A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely!

You dishonest dingbat. You know traveling images is a ridiculous strawman, so if you don't mean it, stop saying it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's exactly what is happening; it just doesn't take 81/2 minutes. I know you don't see how...

You don't see how either. You have absolutely no idea how efferent vision could possibly work. That's why you keep finding yourself making up utter nonsense, such as your recent insanity about nanoseconds, candles, and the inverse square law.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not in the way he was describing. No matter how often a child is told how wonderful a certain musical genre is, if that child doesn't like it, he cannot be conditioned to like it, although he might listen to it if that's the in thing to do. No matter how often a child is told how delicious a certain food is, if he doesn't like it, he cannot become conditioned to like it although he could acquire a taste for it, which is not the same thing. No matter how often a child is told how wonderful a perfume smells, if he doesn't like it, he cannot become conditioned to like it, although his taste may change as he gets older. If a child hears over and over how beautiful this person is, and how ugly that person is, he will actually become conditioned to seeing this particular subset of features (and all those that come close to this artificial standard) as beautiful and the other subset of features as ugly, all because of words that are projected onto the screen of undeniable substance. This could not occur if the eyes were a sense organ. You never really took the time to study this chapter in depth.

Again, I have studied the chapter in depth. That's why I know it to be worthless nonsense. Nothing is literally projected out of the eyes onto reality. That was a metaphor, and so long as it is a metaphor rather than a literal projection, the actual mechanism of vision has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is that why you don't even understand the two-sided equation, or why compatibilism is ridiculous unless you are trying to fake reconcile two positions that cannot be reconciled?

You are a liar and an idiot. You know I understand these topics better than you do. I just won't let you change the subject while you continue to weasel and refuse to answer questions.

[davidm]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You dishonest dingbat. You know traveling images is a ridiculous strawman, so if you don't mean it, stop saying it.

Apologize or

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, nice weasel changing the subject. Back to the point.

Do you deny stating multiple times that in the Sun on at noon scenario, light would be located on camera film at 12:00 (plus a nanosecond)?

If you do deny it, then you are an easily proved liar

If you don't deny it, then why do you find it hilarious that we think you are saying what you actually said?

Obviously if the Sun is bright enough to be seen, which it would be if it was first turned on, we know that photons are traveling. You aren't going to have the Sun as bright as it is with no photons being emitted. Just think about that for a second before responding. We are not talking about distance such that if it's a nanosecond, then it will grow to two nanoseconds depending on space and time. This whole account is getting screwed up because of how its being analyzed..

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously if the Sun is bright enough to be seen, which it would be if it was first turned on, we know that photons are traveling. You aren't going to have the Sun as bright as it is with no photons being emitted. Just think about that for a second before responding. We are not talking about distance such that if it's a nanosecond, then it will grow to two nanoseconds depending on space and time. This whole account is getting screwed up because of how its being analyzed..

You say such stupid, meaningless things that one just has to laugh. It's all the more amusing when you use phrases like "Just think about that for a second ..."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Is this a form of back peddling? and is that something like moving the goal posts?


If this is a metaphor, what is the comparison, that I seem to have missed?

I'm using this post to address LadyShea. He knew that there was no actual image being carried on the waves of light, like a basket carrying apples. I can't believe you are accusing me of using the term "metaphor" when I learned how wrong he was. That is ludicrous. FYI, he was not wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

First of all, you have stated that you refuse to look at and consider anything that disproves your fathers book, so by your own admission, you know nothing about these proofs.

We assume that afferent vision is correct because of the over whelming amount of evidence that supports it, and we reject efferent vision because there is no evidence to support it and an overwhelming amount that disproves it.

There is evidence to support it, that's just it. He didn't pull this out of a hat. I have looked and considered this account, and I've also considered my father's account. It isn't fair to just ignore this very solid model of vision just because the evidence that the eyes are a sense organ looks overwhelming. It is still circumstantial which means it's not conclusive.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm using this post to address LadyShea. He knew that there was no actual image being carried on the waves of light, like a basket carrying apples. I can't believe you are accusing me of using the term "metaphor" when I learned how wrong he was. That is ludicrous. FYI, he was not wrong.

You've been saying for more than three years that images literally travel on light. You're just a sicko.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

He was told by people, according to you, who didn't understand the ideas? and he took their advise?

