A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The color red, in space, is an indicator of the distance the light has traveled, the speed and direction at which the source is traveling, and therefore the length of time it has traveled. See Red Shift

I am not disputing that light travels and can have different hues. This does not negate efferent vision.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ

no. i'd say religious. religion is about behaviour and conformity. you can be religious about real things.

science should have nothing to do with religion. again- it's all in the application. we can't help ourselves. for some, science has become the dogma of the no-god.

Religion is about what you believe without evidence - faith in what you cannot see or detect in an objective way.

Science works with what you can detect. Sure - there is a possibility of people treating useful explanations as unchanging, objective truths and blinding themselves to other possibilities, and thus becoming dogmatic. But it it not part of its core function, and such behavior is in fact unscientific.

To change a scientific idea, observations have to match a hypothesis. To change a religious one, the persons doing the believing must want to change it. It's a big difference.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am trying to understand this statement of yours

If we do not see light, that speaks to the mechanism of efferent sight. That has relation to Lessan's claims.

I'm still not sure what you're getting at. If there is no light, we cannot see anything.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, what did you mean when you said

Can you explain it or not?

We can see light that is produced from a star because that light is within our field of vision (which does not require afferent vision), but we cannot see an event from the past because that does require afferent vision.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If so, why can we not see things in the universe that do not emit visible light? Why can't we see the "actual" black hole?

snip cut and paste

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know how science detects black holes. That copy and paste supports my point.

I want to know why we can't see them within the framework of your understanding of efferent vision. You keep claiming we see "actual" objects and images, and not the light.

If that were true, we would be able to see "actual" black holes, with our eyes and telescopes-just like we see the "actual" stars and not the light they emit- rather than simply detect them by observing the effects on things around them.

Maybe I haven't been clear. We can detect the effects of events that are happening in the here and now, such as the pull of gravity. The pull of gravity is an indication to us that a black holes exist because we can't see them directly.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

According to afferent vision, they are invisible because they do not emit visible light and light is how we get the information that becomes a visual image in our brain.

This shouldn't matter with efferent vision, according to your many statements regarding "actual" objects and images and seeing "what is there" to be seen, and what is large enough and bright enough. Black holes are surrounded by stars, there whould be plenty of light "present" to use to see them.

We couldn't see them if they are not within the visible spectrum. We would need other ways to prove their existence.

[Vivisectus]

You are now more or less talking at random, Peacegirl. The light from the stars that Shea was referring too is in the visible spectrum.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are now more or less talking at random, Peacegirl. The light from the stars that Shea was referring too is in the visible spectrum.

But that light is not being emitted from a black hole. If black holes are invisible, we can detect their presence by other means. I am not talking at random; you are interpreting it that way.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not disputing that light travels and can have different hues. This does not negate efferent vision.

You said the red hue is a "present condition", I demonstrated it is not.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that light is not being emitted from a black hole. If black holes are invisible, we can detect their presence by other means. I am not talking at random; you are interpreting it that way.

So, do you concede that we can and do see light itself?

Do you retract these statements?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are not seeing the light from that star; but rather the actual star.
We do not see light. We use light to see.

[Vivisectus]

As I said, more or less random, and self-contradictory.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A camera has never taken a picture of light that developed into a picture that occurred hundreds of years ago.

After all the free education you've been given, for which you've not evinced an iota of gratitude, you still parrot this mindless babble, which has been disproved by examples too numerous to mention.

Hey, peacegirl, how do you expalain the results in the moons of Jupiter scenario that was carefully presented to you? The actual results that obtain make "real-time" seeing impossible.

Now what?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Religion is about what you believe without evidence - faith in what you cannot see or detect in an objective way.

Science works with what you can detect. Sure - there is a possibility of people treating useful explanations as unchanging, objective truths and blinding themselves to other possibilities, and thus becoming dogmatic. But it it not part of its core function, and such behavior is in fact unscientific.

To change a scientific idea, observations have to match a hypothesis. To change a religious one, the persons doing the believing must want to change it. It's a big difference.

