A revolution in thought

[Rickoshay75]

Come on, you guys. Science has already proved that the eyes are not sense organs. And we're not talking just Seymour science here; we're talking real science. >>

There's no way to prove that any or all of the sense organs are what we've been led to believe, but what our eyes see, and our natural instincts do, can stop us from walking into walls.

I'm an idling motor waiting for something of interest to put me in gear.

[Rickoshay75]

Come on, you guys. Science has already proved that the eyes are not sense organs. And we're not talking just Seymour science here; we're talking real science. >>

There's no way to prove that any or all of the sense organs are what we've been led to believe, but what our eyes see, and our natural instincts do, can stop us from walking into walls.

I'm an idling motor waiting for something of interest to put me in gear.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

Come on, you guys. Science has already proved that the eyes are not sense organs. And we're not talking just Seymour science here; we're talking real science. >>.

Look, Idiot No. 2 in thread.

[LadyShea]

That appears to be his non-conventional method of quoting, davidm...somebody else said that facetiously

[Rickoshay75]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As Rickoshay said, just because the majority believe in something doesn't make it true, therefore two people could be right and the rest of the world wrong.

Yeah, also very lonely for us two...

[Rickoshay75]

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

Come on, you guys. Science has already proved that the eyes are not sense organs. And we're not talking just Seymour science here; we're talking real science. >>

There's no way to prove that any or all of the sense organs are what we've been led to believe, but what our eyes see, and our natural instincts do, can stop us from walking into walls.

I'm an idling motor waiting for something of interest to put me in gear.

That is not my Quote, try again, this time aim higher.

[Rickoshay75]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That appears to be his non-conventional method of quoting, davidm...somebody else said that facetiously

Misquotes is how wars are started

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

That is not my Quote, try again, this time aim higher.

This is not your quote? It is under your name. Therefore, it is your quote.

Want to quote someone else? Ever hear of "quote tags?"

[Rickoshay75]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Follow the evidence, not the people claiming to know the truth but offering nothing to support that claim. It's just a good policy.

Not all that easy to prove anything because evidence can be spun and other fact sources, documents etc. are debatable. Even the experts fight with experts.

[Rickoshay75]

Originally Posted by davidm

This is not your quote? It is under your name. Therefore, it is your quote.

Hell, I don't even know what Seymour science is... Anyway, let's just forget it and move on.

[thedoc]

Rickoshay75

The fact that a great many people believe something is no guarantee of its truth. W. Somerset Maugham


I believe that Somerset Maugham wrote fiction.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Come on, you guys. Science has already proved that the eyes are not sense organs. And we're not talking just Seymour science here; we're talking real science.
.

I believe this is the correct tag for part of it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Bullshit. This has nothing to do with faith. They are seeing dogs that are dying due to too many vaccines. I have bookmarked this article LadyShea, but there is something very biased about it. People want to be right even if the results of their experiments are not giving full disclosure.

Whether they were published or not doesn't make them flawed. My father's work was never published but it doesn't make his work flawed. It just means that the tests that showed there was a flaw was never published.

Trying to change the subject or take the thread off topic is not productive, start a new thread.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sort of. I can now see the problem with the word "mirroring." It's not completely accurate like LadyShea mentioned. I just couldn't think of another way to explain what I was trying to say. I am not using that pharase anymore. That being said, seeing an object has everything to do with the absorption properties of the object itself. I have said this all alone. Going back to my previous analogy, let's suppose the entire world is made up of marble. But out of this marble there are forms that cannot be seen unless something within the object helps to chisel the extra marble away to allow the form of the object to be seen. Once the chiseler (the property of the object that has the capability of removing the extra marble, not an actual thing), has chiseled away the extra marble (the wavelengths that don't belong), we can see the object clearly, but that does not remove the marble that is present between the spaces (the photons being emitted by the sun which are white; the entire visual spectrum).

Again, we're talking cameras, not vision. And you have not been talking about absorption properties "all alon[g]". You only recently incorporated this after it was explained to you.

More importantly, you didn't answer my question:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Great. Then you can re-answer this earlier question for which you previously gave a different answer:

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

You previously anwered "No". Is your new answer now "Yes"?

