A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

We do - please look at the example of trans-atlantic communication using small wavelength light. The chin on the other side of the Atlantic is still wagging, but the actual speaker has already shut up. You can notice the delay, even if you watch a conversation on TV between people that are on either side of the atlantic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Another interesting point. What we call light is a small window of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation that we can detect with out eyes. The only thing that is different between light and infra-red light is that it has a higher frequency and a lower wavelength.

So when we are saying that light is dependent of its emitter for it's existence, then this means that the same must apply for all EM radiation.

So how come there is a delay in satellite communication? Even when all the hardware around it works with mere nanosecond delays, there is STILL always at least a quarter of a second delay between the person speaking the words, and the other side receiving them.

Since the object emitting the EM radiation is now emitting something else in real time, the nature of the radiation should have changed to what the person is saying right at that moment. In stead, what we receive is what that person said a quarter of a second ago!

Conventional wisdom says that this is caused by the time it takes for the radiation to hit the satellite and be transmitted back to earth, and that the nature of the photons does NOT change at all once they have been fired off.

I am not denying that there is a delay between the person speaking the words and the other side receiving them. Satellite communication sends data from one point to many points (at the same time) by sending data in compressed format. This is not the same thing as an image emitting light from a natural source.

Since it takes
longer for the sound from an airplane to reach our ears when it is a
thousand feet away than when five thousand, it was assumed that the
same thing occurred with the object sending a picture of itself on the
waves of light. If it was possible to transmit a television picture from
the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the
people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into
America for the first time because the picture would be in the process
of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But
objects do not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge
on the optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them and it
takes the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun,
or distant stars.

To sum this up — just as we have often observed
that a marching band is out of step to the beat when seen from a
distance because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been
taken, so likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a
telescope and hear his voice on radio we would see his lips move
instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3
seconds later due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling
186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric
image of his lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this
distance. Because Aristotle assumed the eyes functioned like the
other four and the scientific community assumed he was right, it
made all their reasoning fit what appeared to be undeniable.
According to their thinking, how else was it possible for knowledge to
reach us through our eyes when they were compelled to believe that
man had five senses? Were they given any choice? Let me prove in
still another way that the eyes are not a sense organ.

[Vivisectus]

Ah so it has to be a "natural" source? But then flashlights would not work. Also, even with equipment that does not compress, and works on nanosecond delays, there is STILL a 0.25 second delay as the short-wavelength light needs time to travel to the satellite and back to the receiver.

We can measure this. And it uses photons, just like light that falls in the visible spectrum. It is basically the same stuff.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah so it has to be a "natural" source? But then flashlights would not work. Also, even with equipment that does not compress, and works on nanosecond delays, there is STILL a 0.25 second delay as the short-wavelength light needs time to travel to the satellite and back to the receiver.

We can measure this. And it uses photons, just like light that falls in the visible spectrum. It is basically the same stuff.

I still don't see where this has anything to do with whether sight is efferent. If there is a delay because of the time it takes for a short-wavelength to travel to the satellite and back to the receiver; we are seeing that delay in real time. It's so easy to go off course and use irrelevant material (material that has nothing to do with the actual discussion) as false evidence against the claim that is being proposed.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, that is why I keep saying that photons are not like ashes from a fire. I'll ask you again, why don't we see the light from a laser pen across a field the minute the laser pen is turned off. We should still see the light on the other side of the field, shouldn't we?

No, because the distance is so short, and the photons travel so fast, that the photons have traveled to your position and moved on past in less than a nanosecond. It is so fast as to appear instantaneous from our perspective. When the pen stops emitting by being turned off, the photons are already past you.

186,000 miles per SECOND, do you even realize how fast that is? In one minute the light has traveled 11 million miles.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I still don't see where this has anything to do with whether sight is efferent. If there is a delay because of the time it takes for a short-wavelength to travel to the satellite and back to the receiver; we are seeing that delay in real time. It's so easy to go off course and use irrelevant material (material that has nothing to do with the actual discussion) as false evidence against the claim that is being proposed.

Lessans made claims about instant sight, using two specific examples (the Sun and an observer near Rigel). Too bad so sad for you that he made it relevant.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I still don't see where this has anything to do with whether sight is efferent. If there is a delay because of the time it takes for a short-wavelength to travel to the satellite and back to the receiver; we are seeing that delay in real time. It's so easy to go off course and use irrelevant material (material that has nothing to do with the actual discussion) as false evidence against the claim that is being proposed.