I hope you're not putting me in the category of a religious fanatic, although I respect their faith immensely. There is actual evidence Vivisectus that the eyes are not a sense organ; there is actual evidence that man's will is not free; and there is actual evidence that we are born again and again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

After all the free education you've been given, for which you've not evinced an iota of gratitude, you still parrot this mindless babble, which has been disproved by examples too numerous to mention.

Hey, peacegirl, how do you expalain the results in the moons of Jupiter scenario that was carefully presented to you? The actual results that obtain make "real-time" seeing impossible.

Now what?

I already answered that. Were you eating too much popcorn to hear me?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope you're not putting me in that category. There is actual evidence Vivisectus that the eyes are not a sense organ; there is actual evidence that man's will is not free; and there is actual evidence that we are born again and again.

That is good to hear! I look forward to seeing it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As I said, more or less random, and self-contradictory.

I may have not been clear which made it sound contradictory, but nothing was actually a contradiction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is good to hear! I look forward to seeing it.

If you haven't seen it by now, I don't know if you ever will.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you haven't seen it by now, I don't know if you ever will.

Ah. Evidence that is only visible to those that are already convinced.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said the red hue is a "present condition", I demonstrated it is not.

It might be coming from a past source, but we are seeing it in the present, therefore we are seeing the red hue efferently.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah. Evidence that is only visible to those that are already convinced.

Ah. Evidence that is only visible to those that can see the relations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Religion is about what you believe without evidence - faith in what you cannot see or detect in an objective way.

Science works with what you can detect. Sure - there is a possibility of people treating useful explanations as unchanging, objective truths and blinding themselves to other possibilities, and thus becoming dogmatic. But it it not part of its core function, and such behavior is in fact unscientific.

To change a scientific idea, observations have to match a hypothesis. To change a religious one, the persons doing the believing must want to change it. It's a big difference.

I have to correct you even though this post was not directed at me. You don't have to have a hypothesis in order for an observation to be scientific and accurate.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It might be coming from a past source, but we are seeing it in the present, therefore we are seeing the red hue efferently.

So, you now concede we can and do see the past?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have to correct you even though this post was not directed at me. You don't have to have a hypothesis in order for an observation to be scientific and accurate.

Actually you don't like that bit - that is where an observation disproves a hypothesis, and then that hypothesis must be amended or abandoned.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, do you concede that we can and do see light itself?

Do you retract these statements?

I see the sun because the light that it emits allows me to see it. The sun is not pure light; it emits light, therefore the conditions are such that I can see this ball of gas.

The Sun is a huge, burning ball of gas that gives off heat and light through nuclear reactions. ... It may look solid, but the Sun is made up of gas--mostly hydrogen and helium.

http://www.globio.org/glossopedia/ar...aspx?art_id=37

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually you don't like that bit - that is where an observation disproves a hypothesis, and then that hypothesis must be amended or abandoned.

Of course I don't like that bit if it's not true. If a hypothesis does not conform to reality, then the hypothesis has to be abandoned, but that is not what is happening in this case.

[LadyShea]

Why not just answer the questions? Why do you continue to weasel?

Do you stand by these statements or do you retract them? I can dig up several others where you maintain that we cannot and do not see light itself. And now you seem to be waffling.

Do we or do we not see light itself?

We are not seeing the light from that star; but rather the actual star.
We do not see light. We use light to see.

[Vivisectus]

Then please explain to me in your own words how cameras work (don't just say they take a picture, describe the mechanism by which they do this) and then explain to me why a camera, which has to wait for the light to travel, does not see something different from the human eye.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, you now concede we can and do see the past?

We are seeing light that has traveled, therefore as it shifts color, we would see the latter color, but we are seeing this change in real time. Our brain is not interpreting these images because of electro-chemical signals (how many times do I have to repeat this before you get it ). If this is true, then we cannot see a past event that no longer exists (i.e., from the light itself) unless that event exists in the present. The light then becomes a necessary condition which allows us to see that event in real time.