A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

And for everyone else,

Kate Smith - I'll Be Seeing You (with lyrics) - YouTube

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because there is no image to be projected, that's why.

The light is the image, it's time for you to stop lying to people.

You should tell the truth, and set a good example for your grandchildren, it's not nice to teach them to lie.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

See there? Everything works just fine provided we assume that efferent vision is true, thereby dispensing with flotsam such a proof.

show spoiler

No one can begin to figure this out with the first premise being that sight is afferent. It has to be studied from the position that we see in real time to get to step two. Obviously, the assumption (or first premise) has to be proved true. This is just a temporary but important first step.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

What do you mean, "there is no image"? There is always a pattern associated with a light source. Light travels as a wave with a certain shape that determines where photons land. You could draw a picture of something on the beamsplitter and it would be projected where the photodiode is.

You are weaseling again.

I'm not weaseling. The fact that there is a pattern associated with a light source does not in any way prove that we are seeing a delayed image of the light source.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one can begin to figure this out with the first premise being that sight is afferent.

That's not a premise, Chief. It's the conclusion you're trying to establish. There's a name for assuming the truth of one's conclusion to prove the truth of one's conclusion, and the name isn't what you'd call complimentary.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not weaseling. The fact that there is a pattern associated with a light source does not in any way prove that what we are seeing is a delayed image.

DId you even read what I wrote? If we draw a picture on the beamsplitter such that it acts like a mask, that picture will be projected where the photodiode is. You said that the light is instantly behind the lens if it focuses the light.

Fucking hell, you're completely confused.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one can begin to figure this out with the first premise being that sight is afferent. It has to be studied from the position that we see in real time to get to step two. Obviously, the assumption (or first premise) has to be proved true. This is just a temporary but important first step.

The problem is that when you start from a premise that is false, then all your conclusions will be false as well.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one can begin to figure this out with the first premise being that sight is afferent. It has to be studied from the position that we see in real time to get to step two. Obviously, the assumption (or first premise) has to be proved true. This is just a temporary but important first step.

And it is a first step that will never happen, because efferent vision is not true. Lessans was wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

DId you even read what I wrote? If we draw a picture on the beamsplitter such that it acts like a mask, that picture will be projected where the photodiode is. You said that the light is instantly behind the lens if it focuses the light.

Fucking hell, you're completely confused.

No, I'm really not confused. Light bounces and travels, we know that, but that does not prove that what we see is decoded in the brain from traveling light. I gave an example of a candle in a room when it's first lit. We can see it instantly. Why? Because it meets the requirements of brightness and size and therefore is instantly within our optical range. The same holds true if we saw the Sun first turned on. It's the same difference because the requirements of efferent vision have been met, even though the distance between the object and the observer is much greater. That's why distance and time are not factors in this account. Let's take a break from this discussion; it's not going to get anywhere.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's not a premise, Chief. It's the conclusion you're trying to establish. There's a name for assuming the truth of one's conclusion to prove the truth of one's conclusion, and the name isn't what you'd call complimentary.

You can't figure out whether efferent vision is true coming from the afferent perspective because it won't be testing for the right thing. This does not mean there aren't ways to empirically test this claim, but it has to be an accurate test.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but it has to be an accurate test.

The accurate tests have been done, efferent vision is a fantasy, Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I gave an example of a candle in a room when it's first lit. We can see it instantly.

NO, we do not see it instantly, that is where Lessans made his mistake, confusing very quickly with instantly. It just doesn't happen, and science has shown afferent vision to be true, not efferent vision.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't figure out whether efferent vision is true coming from the afferent perspective because it won't be testing for the right thing. This does not mean there aren't ways to empirically test this claim, but it has to be an accurate test.

Then you have to propose a test.

My guess is that it's going to be one that can't be done because you want to keep believing this nonsense.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reflections of what Dragar? We see walls just like we see any other object if enough light is present.

For goodness sake. Basic conversation is not your strong point, is it?

Why do we see reflections in a mirror, and not on a wall? Both reflect light, after all.

