A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's a plain contradiction, Peacegirl.

At least she is consistent with her fathers book.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is so funny to me because this is more realistic than saying that light must be in optical range to be resolved. You don't eve see how farfetched afferent vision really is.

When have you heard anyone use the term optical range when discussing the scientific model of vision?

Of course it has parameters. Whatever our visual landscape is, is the pasrameter of what we're looking at.

In other words "Whatever we can see is what can be seen"

What parameters does afferent vision have that efferent doesn't?

Distance, resolution, intensity of light, nature of the sensor, duration of exposure...etc. All of which can be predicted and measured.

You have no idea how to predict or measure "big enough" "bright enough" or "close enough" (what is enough? If it can be seen, it is enough! That's circular.).

You say the light may have to travel millions and millions of miles to put us in visual range. I say the object is in visual range which puts the light at the eye or telescope in a closed system.

This is an assertion as you have no explanation for any of the factors like where the light comes from and how it gets to any location.

There is nothing childlike about seeing the real world LadyShea.

Your explanations are childlike. "I can see it! Therefore light is present! Meaning it is bright enough and big enough! So I can see it!"

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said we didn't see light David. We see rainbows, isn't that light? We see images on our computer; isn't that light? We see sunsets; isn't that light? And we see ourselves in the mirror due to light's reflection.

All of which you argued against a few years ago...talking about seeing the "actual objects" like water vapor, pixels, plasma, and hot gases

You never were able to explain why we can't see some types of flames, even though all the conditions for efferent vision were met.

[LadyShea]

As per my previous posts, I am now going to report your "explanations" using plant leaves and photosynthesis in place of retinas and vision

The light travels and when it's luminous enough for photosynthesis to occur, the plant is in the box where the light has reached the far end (remember, in this closed system distance is not a factor, just brightness and size), placing the light instantly (zero time) at the plant leaf which then puts the plant leaf in photosynthesis range.

[LadyShea]

You're not quite getting it either. Light is traveling; I am not changing the properties of light, but due to instant photosynthesis it creates a situation where there is no travel when plants are near the object

[LadyShea]

Conversely, Spacemonkey's points can interchange retina and film with plant leaves and solar panels and be the exact same question, making the exact same point. We are asking about light's location and properties, not about what we can see.

That is simply contradictory. If the light at the plant leaf or solar panel is light that has traveled from the Sun to the mirror and then from the mirror to the leaf or panel, then that light cannot and will not be there instantaneously. It can only be there 8min after the Sun is ignited and has begun emitting photons.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are still thinking in terms of traveling light that has to get to us through space/time. But if there's nothing in the light without the object being in visual range, what are we waiting to see?

In the case of the Hubble Deep Field, we (humans) had no idea what the image would be, had no idea what, if anything, we were waiting to see! The final image was a surprise, because as far as anyone could tell beforehand they were pointing at empty space.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When have you heard anyone use the term optical range when discussing the scientific model of vision?

Field of view is synonymous with optical range. Semantic games again.

Of course it has parameters. Whatever our visual landscape is, is the pasrameter of what we're looking at.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In other words "Whatever we can see is what can be seen"

That's true, even in the afferent view. So what is your beef? Why do you have to look for something arcane to be true? Sometimes the simplest things can be overlooked.

What parameters does afferent vision have that efferent doesn't?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Distance, resolution, intensity of light, nature of the sensor, duration of exposure...etc. All of which can be predicted and measured.

I never said it didn't.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have no idea how to predict or measure "big enough" "bright enough" or "close enough" (what is enough? If it can be seen, it is enough! That's circular.).

No it isn't; not when we're talking about the actual object unlike the mistaken notion that light is all that's necessary.

You say the light may have to travel millions and millions of miles to put us in visual range. I say the object is in visual range which puts the light at the eye or telescope in a closed system.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is an assertion as you have no explanation for any of the factors like where the light comes from and how it gets to any location.