Please answer.

Making the wavelength of the light already at the film dependent upon the real-time asborption properties of the object is going to require both action at a distance and the changing of light's properties while it is travelling.

You're nowhere near a consistent solution to this yet.

You didn't answer this bit either:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you agree with our account of what it means for the ball to be blue? I.e. that it is presently absorbing all non-blue light striking it, and reflecting from its surface only the light of blue-wavelength?

Please answer.

Making a photographic image dependent upon the absorptive properties of the object makes real-time photography impossible. For an object which has just now changed from red to blue, that object has only just begun to absorb non-blue light and reflect only blue light towards the camera. That blue light cannot interact with the film until it has had time to travel to the camera. Any light already at the camera will be light that left the object earlier when that object was absorbing blue light (and all other non-red light) while reflecting only red light.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

Hell, I don't even know what Seymour science is... Anyway, let's just forget it and move on.

Isn't that a coincidence, Peacegirl had trouble with quote tags.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

But Lessans stated that light does not carry an image to the eye, so Peacegirl thinks everyone believes that light carries information (images, color, etc.) to the eye and she needs to keep telling everyone her version of vision, which she believes is true in spite of nothing to support it.

Light is made up of wavelengths and frequencies.

[Dragar]

No it isn't. That's like saying stars are made up of temperatures and lumonisoties.

You never answered my question, peacegirl. What's an image? That image on the back of the pinhole camera? It's still there even if we don't look, so what is it?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is made up of wavelengths and frequencies.

That's great, more than 500 pages in and you still can't even define light.

But do tell us all about what you can't even define!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Great. Then you can re-answer this earlier question for which you previously gave a different answer:

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

You previously anwered "No". Is your new answer now "Yes"?

The answer is still No. The light was present at the object. It did not travel from the object to the camera at the moment a picture of the object was taken.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...the light allows the wavelength of blue to strike the film...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is inconsistent with your earlier agreement that wavelength is a property of light. It's like saying that when you catch a yellow ball, the ball allows the yellowness to strike your hand.

You're right, the wavelength is a property of light but it's not the only property. All the other wavelengths that create the visual spectrum are properties of light also. All I meant here is that the blue wavelength is allowing us to see the ball as blue.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...the light does not carry that blue wavelength with it because the wavelength does not become part of the light itself.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, this is inconsistent with wavelength being a property of light. No-one anywhere is claiming that wavelengths are carried or become part of the light. Stop talking of light carrying things, and stop making excuses for your inability to correctly express yourself.

I actually changed my answers from this post.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the light is a mirror image of the blue wavelength but it does not become part of the wavelength.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is nonsensical. I can't work out what you are even trying to say, or how it is meant to answer my question. See below.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light never had a blue wavelength. The object absorbs all of the other wavelengths in the visual spectrum, which allows us to see blue. All the light does is mirror that image. That's why we can't see objects unless they are in the camera's field of view, or the eye's visual field of view.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Obviously the light at the camera has to have a blue wavelength at the time it is at the film, if it is the wavelength of this light determining the blue color of the real-time image of the blue ball.

I'm glad we agree on something.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you agree with our account of what it means for the ball to be blue? I.e. that it is presently absorbing all non-blue light striking it, and reflecting from its surface only the light of blue-wavelength?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because you seem to be saying that at any time when this is the case (i.e. when the ball is blue in the above sense), the wavelength of the light now at the camera (which you agree previously travelled there from the object) will have the same (blue) wavelength as the light which is presently being reflected rather than absorbed by the ball's surface. This seems to be what you mean by saying that the light at the camera is "mirroring" the absorptive properties of the object. Is this what you are saying?

That's exactly right. My only disagreement is that the light previously traveled from the object to the camera to provide the image of the blue ball. The light traveled from the Sun to the camera, not the object to the camera. We will be able to see the blue ball from any distance as long as the ball is large enough to be seen, is bright enough to be seen (because there is enough light in which to see it), and is within our field of view whether it be the eye or a camera. The only difference between the two is that the retina uses the light to see the actual object (due to the efferent process), while the camera uses the same light to create a photograph.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The answer is still No. The light was present at the object. It did not travel from the object to the camera at the moment a picture of the object was taken.

