A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what I meant to say Lone Ranger. Please don't put words in my mouth, okay? The only thing I'm guilty of is being unclear.

I'm not putting words into your mouth at all. I'm simply repeating what you said.

That you're unable to clearly express your claims is strong evidence that you don't really understand what you're talking about.

I can't find any proof against efferent vision. I don't want the same old same old literature that is based on old tests. I need actual proof and if you can't give it, then there is nothing that suggests efferent vision is absolutely false.

Good gravy, how much more "proof" would be necessary? As many people have pointed out, you can easily do the experiments for yourself which demonstrate that vision is not efferent.

But you won't.

And it's very dishonest to pretend that those experiments haven't been done by others -- lots of others -- and that they aren't unequivocal.

I do know, and I really don't care about "theory" at this point. I want actual "proof" because this is the only way that I will concede.

And if you actually knew what the term means, you'd know that you're asking for the impossible. I can't prove that you exist.

Regardless, you've got a lot of nerve claiming that you aren't a Fundamentalist when you've just declared that you are a "religious Fundamentalist" where Lessans' ideas are concerned -- since you've indicated that only something which is logically impossible will change your mind.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry, but there is a difference between picking up radar, and seeing the object in real time, which involves the brain and what is actually occurring.

Radar sends out a radio wave and measures the reflected radio wave using it to calculate a target's speed, shape, material the object is made of, and direction of movement.

Read more: What does a radar do

Radio waves behave the same as visible light.

Originally Posted by Wiki

Radio waves are a type of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum longer than infrared light. Like all other electromagnetic waves, they travel at the speed of light. Naturally occurring radio waves are made by lightning, or by astronomical objects.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Radio waves behave the same as visible light.

Indeed they do, since radio waves are light -- just light that happens to be in wavelengths to which our eyes aren't sensitive.

Which, of course, is why we make the distinction between visible light and invisible light such as infrared, radio, x-rays, etc.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what I meant to say Lone Ranger. Please don't put words in my mouth, okay? The only thing I'm guilty of is being unclear.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I'm not putting words into your mouth at all. I'm simply repeating what you said.

That you're unable to clearly express your claims is strong evidence that you don't really understand what you're talking about.]

That's not true TLR. I believe I've done a good a good job at expressing the nature of these claims. If I didn't understand what the claims were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I can't find any proof against efferent vision. I don't want the same old same old literature that is based on old tests. I need actual proof and if you can't give it, then there is nothing that suggests efferent vision is absolutely false.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Good gravy, how much more "proof" would be necessary? As many people have pointed out, you can easily do the experiments for yourself which demonstrate that vision is not efferent.

But you won't.

Not true. The experiments are not only inconclusive, many are not even reliable. Unfortunately, there are no experiments that I, personally, can perform. It takes very careful experimentation, and I have no resources to set this up. Actual proof of efferent vision is not easy to come by, which is why afferent vision is accepted as fact. The premise that afferent vision is valid has already been established, therefore it has been a very easy step to make the results fit the premise due to bias.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And it's very dishonest to pretend that those experiments haven't been done by others -- lots of others -- and that they aren't unequivocal.

I am not pretending that the experiments haven't been done by others, but yes, it's true that I am suggesting that the tests are unequivocally unreliable.

I do know, and I really don't care about "theory" at this point. I want actual "proof" because this is the only way that I will concede.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And if you actually knew what the term means, you'd know that you're asking for the impossible. I can't prove that you exist.

The aim of science is to get closer and closer to the truth. If there weren't ways to determine whether something was true or not, we wouldn't keep trying. Your saying that you can't prove that I exist is equivalent to your saying you're a worm believing I'm a person. If you are resorting to this kind of argument, we might as well give up right now because you could very well say we're talking to ourselves, not each other. We would have no basis for communication at all.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Regardless, you've got a lot of nerve claiming that you aren't a Fundamentalist when you've just declared that you are a "religious Fundamentalist" where Lessans' ideas are concerned -- since you've indicated that only something which is logically impossible will change your mind.

Could it be that the impossibility of this claim is only in your mind because of your mistaken belief that it is impossible?

[The Lone Ranger]

I know I've said it before, but every now and again you say something that makes it necessary to repeat: you can't be as stupid as you pretend to be.

I really don't believe that anyone as stupid as you pretend to be could manage to function. The ape-creatures of the Indus have a better mastery of basic logic and basic science than you pretend to have.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Indeed they do, since radio waves are light -- just light that happens to be in wavelengths to which our eyes aren't sensitive.

Which, of course, is why we make the distinction between visible light and invisible light such as infrared, radio, x-rays, etc.