Of course I do. You're just stuck in a groove and cannot even understand what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've seen what happens when you try to introduce actual factors and characteristics and properties of things based on observed reality.

It's basically childlike in that "I see a tree, because a tree is there, and it is not dark, and I have eyes, so I can see it" is the entirety of the explanation

There is nothing childlike about seeing the real world in real time LadyShea. You're just analyzing this incorrectly and putting a label onto it. Now that's childlike.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your explanations are childlike. "I can see it! Therefore light is present! Meaning it is bright enough and big enough! So I can see it!"

Oh really? So what makes your account less childlike? If I can touch and feel something, that can't be right? Youu are convinced that science is right so you do what the fundies do, reason blindly to justify your position. You aren't thinking as straight as you think you are.

[LadyShea]

Field of view, in optics, is determined by a series of mathematical formulas. How is the field of view determined in efferent vision?

The field of view FOV of an optical system is often expressed as the maximum angular size of the object as seen from the entrance pupil. The maximum image height is also used. For finite conjugate systems, the maximum object height is useful. http://spie.org/x32310.xml

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Field of view, in optics, is determined by a series of mathematical formulas. How is the field of view determined in efferent vision?

The same exact way. You are failing to understand that optics is not altered in this account. Not whatsoever. So why are you using this to denounce this model when it doesn't even conflict?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well, isn't that true. If I can touch and feel something that means it's there.

LOL "I can touch and feel it, so it's really real!" So what of the real things that are there that you cannot touch or feel?

Even my 8 year old son understands properties and states of matter and can discuss reality in more concrete and sophisticated terms.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The same exact way. You are failing to understand that optics is not altered in this account. Not whatsoever. So why are you using this to denounce this model when it doesn't even conflict?

The same exact way? Are you sure? Optics is not altered at all? Really?

Do tell how light that is neither absorbed by nor transmitted through the matter it encounters is ALSO not reflected. Optics says it is, you say it isn't. How is that unaltered or exactly the same? Show how optics allows for "brightness" to "fill" a space in a "closed system" without traveling across that space. Where in optics, which is not altered whatsoever, is distance not a factor? Here is a handy index of optics topics for your use Optipedia: Free optics information from SPIE here is a basic set of explanations of the properties of light http://water.me.vccs.edu/courses/env...on15_print.htm

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course I do.

Then why won't you tell us exactly where the light comes from and how it gets to any location in any scenario where you've been asked that exact question?

Here's that exact question from yesterday http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...ostcount=37522

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All of which you argued against a few years ago...talking about seeing the "actual objects" like water vapor, pixels, plasma, and hot gases

You never were able to explain why we can't see some types of flames, even though all the conditions for efferent vision were met.

No, all the conditions are not met if there's not enough visible light.

Invisible flames are just like regular flames, they just don't burn hot enough to make visible light. You put them out the same way.

What makes a flame luminous?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true, even in the afferent view. So what is your beef? Why do you have to look for something arcane to be true? Sometimes the simplest things can be overlooked.

Yes, but the standard model doesn't stop there, it can and does explain how and why we can see what can be seen. Efferent vision cannot and does not explain the how or why.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, all the conditions are not met if there's not enough visible light.

Invisible flames are just like regular flames, they just don't burn hot enough to make visible light. You put them out the same way.

What makes a flame luminous?

The video we discussed back when you were asserting we see the "actual flame" and "hot gases" of a flame, was taken in full daylight, so there was plenty of light. So you are now saying that the "object" has to emit visible light in efferent vision as well? Why? If the object is there, and there is plenty of light surrounding it, why does the flame need to emit light to see it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then why won't you tell us exactly where the light comes from and how it gets to any location in any scenario where you've been asked that exact question?