What part of vision am I rejecting?

The part where the brain takes the pattern of light that lands on the retina, and interprets it. That's vision, and you reject it in terms of instantaneous magic seeing through 'windows' of the eyes.

[ceptimus]

What part do eyelids have to play in efferent vision? Why can't we still see when our eyes are closed?

What is the efferent vision explanation of why some people need to wear eyeglasses to see properly?

What is the efferent vision account of sunglasses?

If you're going to propose an alternative system of explanation to the accepted one, then you must begin by giving an account of how it explains everyday things that everyone knows about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Then you have to propose a test.

My guess is that it's going to be one that can't be done because you want to keep believing this nonsense.

It's not nonsense. I know you're being sincere and really trying to understand if he could be right, and I appreciate that. I'm just asking you not to be premature in your conclusion that he was wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

What part do eyelids have to play in efferent vision? Why can't we still see when our eyes are closed?

What is the efferent vision explanation of why some people need to wear eyeglasses to see properly?

What is the efferent vision account of sunglasses?

If you're going to propose an alternative system of explanation to the accepted one, then you must begin by giving an account of how it explains everyday things that everyone knows about.

Ceptimus, everything works the same. The only difference as I explained in my last post is that when the object is within optical range it creates a closed system which means that light (the wavelength/frequency) is already at the retina or film if we are able to see the real object. The light provides a mirror image of the entire scene of whatever is within our field of view. Although light travels through space/time, this light is not what causes us to see, which is a logical but fallacious conclusion. If Lessans is right, light (although it may have the frequency/wavelength that would give us the information to decode an image in the brain if the eyes were afferent), does not function that way if the eyes are efferent. That is why it is imperative to study the eyes, not light, because light works exactly as described.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

For goodness sake. Basic conversation is not your strong point, is it?

Why do we see reflections in a mirror, and not on a wall? Both reflect light, after all.

They do, but the properties of a mirror work differently than a wall. As I already told you, light gets reflected but when he said the image doesn't, he wasn't denying anything about the way light works but rather he was trying to get across that it is not the light that brings the information to us over long distances even if the wavelength/frequency [the pattern of light] is traveling. I can see why you immediately rejected this account when I said the image doesn't get reflected, but I think it's just a misunderstanding.

What happens when you look in a mirror? In the daytime, light reflects off your body in all directions. That's why you can see yourself and other people can see you. Your skin and the clothes you're wearing reflect light in a diffuse way: light rays bounce off randomly, haphazardly, in no particular direction. Stand in front of a mirror and some of this light from your body will stream in straight lines toward it. Rays of light (which are really packets of light energy called photons, fired in a stream like bullets from a machine gun) shoot through the glass and hit the silver coating behind it (possibly a real coating of silver or more likely something less expensive such as polished aluminum). The light will reflect off the mirror in a more orderly way than it reflects off your clothes. We call that specular reflection—it's the opposite to diffuse reflection.

How does the mirror reflect light? The silver atoms behind the glass absorb the photons of incoming light energy and become excited. But that makes them unstable, so they try to become stable again by getting rid of the extra energy—and they do that by giving off some more photons. (You can read about how atoms take in and give out photons in our article about light.) The back of a mirror is usually covered with some sort of darkly colored, protective material to stop the silver coating from getting scratched, and also to reduce the risk of any light seeping through from behind. Silver reflects light better than almost anything else and that's because it gives off almost as many photons of light as fall on it in the first place. The photons that come out of the mirror are pretty much the same as the ones that go into it.

How mirrors work - Explain that Stuff!

Originally Posted by Dragar

I know you can't, because the explanation depends upon the very parts of vision you reject in favour of your dad's crazy ideas.

What part of vision am I rejecting?

Originally Posted by Dragar

The part where the brain takes the pattern of light that lands on the retina, and interprets it. That's vision, and you reject it in terms of instantaneous magic seeing through 'windows' of the eyes.