Ah - so short-wavelength radiation does experience a delay, visible EM radiation does not? How does being in the visible spectrum make the photons behave so radically different?

Also, how does the light at the end of the beam know it is time to stop existing? Whatever makes it stop exist would have to travel faster than light.

And this material is completely relevant - it shows the impossible results and ramifications that follow if you assume that sight works as described in this book. You said that light cannot exist independently of a lightsource.

Another result of instant vision has to do with the direction from which the light comes in at us here on earth and the actual position where we see the light-source. It takes a year for light from a new star to reach us. By the time it reaches us, the star would have moved. So we would see the star in one position, but the light from that star would seem to be coming from a completely different direction! We would see a beam of light with no source, and a lightsource without a beam!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, because the distance is so short, and the photons travel so fast, that the photons have traveled to your position and moved on past in less than a nanosecond. It is so fast as to appear instantaneous from our perspective. When the pen stops emitting by being turned off, the photons are already past you.

186,000 miles per SECOND, do you even realize how fast that is? In one minute the light has traveled 11 million miles.

That sounds very scientific, but I am challenging you to think through your beliefs. That's all I can do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah - so short-wavelength radiation does experience a delay, visible EM radiation does not? How does being in the visible spectrum make the photons behave so radically different?

Also, how does the light at the end of the beam know it is time to stop existing? Whatever makes it stop exist would have to travel faster than light.

And this material is completely relevant - it shows the impossible results and ramifications that follow if you assume that sight works as described in this book. You said that light cannot exist independently of a lightsource.

I said that (this is not from Lessans; this is MY interpretation, so don't blame him) because I don't believe that we can see the past, this whole demonstration is null and void. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe light can exist beyond the light source. Let's get scientific, ok? There is so much emotion in this conversation, it isn't scientific at all. Bottom line: If we see afferently, that means we are seeing the past? According to Lessans, that is not true. So the $64,000 question is still alive and well. If you think it's all wrapped up in a neat little package, you're mistaken.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Another result of instant vision has to do with the direction from which the light comes in at us here on earth and the actual position where we see the light-source. It takes a year for light from a new star to reach us. By the time it reaches us, the star would have moved. So we would see the star in one position, but the light from that star would seem to be coming from a completely different direction! We would see a beam of light with no source, and a lightsource without a beam!

There is a total disconnect here with definition, light, and measurement. We have to go back to square one if we are going to get to the bottom of this disagreement. Of course, it will be easy for you to whitewash this whole thing, and I truly wouldn't blame you at this point.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that (this is not from Lessans; this is MY interpretation, so don't blame him) because I don't believe that we can see the past, this whole demonstration is null and void. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe light can exist beyond the light source.

Yes, you did say that. It was the only way you could explain the rather amazing results that would follow if we can see things directly and instantly the moment their light reaches us:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The odd thing is that that means that if a star 2 lightyears away, and that begins to burn, but burns for only 1 lightyear it would send us a years worth of light, and yet would never be visible! It would not exist and have light reach us at the same time.

Also, and more amazingly, that would mean that we should be able to see stars that no longer exist wink out of existence at the very moment they go out - but invisible light would continue to reach us for many, many more years! Or rather, we should see a ray of light but no star!

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Not if the ray of light is dependent on the star for its very existence. Light apart from a light source cannot exist. If a flashlight is turned off, so is the light that is being emitted from that source.

It is one of the many problems that dog the whole idea of efferent sight. I then took that explanation and thought about what would happen if it were true.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Let's get scientific, ok? There is so much emotion in this conversation, it isn't scientific at all. Bottom line: If we see afferently, that means we are seeing the past? According to Lessans, that is not true. So the $64,000 question is still alive and well. If you think it's all wrapped up in a neat little package, you're mistaken.

The only emotion I am experiencing is one of amusement, as I find it an entertaining exercise to think of what the ramifications would be if you are correct. So far the results tend to be rather outlandish.

According to science, what happens is that light strikes the retina, which makes the different cones and rods in the eyes react and send impulses to the brain, where an image is composed out of the information received from the individual cones and rods.

So to see something, it must somehow emit light, either directly or through reflection. That light then has to travel - let us set the distance at 10 light minutes. So let us say that at 1 o'clock my time, shine a red light at you. If you are 10 light minutes away, you will see that happen at 13:10.

If we see instantly, then you would see what is happening at 13:10. If I have moved by then, a strange thing happens. You will see me having put down the light, and yet at the same time you will see a beam of red light arriving out of nowhere, right at the spot where I was 10 minutes ago!

