A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, please clarify something for me because now I am really confused. Did Lessans (and do you) believe light can and does carry information that some devices (aside from a camera and the eyes) can detect and convert to an image, sound, or data set?

Of course.

For examples, do you accept that lightwaves are carrying your voice on a phone call or the image in a fax transmission over a fiber optic network, or that a radio receiver is converting the information received from the radiowaves to sound via the speakers?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Reposted as it's on the bottom of the last page

Yes, lightwaves definitely do these things. It's proven. This is not what is being debated.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You're so funny I forgot to laugh.

[davidm]

Just 19 pages to go, now.

And remember: We've booked 10 SOLID PAGES for the Page 200 party, Pages 200 through 209 inclusive. Thus we won't have the problem of too little celebration time that we found in the Page 100 party, when only one page was available for an epic blowout. The one-page limitation probably accounted for problems like someone (who knows who he is! ) sticking his dick in the mashed potatoes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Verbal commands? What?

And what about the data sent back from Mars? They use lightwaves to communicate, peacegirl, which means the light carries information.

I'm not even debating this. I'm only talking about light in relation to vision because of how the brain works.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I wonder why!

His not reading the book has nothing to do with the content. He's just a very busy guy. He is doing a fellowship, he owns a business, and he has a child. What do you want?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You mean, umm ... other than the observed fact that it takes several minutes (corresponding exactly to the amount of time it takes for light to traverse the distance) for the Rover to receive and respond to commands from Earth?

Or the observed fact that it takes hours for the Voyager probes (which are several light-hours away from Earth) to receive and respond to commands from Earth?

Or for that matter, the observed delay of about 1.3 seconds between the transmission of signals from the Earth until they were received by the Apollo astronauts in lunar orbit? (The Moon is 1.28 light-seconds from Earth.)

Or, heck, the observed communication delays with all of the space probes that we've launched into the Solar System -- delays which always correspond exactly with the delays imposed by the known speed of light?

What does any of this have to do with whether we can see in real time with the naked eye?

[Doctor X]

She ignores anyone who asks a question she cannot answer.

Which means she pretty much ignores everyone. She has been ignoring the information of TOWM* for months now.

Yet ye act surprised. . . .

--J.D.

*"The Oppressive White Man"--Wounded Knee! Trail of Tears!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

He can say it because, as has been repeatedly pointed out to Your Royal Highness, if we could seen instantaneously, everything that we know about physics would be wrong.

That is not true David. The only thing that would change is the belief that the light creates the image through signals, which also means that we would be seeing the present, not the past.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yet Lessans seems to have been saying that light cannot or does not carry information.

He never said that. All he said was that images (or signals) coming from the light are not what allows us to see. Light is a condition of sight which means that we see objects or images directly if sight is efferent. That's it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Just 19 pages to go, now.

And remember: We've booked 10 SOLID PAGES for the Page 200 party, Pages 200 through 209 inclusive. Thus we won't have the problem of too little celebration time that we found in the Page 100 party, when only one page was available for an epic blowout. The one-page limitation probably accounted for problems like someone (who knows who he is! ) sticking his dick in the mashed potatoes.

I just want to know if I'm invited?? Probably not.

[The Lone Ranger]

Okay, hypothetical time.

Let us say that the Sun is not shining.

Now God turns the Sun on.


Question 1: Do you not agree that as soon as we see the Sun shining, we have gained new information? [E.g. "The Sun was not shining previously, now it is shining."]

Question 2: Do we see the Sun shining as soon as it comes on, or 8.5 minutes later?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

??

?? can you hurry, I gotta go.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just want to know if I'm invited?? Probably not.

I thought I did that already, Oops I forgot I'm on ignore, How can I take you if you're not talking to me. I could sneak you in under my coat, but then your on your own.

[thedoc]

Does everyone know what they're bringing to the party?

[thedoc]

And NO Peacegirl, DO NOT BRING BOOKS as party favors.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never said that. All he said was that images (or signals) coming from the light are not what allows us to see. Light is a condition of sight which means that we see objects or images directly if sight is efferent. That's it.

You extrapolated that to cameras, stating that cameras take pictures of the object "directly", because the image cannot be converted from information in the received light. Are you now saying that you were wrong in that extrapolation? Or are cameras, like eyes, different than other types of lightwave receiver/converters?

[erimir]

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

The one-page limitation probably accounted for problems like someone (who knows who he is! ) sticking his dick in the mashed potatoes.

Looks like I'm relegated to parking cars for the 200-page party. Stick your dick in one bowl of mashed potatoes and you're branded for life.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Looks like I'm relegated to parking cars for the 200-page party. Stick your dick in one bowl of mashed potatoes and you're branded for life.

If you're parking cars just be careful where you stick it, I don't want you getting stuck, and have to drive home with you draging behind my car.

[LadyShea]

Also, why do you accept that it's been proven that light carries information that various devices can receive and convert to electrical impulses to spit out an image or sound or whatever, but you won't accept that the eyes and cameras and microscopes and telescopes have been proven to do the same thing?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Okay, hypothetical time.

Let us say that the Sun is not shining.

Now God turns the Sun on.

Yes, we get new information.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Question 2: Do we see the Sun shining as soon as it comes on, or 8.5 minutes later?

IF SIGHT IS EFFERENT (right now I'm calling it a theory so you don't get all bent out of shape), then yes, we would see the sun shining as soon as it comes on and not 8.5 mintues later because nothing is traveling to the eye and being converted into an image. I better run for cover before I get slammed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I thought I did that already, Oops I forgot I'm on ignore, How can I take you if you're not talking to me. I could sneak you in under my coat, but then your on your own.

I just took you off of ignore; I believe in second chances.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never said that. All he said was that images (or signals) coming from the light are not what allows us to see. Light is a condition of sight which means that we see objects or images directly if sight is efferent. That's it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You extrapolated that to cameras, stating that cameras take pictures of the object "directly", because the image cannot be converted from information in the received light. Are you now saying that you were wrong in that extrapolation? Or are cameras, like eyes, different than other types of lightwave receiver/converters?

I did not say that, and if I did, that's not what I meant. Cameras use lightwaves (that are reflected from the object) to create a picture. But the eyes are different. I said up to the point of the retina, a camera is very much like a human eye. But the mistake is at the juncture of the retina and optic nerve. It is believed a transduction is occurring that turns light into a chemical impulse, which then gets decoded by the brain into an image. This is what Lessans is disputing because his [theory] states that the brain is looking, through the eyes, at reality (if he is right about efferent vision), thus we are seeing what's out there in real time, with light being a necessary condition.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, why do you accept that it's been proven that light carries information that various devices can receive and convert to electrical impulses to spit out an image or sound or whatever, but you won't accept that the eyes and cameras and microscopes and telescopes have been proven to do the same thing?

It all goes back to the brain. Even though it appears logical that the eyes would work exactly like a camera, and other devices that use light in the same way, we are talking about the brain, which works differently than previously believed. In other words, it is believed that the light mixes with the photoreceptors to cause a change in molecular structure which gets turned into a specialized impulse that carries the information necessary to interpret what is coming from that information. But this completely wrong if Lessans turns out to be right.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.