It's not instantaneous magic. If light is at the retina, there is no magic involved. In the afferent version of sight it is assumed the object is not even necessary as long as the light has bounced off the of it with the wavelength/frequency within, but this is incorrect if Lessans was right in his observations, since it is the actual object that is being seen, therefore if there's no object, there's no sight.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Weasel.

Why shouldn't the light be instantly at the photodiode? If an image has to be projected, one could make sure that's the case by drawing a picture on the beamsplitter (you didn't address this). Then it could be confirmed that the light is instantly behind the lens, as you claimed, if that were true.

You were wrong about nanoseconds being too short to measure, it's easy to do that. The nonsense isn't safe from examination that way.

Face it, if any of what you say were true, people would have noticed a long time ago. You've been given countless examples.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Weasel.

Why shouldn't the light be instantly at the photodiode? If an image has to be projected, one could make sure that's the case by drawing a picture on the beamsplitter (you didn't address this). Then it could be confirmed that the light is instantly behind the lens, as you claimed, if that were true.

You were wrong about nanoseconds being too short to measure, it's easy to do that. The nonsense isn't safe from examination that way.

Face it, if any of what you say were true, people would have noticed a long time ago. You've been given countless examples.

It is not instantly at the photodiode if you want to get technical about it, but the light is at the phtodiode in enough time to say that it was instant. The eyes cannot register light that quickly. The point here is that it is not light that is traveling (which it is, we know that) which is allowing sight to take place. I'm not weaseling. You're just not understanding the claim and why it works.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not instantly at the photodiode if you want to get technical about it, but the light is at the phtodiode in enough time to say that it was instant. The eyes cannot register light that quickly.

No, it isn't instant. It takes 3.3 nanoseconds for 1 meter, 6.6 nanoseconds for 2 meters, etc. and in the case of the Fizeau wheel experiment, the delay is visible with the naked eye.

The point here is that it is not light that is traveling (which it is, we know that) which is allowing sight to take place. I'm not weaseling. You're just not understanding the claim and why it works.

Light is all that is needed to get an image. The image is nothing more or less than the pattern in which the light travels.

Have you figured out yet what is happening to the moons of Jupiter or the supernovae?

At what diameter of the hole does the pinhole camera stop working instantly?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

No, it isn't instant. It takes 3.3 nanoseconds for 1 meter, 6.6 nanoseconds for 2 meters, etc. and in the case of the Fizeau wheel experiment, the delay is visible with the naked eye.

Light is all that is needed to get an image. The image is nothing more or less than the pattern in which the light travels.

Have you figured out yet what is happening to the moons of Jupiter or the supernovae?

At what diameter of the hole does the pinhole camera stop working instantly?

These are questions that do not prove Lessans' observations wrong right off the bat. These are questions that can and will be answered but for you to come off as confrontative as you are (with the sneering at the claim itself) will interfere with the ongoing process of determining if Lessans was right.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These are questions that do not prove Lessans' observations wrong right off the bat. These are questions that can and will be answered but for you to come off as confrontative as you are (with the sneering at the claim itself) will interfere with the ongoing process of determining if Lessans was right.

Those are just a couple of examples that you cannot explain. The mainstream scientific theory has no trouble at all explaining it.

Another example is Light-time correction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which you have been made aware of before and you can't explain either.

Light-time correction is a displacement in the apparent position of a celestial object from its true position (or geometric position) caused by the object's motion during the time it takes its light to reach an observer.

If we saw things in real time, the results would be different and space probes would miss their targets.

On the other hand, there is nothing that the standard theory can't explain that instant vision can.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These are questions that do not prove Lessans' observations wrong right off the bat. These are questions that can and will be answered but for you to come off as confrontative as you are (with the sneering at the claim itself) will interfere with the ongoing process of determining if Lessans was right.

Actually these questions and the answers add to the proof that Lessans was wrong. But's comments do not interfere with the process of determining if Lessans was wrong, that has all been determined, Lessans was Wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

On the other hand, there is nothing that the standard theory can't explain that instant vision can.

Instant vision doesn't explain anything since Peacegirl has not offered any sort of explination, the standard theory of vision does explain everything and has been tested and proven.