There is a total disconnect here with definition, light, and measurement. We have to go back to square one if we are going to get to the bottom of this disagreement. Of course, it will be easy for you to whitewash this whole thing, and I truly wouldn't blame you at this point.

No, this is merely a result of instant vision that we do not see in real life. Either we see instantly, and we can see where the star is, or we have to wait for light to arrive to see it, in which case we either see where the star was, or we see the star appear in a different spot than were its own light!

[Vivisectus]

Besides that, a simple light detector like a camera would see the star and the light-source in the same place, as it simple uses light in the same way an afferent eye does. In reality the camera and the eye record the same thing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans made claims about instant sight, using two specific examples (the Sun and an observer near Rigel). Too bad so sad for you that he made it relevant.

I don't know why you think this is irrelevant. He knew what he was saying and I will not retract any of his words. If he is proved wrong, so be it, but I do not believe he is wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Besides that, a simple light detector like a camera would see the star and the light-source in the same place, as it simple uses light in the same way an afferent eye does. In reality the camera and the eye record the same thing.

No one is arguing with this.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one is arguing with this.

But logically, it should not happen if efferent sight is true. Reality contradicts efferent sight in this case.

[LadyShea]

We know how fast light travels, it's been measured, so what I am saying is not a belief it is a fact.

Let's use your fire example. If a fire was traveling 186,000 miles per second in your direction, you would be consumed by fire and dead before you even saw there was a fire.

Photon: The quantum of electromagnetic energy, regarded as a discrete particle having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime.

So, traveling photons do not disappear, die, or wink out of existence because energy cannot be destroyed. They are absorbed (and the energy used in some fashion such as in photosynthesis), reflected, or dispersed in their travels, certainly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah so it has to be a "natural" source? But then flashlights would not work. Also, even with equipment that does not compress, and works on nanosecond delays, there is STILL a 0.25 second delay as the short-wavelength light needs time to travel to the satellite and back to the receiver.

We can measure this. And it uses photons, just like light that falls in the visible spectrum. It is basically the same stuff.

I still don't see where this has anything to do with whether sight is efferent. If there is a delay because of the time it takes for a short-wavelength to travel to the satellite and back to the receiver; we are seeing that delay in real time. It's so easy to go off course and use irrelevant material (material that has nothing to do with the actual discussion) as false evidence against the claim that is being proposed.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah - so short-wavelength radiation does experience a delay, visible EM radiation does not? How does being in the visible spectrum make the photons behave so radically different?

Not really. Efferent vision is seeing the image in real time, so the visible versus the EM radiation really has nothing to do with it. That's why I said we're getting off track.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, how does the light at the end of the beam know it is time to stop existing? Whatever makes it stop exist would have to travel faster than light.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And this material is completely relevant - it shows the impossible results and ramifications that follow if you assume that sight works as described in this book. You said that light cannot exist independently of a lightsource.

I said that (this is not from Lessans; this is MY interpretation, so don't blame him) because I don't believe that we can see the past, this whole demonstration is null and void. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe light can exist beyond the light source.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yes, you did say that. It was the only way you could explain the rather amazing results that would follow if we can see things directly and instantly the moment their light reaches us:

I'm only trying to extend these relations. If light is a condition of sight, and no image is seen from from the light itself (theoretically), then it follows that we must be getting an image from seeing the actual light source directly.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The odd thing is that that means that if a star 2 lightyears away, and that begins to burn, but burns for only 1 lightyear it would send us a years worth of light, and yet would never be visible! It would not exist and have light reach us at the same time.

Also, and more amazingly, that would mean that we should be able to see stars that no longer exist wink out of existence at the very moment they go out - but invisible light would continue to reach us for many, many more years! Or rather, we should see a ray of light but no star!

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Not if the ray of light is dependent on the star for its very existence. Light apart from a light source cannot exist. If a flashlight is turned off, so is the light that is being emitted from that source.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is one of the many problems that dog the whole idea of efferent sight. I then took that explanation and thought about what would happen if it were true.

If it were true we would be seeing the actual present. What's so impossible or crazy about that?

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Let's get scientific, ok? There is so much emotion in this conversation, it isn't scientific at all. Bottom line: If we see afferently, that means we are seeing the past? According to Lessans, that is not true. So the $64,000 question is still alive and well. If you think it's all wrapped up in a neat little package, you're mistaken.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The only emotion I am experiencing is one of amusement, as I find it an entertaining exercise to think of what the ramifications would be if you are correct. So far the results tend to be rather outlandish.