I wasn't asking if the light travelled from the object to the camera at the moment the picture was taken. I was asking about where the light came from before that.

First you said it came straight from the sun. Then you said (as quoted above) that it originally came from the sun via the object along the way. Now you're saying it came straight from the sun again.

How am I meant to make any sense of your position when it reverses with every single post!?!?

If the light didn't arrive by way of the blue object (which absorbs the non-blue light and reflects only blue light), then why is it blue? If it was light which arrived directly from the sun, then it should be a combination of all wavelengths, right? So why is it blue?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's exactly right. My only disagreement is that the light previously traveled from the object to the camera to provide the image of the blue ball. The light traveled from the Sun to the camera, not the object to the camera. We will be able to see the blue ball from any distance as long as the ball is large enough to be seen, is bright enough to be seen (because there is enough light in which to see it), and is within our field of view whether it be the eye or a camera. The only difference between the two is that the retina uses the light to see the actual object (due to the efferent process), while the camera uses the same light to create a photograph.

Why does the white light (a combination of all colors) from the sun change to only blue light when it arrives at the camera, when that light has had no contact with the object being photographed? What makes it change? What prevented the other wavelengths of light from arriving too?

Why isn't light from the sun which has bounced off the surface of the object also at the camera? Or if this light is also present at the camera, then why isn't this light also interacting with the film instead of just the light which has come straight from the sun?

How can the camera use light from the Sun, which is just a combination of light of ALL wavelengths, to create a photographic image of the BLUE object? You did say it was the wavelength of this light from the sun at the camera which determines the color of the image. Light from the Sun is not blue. It is a combination of all colors.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Come on, you guys. Science has already proved that the eyes are not sense organs. And we're not talking just Seymour science here; we're talking real science.

How do we know this? Because Seymour said, that's how. From pp. 115-16 of Lessanetics:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

See there? This knowledge was being freely disseminated at Canadian expositions decades ago!

It actually was a real exposition but the guy who went never explained what all the to-do was about. This was not a made up guy. His name was Dave. I told you this already but you conveniently forgot.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Also, we observe that much like it's not uncommon for children to have imaginary friends, it's not uncommon for self-aggrandizing cranks to have imaginary acolytes. I bet you "scientists" wish you had imaginary acolytes, eh The Lone Ranger?

But ol' Seymour wasn't content with that. He had imaginary patients as well. On pp. 295-96 he describes a friend who had a "nervous breakdown" and began seeing a psychiatrist. After a few doctor visits the friend asked for Seymour's help and advice. Seymour agreed to "treat her" (that is indeed a direct quote) on condition that she leave psychiatry alone for good. After two weeks of treatment with Seymour1 the woman in question was completely cured!

This person was not imaginary; she was a close relative. She was getting sicker and sicker from the psychiatrist's advice and the drugs she was given. When Lessans told her what she needed to do, she took his advice and got well. He brought this up because often we listen to the advice of a doctor just because of his credentials which don't always prove that the doctor knows what he's talking about.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That story appear in Chapter 7, where Lessans gave free rein to his hatred of medicine. It's a good thing peacegirl's young 'uns don't have time to read all this codswallop. Her son the radiologist might be a bit taken aback over just how much Lessans hated his grandson's chosen profession.

He didn't hate medicine; he just didn't like when people use the word "doctor" to give advice that could cause more harm than good.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Seven: The Wisdom of Socrates pp. 289-290

Many years ago Socrates was crowned the wisest man of
his time when he discovered that the primary difference
between himself and others was that he knew he did not
know whereas the others did not know either, although
they thought they did. In fact, Socrates demonstrated to all the
intelligentsia of his time that they didn’t know the truth at all, only
thought they knew.

There is quite a difference between the knowledge
resulting from the perception of mathematical (undeniable) relations
and that which arises from syllogistic reasoning or observation.
People who do not know the truth but think they do are projecting
some kind of fallacious standard upon a screen of undeniable
substance and because they see with direct perception, with their very
eyes, what gives their knowledge the appearance of truth they are
convinced they know whereof they speak.