I get that, but you're missing the other part of all this; the eyes and the brain. There is a difference between radio waves and the visible spectrum, and that difference is not trivial.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get that, but you're missing the other part of all this; the eyes and the brain. There is a difference between radio waves and the visible spectrum, and that difference is not trivial.

There is no difference when discussing man-made devices that manipulate and use lightwaves, like cameras and radar, because as long as light behaves consistently, which is does, they work as they're supposed to.

So back to cameras and other light detectors, please. How does a device that only collects and focuses emitted or reflected incoming light into itself, to interact with a digital recorder or photosensitive film, photograph in real time? It has neither eyes nor brain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Radio waves behave the same as visible light.

I am not saying they don't behave the same way as visible light. This has no bearing on how our eyes actually see.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no difference when discussing man-made devices that manipulate and use lightwaves, like cameras and radar, because as long as light behaves consistently, which is does, they work as they're supposed to.

So back to cameras and other light detectors, please. How does a device that only collects and focuses emitted or reflected incoming light into itself, to interact with a digital recorder or photosensitive film, photograph in real time? It has neither eyes nor brain.

The question remains: Where is the incoming emitted or reflected light coming from? You believe that the light detectors are collecting light coming from the past. I am saying that there must be a light source or object existing in the here and now for an image to be developed on photosensitive film. It is assumed that the light has to travel a finite speed to get to the lens. Lessans is saying there is no travel time because the light is not traveling independently of its source. The camera doesn't have eyes or a brain but it indicates that it is not taking a photograph of the past. This is also another explanation as to why the camera develops a photograph that is the same exact image as what we see with the naked eye.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where is the incoming emitted or reflected incoming light coming from?

From the emitting or reflective source.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You believe that the light detectors are collecting light coming from the past.

I believe they are detecting light. Since light travels away from the source, there is necessarily a time delay between when it is emitted/reflected and when it interacts with or is absorbed by something, like a camera lens.

Even a billionth of a second ago is the past, so yes, light detected by a manmade light detecting device is necessarily from the past.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am saying that there must be a light source or subject that is reflecting or emitting that light in the here and now and it is being projected onto photosensitive film.

That's because you don't apparently understand how light works or how cameras work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am The camera doesn't have eyes or a brain but it indicates that it is not taking a photograph of the past.

Since light travels away from the source, there is necessarily a time delay between when it is emitted/reflected and when it interacts with or is absorbed by something, like a camera lens.

Even a billionth of a second ago is the past, so yes, light detected by a manmade light detecting device is necessarily from the past.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I know I've said it before, but every now and again you say something that makes it necessary to repeat: you can't be as stupid as you pretend to be.

I really don't believe that anyone as stupid as you pretend to be could manage to function. The ape-creatures of the Indus have a better mastery of basic logic and basic science than you pretend to have.

Where did this nasty remark come from? Now you're back to being a schoolboy who creates his own rules of the game so he will always turn out to be the winner. Maybe I don't have a perfect grasp of science, but you don't have a perfect grasp of this discovery, therefore I could say the same thing about you but I refuse to stoop that low.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But that's where it doesn't add up if sight is efferent. We have to start from this premise and work backwards to understand why we are seeing the actual object, not the emitted or reflected light.

It is true that light travels, but if a camera detects the light it means the light has already arrived. That same light becomes a condition of sight since it allows the eyes to see what's out there.

Even a billionth of a second ago is the past, so yes, light detected by a manmade light detecting device is necessarily from the past.

You're still missing the fact that the image seen on the lens is an exact mirror copy of the real object.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am saying that there must be a light source or subject that is reflecting or emitting that light in the here and now and it is being projected onto photosensitive film.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's because you don't apparently understand how light works or how cameras work.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am The camera doesn't have eyes or a brain but it indicates that it is not taking a photograph of the past.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since light travels away from the source, there is necessarily a time delay between when it is emitted/reflected and when it interacts with or is absorbed by something, like a camera lens.

Even a billionth of a second ago is the past, so yes, light detected by a manmade light detecting device is necessarily from the past.

Not if it's instant, and a mirror image is instant.

[LadyShea]

We are not talking about vision right now, we are talking about manmade light interaction devices like cameras.

"Light has already arrived" is gibberish when discussing how light behaves and how cameras work and how they interact.

What exactly are you trying to say when you use that phrase?

There is no "image seen on the lens". More word salad. What are you talking about? Do you or do you not understand how cameras function?

Well, you are talking a bunch of nonsense. Please explain how light behaves and how cameras work.

Nope, same thing. The light is reflected off the mirror and still has to travel to interact with the camera.