I really don't see where it's outlandish at all, but then again I'm not coming from the same thought system as you are.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

According to science, what happens is that light strikes the retina, which makes the different cones and rods in the eyes react and send impulses to the brain, where an image is composed out of the information received from the individual cones and rods.

Cones and rods are major players in how we see, there is no doubt about that. I hope you don't think I am disputing this?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So to see something, it must somehow emit light, either directly or through reflection. That light then has to travel - let us set the distance at 10 light minutes. So let us say that at 1 o'clock my time, shine a red light at you. If you are 10 light minutes away, you will see that happen at 13:10.

If we see instantly, then you would see what is happening at 13:10. If I have moved by then, a strange thing happens. You will see me having put down the light, and yet at the same time you will see a beam of red light arriving out of nowhere, right at the spot where I was 10 minutes ago!

Photons cannot be seen.

Your eyes are photon detectors, BUT you can never look out and see a photon. The act of seeing IS photons hitting your eye.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=155387

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Another result of instant vision has to do with the direction from which the light comes in at us here on earth and the actual position where we see the light-source. It takes a year for light from a new star to reach us. By the time it reaches us, the star would have moved. So we would see the star in one position, but the light from that star would seem to be coming from a completely different direction! We would see a beam of light with no source, and a lightsource without a beam!

There is a total disconnect here with definition, light, and measurement. We have to go back to square one if we are going to get to the bottom of this disagreement. Of course, it will be easy for you to whitewash this whole thing, and I truly wouldn't blame you at this point.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, this is merely a result of instant vision that we do not see in real life. Either we see instantly, and we can see where the star is, or we have to wait for light to arrive to see it, in which case we either see where the star was, or we see the star appear in a different spot than were its own light!

You are stating a premise that it takes a year for light to arrive in order to see a star. But if efferent vision were true, that would mean the star is large enough to be seen, which also means that the light would have already arrived because the timing would be different. All I can do is offer this as a theory and wait for more testing because we're not going to figure it out in this thread. I do believe Lessans is right even though it's hard to wrap your head around this concept when you've been taught the complete opposite.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm only trying to extend these relations. If light is a condition of sight, and no image is seen from from the light itself (theoretically), then it follows that we must be getting an image from seeing the actual light source directly.

HOW do we do this, derper?

BTW, it has already been repeatedly proven to you, via carefully discussed experiments, that we do NOT and CANNOT get an image directly in real time; and that if we could, the world would be emprically a completely different place, one where the well-verified theory of relativity would fail to hold, or even be a coherent theory at all.

Derper.

[LadyShea]

If it were true we would be seeing the actual present. What's so impossible or crazy about that?

There is no such thing as the "actual present" because time is relative to one's position in space.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Besides that, a simple light detector like a camera would see the star and the light-source in the same place, as it simple uses light in the same way an afferent eye does. In reality the camera and the eye record the same thing.

I agree with the fact that the camera and eye record the same thing, but that does not mean afferent vision is the cause. You are drawing conclusions about efferent vision that would make it seem implausible because it seems that a camera and eye would record a different frame, but that's not necessarily so.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no such thing as the "actual present" because time is relative to one's position in space.

There is definitely an "actual present" because time is not relative to one's position. I am here at the same exact time that you are here, and it doesn't matter where you are on the earth. We might measure time differently depending on where we are on earth, but we are always experiencing the present because there is no such thing as the past or future.

It is true that nothing in the past
can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the
present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive
relation.

[Vivisectus]

Not really. Efferent vision is seeing the image in real time, so the visible versus the EM radiation really has nothing to do with it. That's why I said we're getting off track.

Thats ok - you already backed off the claim that light cannot exist without it's source.

However, this brings these problems back:

The odd thing is that that means that if a star 2 lightyears away, and that begins to burn, but burns for only 1 lightyear it would send us a years worth of light, and yet would never be visible! It would not exist and have light reach us at the same time.

However, its light WOULD reach us and would be photographable. There should be objects out there that we can photograph, but not see.

Also, and more amazingly, that would mean that we should be able to see stars that no longer exist wink out of existence at the very moment they go out - but invisible light would continue to reach us for many, many more years! Or rather, we should see a ray of light but no star!

Again, there should be objects that we can photograph, but not see.

I'm only trying to extend these relations. If light is a condition of sight, and no image is seen from from the light itself (theoretically), then it follows that we must be getting an image from seeing the actual light source directly.

Reality, as is easily empirically tested, does not agree with this at all. I notice you do not deal with the objections again, but just ignore them.

If it were true we would be seeing the actual present. What's so impossible or crazy about that?