The fact that these
educated people are unaware that they don’t know isn’t what concerns
me; what does concern me is that they could hurt innocent people by
convincing them that they know when they really don’t. In our
present world there exists a form of hurt different than any other in
that it is done by us to ourselves when our fear that we will only get
worse, or at least not better, unless something is done immediately
compels us to consult doctors who in their effort to earn a living by
selling their services convince us that they are fully capable of
handling our problem, but instead make us worse. You see…a person
who considers himself very educated starts out with an assumption
that his knowledge is more accurate than someone without this formal
training. If someone dares to disagree with him he uses his
background as a standard to determine who is most learned of the two
and is then given justification to reject any disagreement as being
unsound.

When a student of medicine studies certain subjects at a
recognized university and receives a diploma he is given a right by the
school and state to open an office and charge a fee to anyone who
consults him for his knowledge. He knows that he has this legal right
because he has received a diploma from a recognized university and a
license from the government. He also knows that this right is not
given to those who did not study for eight years and pass all the
necessary requirements. Furthermore, there are all kinds of word
relations he can project to make him feel that he is all the more
qualified. This occurs when the word unqualified is attributed to
those who are considered charlatans.

To reinforce this belief many in
the medical profession have indignantly exclaimed, “Doctors can’t
harm you, only quacks can, those unscrupulous charlatans, the
pushers who sell their products without a prescription and tell you
there is no real danger — how dare them!” Their reasoning concludes
that since they are doctors the term unqualified does not apply to
them, otherwise, they would never have been given the right to open
an office. It is taken for granted that because of this diploma, the
title of doctor and the syllogistic reasoning that is always
unconsciously at work, these individuals have actually acquired the
knowledge to treat and heal. Their reputation does not originate in
accurate knowledge but in the fact that there are those who are not
entitled to practice by virtue of never having acquired the necessary
credentials, in the fact that it is assumed a doctor knows what is better
for the patient, and because the patient fears getting worse unless he
abides by the doctor’s recommendations which elevates the value of
doctors.

This happens all the time even when a doctor says to his
patient, “You don’t know what you are talking about because you’re
not a doctor.” The doctor’s opinion may take precedence over the
patient’s own intuition regarding a particular diagnosis only to have
confirmed many tests later, and sometimes too late, that this
individual was absolutely right.

How many times does someone give
advice and say it is reliable because it comes from a doctor? And how
many times does a drug firm advertise the value of its products by
saying it is recommended by doctors, which gives the buyer a false
sense of security that the products being sold are safe. The average
person has been taught to depend on the doctor’s judgment because
of the belief that only the physician has access to the wealth of
information that can diagnose and treat. Today, the medical
profession has so much more knowledge and they have so many more
words to describe our ailments that it is no wonder there is an
undercurrent of uneasiness that has grown in equal proportion
sending many with just the slightest ache to the emergency room for
fear that if they don’t have their condition checked out immediately
they could get worse or even die.

This exact situation occurred years
ago when a cousin of mine, in his fifties, went to his doctor for a six
month check up. After giving him a thorough examination the doctor
stopped, looked quizzically at the floor, tapped a pencil on his
forehead and said, “I don’t know.” “What don’t you know?” said my
cousin with a worried look on his face. “I’m trying to make up my
mind whether you have Xyczeghusites or Idykfyjffkskdls.” The poor
guy became so frightened by hearing names he couldn’t understand
that together with his high blood pressure he had a heart attack three
days later worrying about it. I learned this from his wife on the day
of the funeral.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl flip-flopping over where the light at the camera came from before arriving at the camera:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

No. The photons coming from the Sun were already at the camera.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light from the sun is at the camera if it's daylight because the stream of photons are everywhere. It doesn't go from the object to the camera.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think I misunderstood you. The light at the film has come from the object which has absorbed the non-blue light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The answer is still No. The light was present at the object. It did not travel from the object to the camera at the moment a picture of the object was taken.

My only disagreement is that the light previously traveled from the object to the camera to provide the image of the blue ball. The light traveled from the Sun to the camera, not the object to the camera.

You changed your answer before to explain why the light at the camera is blue. Reversing back to your previous answer means you can no longer explain that.