You can claim the brain sees through the eyes instantly all you want peacegirl, but you cannot make cameras into brains. So far, you seem unwilling to accept that unless cameras are also "efferent" then they will not take a picture of the same thing we see in the case of distant objects.

Since light travels away from the source (whether emitted or reflected), there is necessarily a time delay between when it is emitted/reflected and when it interacts with or is absorbed by something, like a camera lens.

Even a billionth of a second ago is the past, so yes, light detected by a manmade light detecting device is necessarily from the past.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true if you are thinking in terms of light being a condition of sight. You are entrenched with the idea that light is a cause of sight; that's why it's so hard for you to see. You've grown up with this idea, and you've accepted it wholeheartedly because science is never wrong.

Not at all. I'm just saying that the photographic film is taking a picture of "now", not "before".

That's not true if light is a condition. It is dependent on the lightsource for its reflection as it is projected onto the lens; it is not dependent on time travel.

It is true that cameras passively receive light, but what you're missing is that the object that is reflecting that light is picked up instantly by the lens. I never said cameras were afferent or efferent. I am only showing that there is another explanation as to why cameras photograph the same image as the eye other than the belief in afferent vision.

I am coming up with an alternative explanation which came about indirectly based on Lessans' insights as a whole. It just so happens he observed certain principles that completely reject the "supportive" evidence that we see the past due to the finite speed of light.

But again, you're NOT coming up with any alternative explanation. Light cannot be projected, reflected, or picked up instantly without light having to travel faster than light. The lens of a camera cannot focus outwards on an object because (as you have agreed) there is no outwards efferent component of the process. Cameras can only passively receive incoming light. That makes it by definition an afferent process. And it is the specific nature of that incoming received light which interacts with the film to produce the image. So the camera and lens cannot ignore the RED light present at the camera to 'pick up' or 'focus on' the newly emitted BLUE light which is not yet at the camera. You have no mechanism whatsoever for explaining how the film can magically ignore the RED light presently striking its surface to somehow make the image be determined by the distant BLUE light which isn't even there yet. It requires either action at a distance or light travelling faster than light. You quite simply have NO EXPLANATION for this.

You are rejecting all of the modern physics of light on the basis of nothing more than your FAITH that Lessans made certain accurate yet unknown 'observations'. His actual observation that we can psychologically project our beliefs and values onto the objects we see doesn't even require efferent vision. The two issues are wholly distinct.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry, but there is a difference between picking up radar, and seeing the object in real time, which involves the brain and what is actually occurring.

Radar sends out a radio wave and measures the reflected radio wave using it to calculate a target's speed, shape, material the object is made of, and direction of movement.

Read more: What does a radar do

Excuse me, you goddamned idiot, but radar waves are light. Honest to God, did you really not know that?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true TLR. I believe I've done a good a good job at expressing the nature of these claims.

You talk like a simpleton.

Not true. The experiments are not only inconclusive, many are not even reliable.

And you know this how?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I know I've said it before, but every now and again you say something that makes it necessary to repeat: you can't be as stupid as you pretend to be.

I really don't believe that anyone as stupid as you pretend to be could manage to function. The ape-creatures of the Indus have a better mastery of basic logic and basic science than you pretend to have.

Right, she isn't as stupid as she pretends, though she is very stupid and shallow. She is trying to sell a book and make money. This depends on having gullible idiots buy the book. What she should do is start her own Web site, and as Web master, (if she can manage those functions -- after nearly 500 pages here, she has been unable to master something as elementary as correctly using quote tags) she can summarily ban anyone who shows anything in the way of thought or intelligence. Given how many idiots like herself infest the Internet, by a kind of pseudo-Darwinian selection process, in which she serve as the "natural environment" weeding out people with brains, she should eventually "evolve" a population of dimwits who will nod their empty heads emptily in agreement with every proposterous statement that she and Lessans make. So when she repeats the religious mantra of the Sacred Text as handed down by God Daddy:




She will have an "evolved" population of Internet dunces going like this:




That will make her feel better about herself. She certainly can't let go of her delusions, as it will become evident to her that she has wasted her life, since evidently she has spent a substantial portion of it promoting this nonsense.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get that, but you're missing the other part of all this; the eyes and the brain. There is a difference between radio waves and the visible spectrum, and that difference is not trivial.

Duh!

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's such a despicably dishonest thing to say -- on multiple levels -- that I don't even know how to address it.

Despicably dishonest it may be, but it is a rather accurate description of peacegirl's own condition. Just replace 'science' with 'Lessans'.

It really is rather remarkable just how often her criticisms of others so accurately apply to her. It is the fuel that powers the

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I really don't believe that anyone as stupid as you pretend to be could manage to function.
.