Well, for starters simple empirical tests disprove it. Secondly, it basically states that we see by a mechanism as yet unknown that violates proven laws of physics. Two very good reasons to believe it is not so.

I really don't see where it's outlandish at all, but then again I'm not coming from the same thought system as you are.

It has been pointed out to you in easily understandable terms. Just sticking your head in the sand and pretending there is no problem does not mean it does not exist.

Cones and rods are major players in how we see, there is no doubt about that. I hope you don't think I am disputing this?

Excellent! Then please explain the mechanism by which they allow us to see in your model. I have already explained how they work in mine, with the added benefit that it has been tested!

Photons cannot be seen.

Your eyes are photon detectors, BUT you can never look out and see a photon. The act of seeing IS photons hitting your eye.

Can we see a photon

That actually supports MY point, not yours. I notice you are avoiding the actual issues now and have started grasping at straws.

You are stating a premise that it takes a year for light to arrive in order to see a star. But if efferent vision were true, that would mean the star is large enough to be seen, which also means that the light would have already arrived because the timing would be different. All I can do is offer this as a theory and wait for more testing because we're not going to figure it out in this thread. I do believe Lessans is right even though it's hard to wrap your head around this concept when you've been taught the complete opposite.

The timing would not be different. Lightspeed remains the same, and so does the distance of the star, which we determine by triangulating. The problem above remains the same - you have not addressed it.

I am saying that even if efferent vision were true, the results would be that we can see a star were it is now, but see the light come in where it was when the light began its journey. So a camera would record it where it was, and the eyes would see it where it is. This does not happen in reality.

Nor do we see stars wink out in real time, yet remain able to photograph them as if they still existed.

You can try to avoid the issue all you want, but the point remains that these are the things we would see if efferent vision were true, but we are not in fact seeing them.

Really, at this stage you can do two things: you can say that reality is wrong, or that the book is wrong.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree with the fact that the camera and eye record the same thing, but that does not mean afferent vision is the cause. You are drawing conclusions about efferent vision that would make it seem implausible because it seems that a camera and eye would record a different frame, but that's not necessarily so.

No, I am saying that a Camera, which works 100% Afferently, records the exact same thing as these mythical efferent eyes that you propose without providing us with even the inkling of a mechanism by which it is supposed to work.

But since efferent vision is instantaneous, while detecting light is not, this means that either they would have to record different things, or efferent vision must be wrong, because a machine that works efferently produces the same image as our eyes.

[peacegirl]

Not really. Efferent vision is seeing the image in real time, so the visible versus the EM radiation really has nothing to do with it. That's why I said we're getting off track.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Thats ok - you already backed off the claim that light cannot exist without it's source.

I didn't back off this claim because you cannot get an image from light itself if Lessans is correct. If you could get an image just from the light that has traveled light years away from its source, then efferent vision would be wrong. You would be able to see Columbus discovering America, but this is not what you would see. That's what needs to be tested. Everyone is just making statements that they believe is already proven.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

However, this brings these problems back:

The odd thing is that that means that if a star 2 lightyears away, and that begins to burn, but burns for only 1 lightyear it would send us a years worth of light, and yet would never be visible! It would not exist and have light reach us at the same time.

You are trying to understand efferent vision through the afferent model, and that's what is causing the problem. According to Lessans' [theory], if we can see a star, then that means it is large enough or bright enough to be seen with the naked eye or a telescope. We are not seeing the light from that star; but rather the actual star. If the star is large enough to be seen, then that means the light being emitted from that star has already reached us. That is why a camera and the eye would record the same exact picture.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

However, its light WOULD reach us and would be photographable. There should be objects out there that we can photograph, but not see.

A camera needs the same thing the eye needs in order to take a photograph. It needs light and it needs the object that the light is reflecting. So if the star burns out, there would be no picture.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, and more amazingly, that would mean that we should be able to see stars that no longer exist wink out of existence at the very moment they go out - but invisible light would continue to reach us for many, many more years! Or rather, we should see a ray of light but no star!

Again, there should be objects that we can photograph, but not see.

No, you are once again using the afferent model as if to say that a picture can be taken from light alone without the light source. This is the sticking point, and one that needs further exploration.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, how does the light at the end of the beam know it is time to stop existing? Whatever makes it stop exist would have to travel faster than light.

That isn't of significance if that light cannot be separated from its source for a picture to be taken or for us to see the actual image in real time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And this material is completely relevant - it shows the impossible results and ramifications that follow if you assume that sight works as described in this book. You said that light cannot exist independently of a lightsource.