Here's that exact question from yesterday Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Because it doesn't apply. Light travels but when we're looking at the object we get a mirror image where millions of miles and delayed time are totally irrelevant. Our cameras or eyes are in the field of view (is that better than optical range?) of the object. WE ARE NOT IN THE FIELD OF VIEW OF THE LIGHT WHICH IS WHAT SCIENCE CLAIMS. The light is only allowing us to see the real object; it is a condition of sight, not a cause. It brings no information about the object through space/time. If you can't get this at all, I'm absolutely wasting my breath. You and Spacemonkey are in denial.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light is only allowing us to see the real object; it is a condition of sight, not a cause.

So how do mirrors work?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The video we discussed back when you were asserting we see the "actual flame" and "hot gases" of a flame, was taken in full daylight, so there was plenty of light. So you are now saying that the "object" has to emit visible light in efferent vision as well? Why? If the object is there, and there is plenty of light surrounding it, why does the flame need to emit light to see it?

Are you pulling my leg? You asked me the same thing about black holes? You won't be able to show me up and claim victory, trust me on that. Who in the world ever said we didn't need light being emitted or reflected? But you are confusing reflected white light with light that, although it travels, can only be seen when our lens is aimed at the real thing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So how do mirrors work?

I answered that. I'm not answering it again. Scroll back.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, but the standard model doesn't stop there, it can and does explain how and why we can see what can be seen. Efferent vision cannot and does not explain the how or why.

Wow, this is unbelievable. It's great to have an explanation (so do I even though you can't grasp it), but if the explanation is wrong, then it's not giving us a true understanding of what's going on in reality. You can keep your theory, but it still doesn't prove that it's right. I don't care how long this theory has existed. Length of time means nothing. It's very easy to accept as fact something that gets overturned later on.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered that. I'm not answering it again. Scroll back.

You answered it by telling me light is reflected off the mirror. But that's my explanation, not yours! Why should that have anything to do with your idea about vision? Light is a 'condition', not a 'cause' - so how do mirrors work if that's the case?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you pulling my leg? You asked me the same thing about black holes? You won't be able to show me up and claim victory, trust me on that. Who in the world ever said we didn't need light being emitted or reflected?

You did, before you flip flopped. Do you need me to find these old discussions for you?

But you are confusing reflected white light with light that, although it travels, can only be seen when our lens is aimed at the real thing.

Explain how every word in this statement relates to invisible flames.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it doesn't apply.

Of course it applies, if as you insist "optics is not altered" at all whatsoever. Or, does efferent vision require optics to be altered after all? And why did you say "of course" you have an explanation for where the light comes from and how it gets to any location in any scenario when you don't have any explanation because it "doesn't apply"?

The light is only allowing us to see the real object; it is a condition of sight, not a cause. It brings no information about the object through space/time. If you can't get this at all, I'm absolutely wasting my breath. You and Spacemonkey are in denial.

What is the "real object" when we see a flame and why can't we see some flames even though they are also this "real object"? How are we getting "information" about the "real object" when discussing a flame if not via light?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When have you heard anyone use the term optical range when discussing the scientific model of vision?

In other words "Whatever we can see is what can be seen"

Distance, resolution, intensity of light, nature of the sensor, duration of exposure...etc. All of which can be predicted and measured.

You have no idea how to predict or measure "big enough" "bright enough" or "close enough" (what is enough? If it can be seen, it is enough! That's circular.).

This is an assertion as you have no explanation for any of the factors like where the light comes from and how it gets to any location.

Your explanations are childlike. "I can see it! Therefore light is present! Meaning it is bright enough and big enough! So I can see it!"

We can see it because of light LadyShea. Light has to be striking the eye regardless of what account we're discussing. Whether it's the light being sent through space/time to be processed in the brain, or whether we see the object itself, if there are no nonabsorbed photons at the eye or film, the real object or the image of the object (depending on what view you subscribe to) won't be within our field of view, so you are creating a strawman. You are calling it childlike to make it appear that the explanation has to be complicated. It doesn't have to be.