We really don't know that for sure, (that she does function in society) we only know that she has access to a computer and a copy of Lessans book that she can post parts of. Everything else is on her say-so, with no more proof than we have for the claims in Lessans book.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My Java plug-in isn't working right now. Can you give me the gist?

It lets you play with electromagnetic waves. You can set up light sources and objects and see the electric and magnetic field evolve in detail. I thought it may be better suited for you because you seem to have problems with the explanations given and this one is animated and interactive.

[LadyShea]

It's really cool and fun to play with too, But. Thanks for the link.

[But]

There are lots more on the main page. The quantum mechanics ones are really weird but

Math, Physics, and Engineering Applets

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, light is already present at the camera. But WHAT COLOR is that light? If the object has only just changed from RED to BLUE, then it has only just begun to reflect or emit BLUE light. The light already present at the camera (and which will be used to form the image) will still be RED. The BLUE light will not be present at the camera until it has had time to travel from the now-BLUE object to the camera.

What you are saying is either that the RED light which is now at the camera magically changes from RED to BLUE to match the changed object (exactly what you just denied claiming), or that the newly emitted BLUE light travels from the object to the camera instantaneously at the time of the change (i.e. the BLUE light manages to travel faster than the speed of light).

You keep talking about the time it takes for light to travel, but efferent vision has nothing to do with time. You will not begin to understand this concept coming from this perspective. You have to understand that the light is already present at the lens or else the camera could not take a photograph. What is showing up is an exact replica of the object. Even with a pinhole camera, the pinhole acts as a lens by drawing in the light that is already present and we see the mirror image of the object on the other side, although upside down.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are treating photons as if they are independent of the object and they travel along a path that reaches the lens in the order in which they arrived.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, because that is how light works, once it is emitted it is independent of its source and traveling in all directions, and cameras work by gathering light. You keep saying you understand these facts.

I do, but you keep forgetting that the the light source or object has to be present. A camera cannot gather light that has no corresponding object that is reflecting that light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But what I'm saying is that it's the object that the lens is focusing on

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And we've explained that camera lenses cannot and do not focus "out" on the object, they focus the incoming light into the camera and either onto photosensitive film or a digital device.

That is not true. I have never seen a lens focus on incoming light. The lens focuses on an object, or an image. It is true that the light is what the camera captures on film, but it is the object that the camera is focusing on.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

therefore if there is a change in the object it will be reflected instantly onto the lens

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What you are saying is that cameras are efferent like you think eyes are, that they somehow reach out to take pictures. This is not how cameras work, and you have stated over and over again that they do not work efferently.

There is no reaching out LadyShea. You make it sound like cameras have antennas.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For example, if the camera is taking a picture of a girl who has her hair in a pony tail and she takes her pony tail out, the lens will not take a picture of her with her pony tail while I see her with no pony tail. It will take the same exact picture of her without a pony tail.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is because light travels too fast for the delay to be detectable photographing a girl here on Earth, the light is past the camera and 183 thousand miles away within a second. Again, you know this, so this is a weasel.

Wrong. It's because the light from the girl is mirroring [on the lens of the camera] exactly what is happening instantly.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's why my hypothetical -that you have ignored- had the light emitting, color changing source 60 light minutes away.

Although the light emitting color changing source is 60 light minutes away, it is large enough that it is within the camera's field of view, therefore the image would show up on the lens instantly as a mirror image.

[LadyShea]

That is not true. I have never seen a lens focus on incoming light. The lens focuses on an object, or an image.

What the lens is doing is focusing the incoming light onto your retina when you are looking through the camera lens and onto the film or digital imaging device. When you see it focusing, that's what it is doing, adjusting the lens to focus the incoming light into the camera.

A camera does not and cannot somehow focus OUT. Goodness gracious are you acting this ignorant on purpose?

It is true that the light is what the camera captures on film, but it is the object that the camera is focusing on.

Lenses focus (concentrate to a smaller area) incoming light.

Go to Walmart and buy a magnifying glass, which is a lens, and focus light for yourself. All lenses work exactly the same way but a cameras lens can change to accommodate for distance and light conditions (like eye lenses), whereas with a fixed lens you have to move it closer and further away to change the focus.

NOUN:
pl. fo·cus·es or fo·ci (-s, -k) KEY

1.
1. A point at which rays of light or other radiation converge or from which they appear to diverge, as after refraction or reflection in an optical system: the focus of a lens. Also called focal point.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no reaching out LadyShea. You make it sound like cameras have antennas.

You keep saying the camera is focusing on an object outside of and away from the camera, which indicates something is coming or looking OUT through the camera. That's not how they work.

So you think light does not travel at 183 thousand miles per second?