I said that (this is not from Lessans; this is MY interpretation, so don't blame him) because I don't believe that we can see the past, this whole demonstration is null and void. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe light can exist beyond the light source.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yes, you did say that. It was the only way you could explain the rather amazing results that would follow if we can see things directly and instantly the moment their light reaches us:

I'm only trying to extend these relations. If light is a condition of sight, and no image is seen from from the light itself (theoretically), then it follows that we must be getting an image from seeing the actual light source directly.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Reality, as is easily empirically tested, does not agree with this at all. I notice you do not deal with the objections again, but just ignore them.

I'm doing my best to offer an alternate explanation that would fit in with the efferent model of vision.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The odd thing is that that means that if a star 2 lightyears away, and that begins to burn, but burns for only 1 lightyear it would send us a years worth of light, and yet would never be visible! It would not exist and have light reach us at the same time.

Also, and more amazingly, that would mean that we should be able to see stars that no longer exist wink out of existence at the very moment they go out - but invisible light would continue to reach us for many, many more years! Or rather, we should see a ray of light but no star!

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Not if the ray of light is dependent on the star for its very existence. Light apart from a light source cannot exist. If a flashlight is turned off, so is the light that is being emitted from that source.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is one of the many problems that dog the whole idea of efferent sight. I then took that explanation and thought about what would happen if it were true.

If it were true we would be seeing the actual present. What's so impossible or crazy about that?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Well, for starters simple empirical tests disprove it.

What empirical tests disprove that we are seeing the actual present? These are theories and theories can be wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Secondly, it basically states that we see by a mechanism as yet unknown that violates proven laws of physics. Two very good reasons to believe it is not so.

There is no unknown mechanism that violates the laws of physics. It has to do with the workings of the brain and nothing has excluded the possibility of the brain using the eyes to see the real world. It's true that the efferent model has to be carefully mapped out, which would be the next step.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Let's get scientific, ok? There is so much emotion in this conversation, it isn't scientific at all. Bottom line: If we see afferently, that means we are seeing the past? According to Lessans, that is not true. So the $64,000 question is still alive and well. If you think it's all wrapped up in a neat little package, you're mistaken.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The only emotion I am experiencing is one of amusement, as I find it an entertaining exercise to think of what the ramifications would be if you are correct. So far the results tend to be rather outlandish.

I really don't see where it's outlandish at all, but then again I'm not coming from the same thought system as you are.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It has been pointed out to you in easily understandable terms. Just sticking your head in the sand and pretending there is no problem does not mean it does not exist.

I don't see a problem. I just see the need for more empirical testing.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

According to science, what happens is that light strikes the retina, which makes the different cones and rods in the eyes react and send impulses to the brain, where an image is composed out of the information received from the individual cones and rods.

Cones and rods are major players in how we see, there is no doubt about that. I hope you don't think I am disputing this?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Excellent! Then please explain the mechanism by which they allow us to see in your model. I have already explained how they work in mine, with the added benefit that it has been tested!

Show me the absolute proof as to what is occurring at the junction of the retina, optic nerve and visual cortex and I'll concede. I said I don't have an exact model yet, but that doesn't mean one can't be created based on new information. The visual cortex could theoretically see the outside world, looking through the eyes to see the world. The cones and rods are part of the eye through which the brain is looking, therefore we would see everything in the same way.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So to see something, it must somehow emit light, either directly or through reflection. That light then has to travel - let us set the distance at 10 light minutes. So let us say that at 1 o'clock my time, shine a red light at you. If you are 10 light minutes away, you will see that happen at 13:10.

If we see instantly, then you would see what is happening at 13:10. If I have moved by then, a strange thing happens. You will see me having put down the light, and yet at the same time you will see a beam of red light arriving out of nowhere, right at the spot where I was 10 minutes ago!

Photons cannot be seen.

Your eyes are photon detectors, BUT you can never look out and see a photon. The act of seeing IS photons hitting your eye.

Can we see a photon

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That actually supports MY point, not yours. I notice you are avoiding the actual issues now and have started grasping at straws.

It does not support it. If you put down the light, I would see you doing that, and that would put out the beam. Once again, you are coming from the mindset of photons being able to travel without a light source. This is not the same thing as smoke that would kill you even though the original fire was put out.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Another result of instant vision has to do with the direction from which the light comes in at us here on earth and the actual position where we see the light-source. It takes a year for light from a new star to reach us. By the time it reaches us, the star would have moved. So we would see the star in one position, but the light from that star would seem to be coming from a completely different direction! We would see a beam of light with no source, and a lightsource without a beam!