So where did the blue light at the film come from, and why is it blue?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I wasn't asking if the light travelled from the object to the camera at the moment the picture was taken. I was asking about where the light came from before that.

First you said it came straight from the sun. Then you said (as quoted above) that it originally came from the sun via the object along the way. Now you're saying it came straight from the sun again.

It initially came from the Sun but it had to strike the object for the object to absorb the Sun's wavelengths.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How am I meant to make any sense of your position when it reverses with every single post!?!?

It's very confusing because of words like reflect, strike, travel, and so many others. I'm trying not to use the words "carry" or "mirror image" anymore.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If the light didn't arrive by way of the blue object (which absorbs the non-blue light and reflects only blue light), then why is it blue? If it was light which arrived directly from the sun, then it should be a combination of all wavelengths, right? So why is it blue?

Because the light did arrive at the object. I just meant that light comes from the Sun which is always white light. It's blue because the object absorbs the wavelengths that are non-blue, allowing only the blue wavelength to be present at the eye or a camera.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's exactly right. My only disagreement is that the light previously traveled from the object to the camera to provide the image of the blue ball. The light traveled from the Sun to the camera, not the object to the camera. We will be able to see the blue ball from any distance as long as the ball is large enough to be seen, is bright enough to be seen (because there is enough light in which to see it), and is within our field of view whether it be the eye or a camera. The only difference between the two is that the retina uses the light to see the actual object (due to the efferent process), while the camera uses the same light to create a photograph.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why does the white light (a combination of all colors) from the sun change to only blue light when it arrives at the camera, when that light has had no contact with the object being photographed? What makes it change? What prevented the other wavelengths of light from arriving too?

It has had contact with the object being photographed otherwise the photons present at the camera would be white. What prevented the other wavelengths from showing up was the absorption properties of the object.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why isn't light from the sun which has bounced off the surface of the object also at the camera? Or if this light is also present at the camera, then why isn't this light also interacting with the film instead of just the light which has come straight from the sun?

I think I really confused you when I said light initially comes from the Sun. The light coming from the Sun has to be striking the object. I thought I clarified that. The light from the object is at the camera if the camera is aimed at the object and it is this light which is interacting with the film.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How can the camera use light from the Sun, which is just a combination of light of ALL wavelengths, to create a photographic image of the BLUE object? You did say it was the wavelength of this light from the sun at the camera which determines the color of the image. Light from the Sun is not blue. It is a combination of all colors.

A camera uses whatever wavelengths are interacting with the film. If there are no objects absorbing certain wavelengths and revealing others, we would get white light, which is a combination of all colors.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It initially came from the Sun but it had to strike the object for the object to absorb the Sun's wavelengths.

It's very confusing because of words like reflect, strike, travel, and so many others. I'm trying not to use the words "carry" or "mirror image" anymore.

Because the light did arrive at the object. I just meant that light comes from the Sun which is always white light. It's blue because the object absorbs the wavelengths that are non-blue, allowing only the blue wavelength to be present at the eye or a camera.

It has had contact with the object being photographed otherwise the photons present at the camera would be white. What prevented the other wavelengths from showing up was the absorption properties of the object.

I think I really confused you when I said light initially comes from the Sun. The light coming from the Sun has to be striking the object. I thought I clarified that. The light from the object is at the camera if the camera is aimed at the object and it is this light which is interacting with the film.

A camera uses whatever wavelengths are interacting with the film. If there are no objects absorbing certain wavelengths and revealing others, we would get white light, which is a combination of all colors.

Okay, now that you've reversed your position for a third time, can you re-answer these earlier questions:

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

Has that light travelled from the sun to the camera by way of the object being photographed, or did it just travel straight from the sun to the camera while bypassing the object completely (i.e. without ever travelling from the object to the camera)?

[davidm]

It's quite amusing when peacegirl flounders and flails desperately. She always ends up contradicting herself, changing positions, changing back, etc. That's because what she's is trying to defend is incoherent codswallop. You'd think this "astute observation" based on "sound reasoning" could be astutely observed and soundly reasoned out by others. Turns out even peacegirl can't do it!