If you are going to get someone to proofread a book for content, they must first understand the ideas presented. Many people can proofread for spelling and punctuation, if they are good at spelling and punctuation. My wife proofreads all the time and sometimes she doesn't understand the content, but that doesn't effect her ability to see spelling, punctuation, and sentence structure errors. If the people who read his books didn't understand the ideas, they were in no position to critique the content of the book. Unfortunately for you and Lessans there are people on this forum who understand the ideas he was trying to present, and can see the errors in his writing. The contributors on this thread could have corrected the errors in his book.

Um, the verdict is still out thedoc.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Apologize or

Sorry dingbat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If no information is reflected, it is possible to see the object instantly while the light is still traveling because of the mirror image effect. This is just a mapping or projection of the photons onto the retina or film as we look at the object in real time, which does not take 81/2 minutes.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

This mapping of the photons onto the retina or film happens when those photons come into contact with the retina or film. To achieve that the photons have to travel to where the retina or film is located. This takes time because the photons travel at the speed of light. There is no "mirror effect" that would cause this to happen instantly. That is just something you made up.

That is true, but again by the time we would see the Sun the light would have traveled enough distance to where we would be in optical range on Earth. I am sticking by this statement.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which people?

People who are tuning in. I'm not talking about you or your cronies who think you have it all figured out.

1. How do you know that there are any such people?

IT'S AN EDUCATED GUESS.

2. If such people exist, how do you know what they are thinking?

I DON'T, BUT I HAVE EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WOULD GIVE ME THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, WHICH THIS GROUP REFUSES TO DO.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The whole scientific theory that has graduated into undeniable fact is far fetched, yet it has been accepted unquestionably because no one came along that could disprove it.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

True. No one has come along who could disprove it. That includes Lessans and yourself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, let up okay? You have no idea how knowledgeable this man was...

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The only evidence we have regarding his knowledge is that which he provides in his book. That is all we have to go on. Based on what he wrote, his knowledge was sadly deficient in every subject he wrote about.

Not really. He showed exactly why he believed the eyes were not a sense organ and what observations made him come to this conclusion. He didn't get into detail regarding light because that is not where his finding originated.

Originally Posted by davidm

We've been over this before -- what have we not been over before? -- but there is a simple experiment that replicates by precise analogy Lessans' "turning on the sun at noon" scenario, and that is firing a laser at the moon. In essence, we "turn on a spot of light on the moon" (analogous to the sun being turned on) and determine how quickly we see it. This test has been conducted routinely since the 1960s.

If Lessans were right, we would see the light at time x. If science is right, we would see it at time y. Every time we do the experiment, we see the light at time y (science) and not at time x (Lessans).

Simple disproof of Lessans' claims, not open to contradiction. But just like so much else: moons of Jupiter, calculating trajectories to Mars, etc. This disproof is especially nice, though, because it is precisely analogous to the turn-on-the-sun scenario.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Lasers emit coherent light, do they not? Coherence, of any sort, has no place in Lessans' or peacegirl's accounts.

As I said, 1 1/3 second is not enough time to blink let alone tell if we are seeing in real time or not. Am I on Candid Camera?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then you need to change your answers, because the answers you gave said that they can.

You just rejected your own answers above, so you do need to answer them again. Here they are:


You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, but you did. Why did you say it if it isn't true and isn't what your father said? And given that your statement was wrong, I refer you back to what you were initially replying to when you made this wrong statement: The ONLY thing a lens ever does is to change the direction of light passing through it. So a lens cannot do anything to produce an image of the Sun until light has had time to reach it from the Sun.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Does that include the light you need at the film on Earth when the Sun is first ignited? Did that light travel from the Sun to get there? If so, how long did it take to complete the journey, and when did it leave the Sun? Try not to talk about completely different photons this time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If I don't understand what you mean, it's only because you aren't saying what you mean. But I know what your mind is doing even if you don't. You begin by saying that the photons I am asking about traveled from the Sun to get to the film, because that is the only conceivable answer. But then you switch to saying that these photons must be different photons because your answer would have them arriving 8min too late. Then you conveniently ignore the fact that this means you haven't answered the original question, due to these no longer being the photons you were asked about. Your response above is also nonsense, as there is no reflection of any image in the afferent account for your newly ignited Sun either.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You seem to be thinking of the information as some kind of secret code hidden away inside the traveling light. It isn't. The information is simply the known and measurable properties of the arriving light, i.e. direction, wavelength, and intensity. Arriving light is known to have these properties, and they are all that is needed to form an image.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sorry dingbat.

Bye bye.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Bye bye.

You can fuck right off with your stupid threats. You flat out refused to answer me BEFORE I called you a dingbat, remember?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weasel, you argued that the standard model posited traveling images for YEARS. Wings of light was colorful language, as was "electric image", but the concept of whole images traveling on, in, or with the light was actually what he thought science advocated.