That's if we can separate the two, but I don't think that's possible if efferent vision is true. I am not disregarding or conveniently forgetting the issue of radiation that was brought up. The most important point here is that, according to the efferent model, we cannot see or take a picture of light without the object or image in view, because nothing is being decoded from that light into an image in the brain. Therefore, we need to study how the brain works more than how light works in order to find our answers.

There is a total disconnect here with definition, light, and measurement. We have to go back to square one if we are going to get to the bottom of this disagreement. Of course, it will be easy for you to whitewash this whole thing, and I truly wouldn't blame you at this point.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, this is merely a result of instant vision that we do not see in real life. Either we see instantly, and we can see where the star is, or we have to wait for light to arrive to see it, in which case we either see where the star was, or we see the star appear in a different spot than were its own light!

You are stating a premise that it takes a year for light to arrive in order to see a star. But if efferent vision were true, that would mean the star is large enough to be seen, which also means that the light would have already arrived because the timing would be different. All I can do is offer this as a theory and wait for more testing because we're not going to figure it out in this thread. I do believe Lessans is right even though it's hard to wrap your head around this concept when you've been taught the complete opposite.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The timing would not be different. Lightspeed remains the same, and so does the distance of the star, which we determine by triangulating. The problem above remains the same - you have not addressed it.

I thought I did answer it. What is triangulating?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am saying that even if efferent vision were true, the results would be that we can see a star were it is now, but see the light come in where it was when the light began its journey. So a camera would record it where it was, and the eyes would see it where it is. This does not happen in reality.

And I gave an alternate explanation.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nor do we see stars wink out in real time, yet remain able to photograph them as if they still existed.

Who said we could?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You can try to avoid the issue all you want, but the point remains that these are the things we would see if efferent vision were true, but we are not in fact seeing them.

No, we would still be seeing the same thing a camera sees because the light being reflected or emitted would have already traveled to earth as we see this huge bright star in real time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Really, at this stage you can do two things: you can say that reality is wrong, or that the book is wrong.

There's a third option. I can say reality is not wrong; we're just seeing it wrong, and the book is right.

[Vivisectus]

Not really. Efferent vision is seeing the image in real time, so the visible versus the EM radiation really has nothing to do with it. That's why I said we're getting off track.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Thats ok - you already backed off the claim that light cannot exist without it's source.

I didn't back off this claim because you cannot get an image from light itself if Lessans is correct. If you could get an image just from the light that has traveled light years away from its source, then efferent vision would be wrong. You would be able to see Columbus discovering America, but this is not what you would see. That's what needs to be tested. Everyone is just making statements that they believe is already proven.[/QUOTE]

You did back off from the claim that light cannot exist without it's source.

You are trying to understand efferent vision through the afferent model, and that's what is causing the problem. According to Lessans' [theory], if we can see a star, then that means it is large enough or bright enough to be seen with the naked eye or a telescope. We are not seeing the light from that star; but rather the actual star. If the star is large enough to be seen, then that means the light being emitted from that star has already reached us. That is why a camera and the eye would record the same exact picture.

None of that addresses the fundamental problems.

We would not see a dead star, but nevertheless detect the light coming in from it. Ergo, a camera would still see it as if it was still there, but we would no longer be able to see it.

Also, the light would come from a different place in the sky, as the star has moved quite a bit since it sent the light that is now reaching us in our direction.

Just repeating something that does not address the problem does not make the problem go away.

A camera needs the same thing the eye needs in order to take a photograph. It needs light and it needs the object that the light is reflecting. So if the star burns out, there would be no picture.

That is not true - efferent eyes would need light and an object, but a camera is nothing but a simple light-detector. All it needs is light. Unless you want to claim that cameras are also efferent?

No, you are once again using the afferent model as if to say that a picture can be taken from light alone without the light source. This is the sticking point, and one that needs further exploration.

Cameras are light detectors - it is simply how we designed them. Are you saying cameras work efferently too? You seem to be, or at least to be vaguely playing with the idea. How did we end up designing something to detect light, and somehow doing something else entirely?

That isn't of significance if that light cannot be separated from its source for a picture to be taken or for us to see the actual image in real time.

Try paraphrasing that. You will find that you cannot, as it is a nonsensical sentence. Are we once again saying that light cannot exist independent of it's source?

I'm doing my best to offer an alternate explanation that would fit in with the efferent model of vision.

But what about the fact that the things we actually test tell us that thinsg are not as we would expect if efferent vision was correct?

