiotics. This allowed her to keep some of her strength but it would never sustain her over the long term. I had to come to terms with the fact that it was her time to go. I had to say goodbye for the last time. She went peacefully and quickly. Zoe, you will always be in my heart and I will remember your loving companionship forever.

Sorry for your loss. If only sheepdogs could use pronouns...

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes. Picture the box again and the Sun has just been turned on at noon. Obviously photons are being emitted; they aren't static. If the Sun is bright enough when first being turned on, then it could be seen (we are working this backwards) if Lessans' claim regarding efferent vision is correct. This means the lens of the camera would automatically be within the field of view of the Sun because this is a closed system, just like with the eyes. The camera and the retina work the same in both cases but you're having a hard time understanding how the light could be at the sensor without the light traveling to Earth. All that is necessary in this account (which extends to cameras) is that the object (in this case the Sun) be bright enough and large enough which meets the requirements of this model whether it's a person taking a picture in real time or a person seeing the object in real time. Remember, the purpose of light is to reveal matter in the external world, and the Sun is made up of matter. I wonder how many more times will I have to repeat this?

If your answer is yes, then that is absolute magic. In order to create a photographic image, light photons must be present inside the camera, where do those light photons comes from and how to they get inside the camera in the scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon when Lessans clearly stated that light photons would not reach Earth until 12:08?

Your entire paragraph here still avoids answering the question. The lens being in the "field of view" doesn't explain how light photons get inside the camera. The Suns brightness and largeness doesn't explain it. Nothing you've said addresses the problem at all.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not lying, and you're not going to get away with this accusation. Who do you think you are Spacemonkey? You have an agenda to make me look like a liar so that people will think poorly of me. You know that's true.

What the hell are you talking about?

I couldn't edit the original which I wanted to do. It wouldn't let me. It created an entirely new post with the edited version, so I had to delete the original since it looked like a duplicate except for the few little changes I had made. I don't deserve the third degree, especially coming from you.

You successfully edited it to say "dupe" that is an edit. It did not originally say "dupe", correct? So you were able to access it to delete the text and replace it with word dupe.

Which post is the second, edited version of the original if you are not lying?

[LadyShea]

My condolences for the loss of your dog

[Artemis Entreri]

I'm mildly curious about this thread... just the sheer length both of time and posts is amazing. It's hard to tell exactly whats going on from the first few pages and the last few pages (they seem hardly related).

But I tried looking up "efferent vision" but can't find such a thing except in this thread. So I looked at efferent:
ef·fer·ent
[ef-er-uhnt] Show IPA Anatomy, Physiology .
adjective
1. conveying or conducting away from an organ or part (opposed to afferent ).

So I assume that peacegirl is saying that eyes (also cameras?) somehow are "reaching out" to see light rather than receiving light. Even though this is not how we know the eye to work. Is that they idea?

The only reference to efference and vision, sort of, is efference copies which, from my quick search light reading, is all about our brain predicting our own actions. I don't think this is what she's talking about.

It seems like peacegirl is simply saying that the eyes work in a way that is contrary to the way we know them to work and isn't logical or testable.

Maybe someone can point me back to some posts (buried in 1469 pages) that have more information than "you just don't understand efferent vision"... if such a post exists.

[Dragar]

Sorry about your dog, peacegirl.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by Dragar

What does light have to do with anything? That's my explanation for vision, not yours! How you've explained vision is that light has to be at the object. So why does the behaviour of light bouncing off a mirror have any bearing on your ridiculous ideas about vision?

Explain - as I asked - how a mirror works without referring to light. Since, according to you, the way mirrors bounce light off them is irrelevant.

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Artemis, Lessans felt that seeing was a real time phenomena where light was only a condition of sight but not a cause. He said the eyes are not a sense organ at all, and that seeing is an efferent experience. He said the brain directly looks out through the eyes as if they are windows, rather than creating images after receiving light and sending signals to the brain, and the directly looking brain sees the real world without any light travel time delay.

He failed to mention photography at all, so peacegirl is asserting how brains looking through window eyes is somehow the same as taking photographs with a brainless camera...though she can't explain that at all.

Here and excerpt from the book

Originally Posted by Lessans

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ. The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation.

[Artemis Entreri]

"this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ"

That statement is false. I'm sure it's been pointed out before. Is he saying that the optic nerve is only efferent and doesn't transmit impulses to the brain? If so then why does damage and disease of the optic nerve effect sight?
https://www.kenhub.com/en/library/an...he-optic-nerve

[Artemis Entreri]

What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
This statement is completely banana pants. By a strict defintion of efference (and his contrasting it against the afference of the other senses) this statement could only mean that the brain is sending signals to our eyes but not the other way around.... so everything we see is just being created by our brain?
If this isn't what he meant then he should have picked his words better.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My condolences for the loss of your dog

Thanks LadyShea. She was very dear to me and it's hard to believe she's gone.