That is so not true! That's why he said a photograph could be transmitted through space/time to differentiate that no "image" in the light (metaphor) could be transmitted and received by the brain and turned into normal sight. He did not actually think images were carried by the light (which Spacemonkey also thought he was saying), but he didn't get into the technical aspect of discussing nonabsorbed photons. Doesn't matter. He knew what he was talking about. He just came in the back door, so to speak, which is the only way this discovery could have been made.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

By the way, was "projection through the eyes on a screen of undeniable substance" also a metaphor?

No, not at all. He said our eyes act like a projector. They don't project anything, but the word (the personal descriptor) is projected onto the screen of undeniable substance (meaning real objects like me and you). I thought you read this chapter.

p. 123 The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts
as a tape recorder through our ears and the other three senses, and a
camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as
a movie projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded,
they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects
held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since
the eyes are the binoculars of the brain all words that are placed in
front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of
relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world
and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses,
man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and
if words correctly describe then he will be made conscious of actual
differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for
those who do not know the words.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can fuck right off with your stupid threats. You flat out refused to answer me BEFORE I called you a dingbat, remember?

No I didn't, I said apologize. You shoot yourself in your own damn foot.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, not at all. He said our eyes act like a projector. They don't project anything, but the word (the personal descriptor) is projected onto the screen of undeniable substance (meaning real objects like me and you). I thought you read this chapter.

So we can add the term 'metaphor' to the growing list of words you do not understand. If the eyes don't literally project anything then his talk of projection was obviously a metaphor, dingbat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As we've discussed before, the laser would take 1.3 seconds there and 1.3 seconds back so a total of 2.6 seconds. So, if the subjects consistently pressed a button when they saw the laser in under 2.6 seconds, that would indicate that they could see it before the light had time to travel there and back, correct? It doesn't need to be exactly precise, it merely needs to be under the 2.6 seconds consistently with multiple test subjects.

There are online reflex tests you can take where you press a button when you see something. I can do it consistently in under half a second (averaging around 1/4 a second) and don't have great reaction time. Human Benchmark - Reaction Time Test There is easily enough time in the 2.6 second limit to press a button.

Right, but it would be very difficult to distinguish between seeing the moon in 1.3 seconds or seeing it 2.6 seconds later. It's about the eyes being able to see and register that quickly, not your reaction time pushing a button.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I didn't...

Yes, you did. You stupid lying dingbat. What kind of completely inept moron threatens to ignore someone AFTER they have already announced that they will be ignoring them?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, but it would be very difficult to distinguish between seeing the moon in 1.3 seconds or seeing it 2.6 seconds later. It's about the eyes being able to see and register that quickly, not your reaction time pushing a button.

Hey, weasel, did you miss the post on ATOMIC CLOCKS and the link to the article about how they are used to time laser pulses off the moon? As I noted, they can tell time down to your favorite new chew-toy word: nanoseconds. Here, I'll bump the post for you.

[davidm]

for the

Originally Posted by davidm

Do you remember ANYTHING that is written to you?

We've been over this in some detail before, haven't we? So are you just dumb or being dishonest again? I suspect the latter. You haven't an honest bone in your body.

As explained to you before, to measure the round trip of light to moon and back, an ATOMIC CLOCK is used, which is accurate down to ... well, nanoseconds, your favorite new word that, like "inverse square law," you use without even understanding what it means.

Scientists bounce laser beams off old Soviet moon rover

From the article:

Of course, if Lessans were right, we'd see the laser light on the moon in half of 2.5 seconds, when the light arrives. But we see it in twice that interval of time, proving, yet again, that Lessans was WRONG.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So we can add the term 'metaphor' to the growing list of words you do not understand. If the eyes don't literally project anything then his talk of projection was obviously a metaphor, dingbat.

No it was not a metaphor because it is a projecting function of the brain. He explained this but it went right over your head. You are so full of yourself you have lost all objectivity. Face it Spacemonkey, you are blocked. You've gotten nasty to the point where I just can't have a normal conversation with you.

Two other natural laws are also revealed in later chapters. It is demonstrated that because we never understood a projecting function of the brain, words developed that allowed us to see, as on a screen, that half the human race is an inferior physiognomic production — homely, bad-looking, etc. But these words do not symbolize reality because people are not ugly or beautiful, just different, and when the truth is learned — the use of these words, and this kind of unjust, hurtful discrimination, must come to an end.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't call that a metaphor...

Exactly my point, dingbat! Learn to read!