What empirical tests disprove that we are seeing the actual present? These are theories and theories can be wrong.

If we were not, and sight works instantly, then our eyes would see something different from a light-detector. We know the detector had to wait for the light to arrive, and detects radiation that was sent out long ago. We are testing if our eyes work different.

As it turns out, both our eyes and the light-detector see the same thing. This tells us that instant vision does not occur. Thus, we have empirical proof that we are not seeing the actual present.

There is no unknown mechanism that violates the laws of physics. It has to do with the workings of the brain and nothing has excluded the possibility of the brain using the eyes to see the real world. It's true that the efferent model has to be carefully mapped out, which would be the next step.

Ok, then please explain the mechanism by which the brain uses the eyes to detect things without detecting any incoming particles. If these particles are photons, then we are talking about afferent sight. Efferent, instant sight requires some method, hitherto unexplained, of detecting things faster than light.

I don't see a problem. I just see the need for more empirical testing.

No, you ignore the problem. The reality is that simple empirical tests have been done - comparison between photographs and visual observation of stars - that contradict efferent sight. It is now up to you to deal with that, or concede that efferent sight is disproven. So far you refuse to do either.

Show me the absolute proof as to what is occurring at the junction of the retina, optic nerve and visual cortex and I'll concede. I said I don't have an exact model yet, but that doesn't mean one can't be created based on new information. The visual cortex could theoretically see the outside world, looking through the eyes to see the world. The cones and rods are part of the eye through which the brain is looking, therefore we would see everything in the same way.

This has already been made available to you. Please read the lone rangers excellent essay on the matter, which explains the basics of what we have found out by careful testing.

It does not support it. If you put down the light, I would see you doing that, and that would put out the beam. Once again, you are coming from the mindset of photons being able to travel without a light source. This is not the same thing as smoke that would kill you even though the original fire was put out.

Ah so you are back to light being dependent on its source for it's continued existence? But this too has been tested, and proven wrong. Look at radar, for instance. It relies on this not being the case.

If light is NOT dependent on its source, then the problem remains and my point carries.

That's if we can separate the two, but I don't think that's possible if efferent vision is true. I am not disregarding or conveniently forgetting the issue of radiation that was brought up. The most important point here is that, according to the efferent model, we cannot see or take a picture of light without the object or image in view, because nothing is being decoded from that light into an image in the brain. Therefore, we need to study how the brain works more than how light works in order to find our answers.

That is nonsense. If the object needs to be in view in real time, then the light should come in from a different angle - it came from where the star was, but what we see is where the star is

This is not what we see in reality. You can waffle about objects and views all you want, but that point remains.

I thought I did answer it. What is triangulating?

You did not. You just waffled about the timing being different without explaining why. triangulation is using geometry to determine how far away something is.

And I gave an alternate explanation.

You did no such thing. You merely said something vague about timing and left it at that.

Who said we could?

efferent, instant vision. Because a camera merely detects light and does not take a real-time picture. It cannot - it has to wait for the light.

No, we would still be seeing the same thing a camera sees because the light being reflected or emitted would have already traveled to earth as we see this huge bright star in real time.

Still makes no sense. This light would come from where the star was, while the image would be of where the star is.

[

quote="Vivisectus"]Really, at this stage you can do two things: you can say that reality is wrong, or that the book is wrong.

There's a third option. I can say reality is not wrong; we're just seeing it wrong, and the book is right. [/QUOTE]

If the book is right, then we would expect what I described. We do not. Therefor we must assume the book is wrong. Anything else is plain old religious fundamentalism. They also simply change reality if it does not suit their holy book. Hence you get Creation Museums.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Besides that, a simple light detector like a camera would see the star and the light-source in the same place, as it simple uses light in the same way an afferent eye does. In reality the camera and the eye record the same thing.

I agree with the fact that the camera and eye record the same thing, but that does not mean afferent vision is the cause. You are drawing conclusions about efferent vision that would make it seem implausible because it seems that a camera and eye would record a different frame, but that's not necessarily so.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, I am saying that a Camera, which works 100% Afferently, records the exact same thing as these mythical efferent eyes that you propose without providing us with even the inkling of a mechanism by which it is supposed to work.

A camera doesn't work afferently.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But since efferent vision is instantaneous, while detecting light is not, this means that either they would have to record different things, or efferent vision must be wrong, because a machine that works efferently produces the same image as our eyes.

Huh? Detecting light without the object being present would not produce a picture of said object. The lens is focused on the object or image, not the light that is being reflected. If there was only light present, there would be no photograph.