A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't have to reference anything about light if it's proved that efferent sight is a reality.

But efferent vision is not proven, and never can be so long as your own account of it remains logically contradictory. Until you can resolve that contradiction (within your own account, and not just between efferent vision and current science) efferent vision isn't even a logical possibility.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know you're trying to create an inconsistency with cameras to prove that if there is a delayed image, then that means the photograph would be different from what the eyes see, which it never is. That would mean that light travels to the eye as well. I believe that your approach to this problem is logically consistent but not sound. That means somewhere along the line the basic properties of light have to be reevaluated in terms of efferent sight, if it's shown (through further investigation) that there is something to this claim.

I'm not creating the inconsistency, you are. Until you can resolve it, efferent vision is not even logically possible. You first need to work out which parts of the basic properties of light your account needs to reject. And then you will have to face up to the empirical observations and actual evidence we have showing these basic properties to be factually correct.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because this is not how he came upon this finding. If you follow the reasoning of science as it stands, you will always conclude that Lessans was wrong because there will be contradictions, just as there are contradictions with his claim of determinism. I believe they are both right and until proven otherwise, I stand with Lessans. You can think I'm a fundie, it's okay.

My question had nothing to do with how Lessans came to his conclusions. I'm asking why you show no interest in resolving contradictions between your own beliefs. Why is your faith more important to you than the consistency and truth of your own beliefs? I'm not asking you to follow "the reasoning of science as it stands", but rather the direct implications of your own stated beliefs.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Thank you. So you've agreed that the color of the photograph is determined by the wavelength of the light at the camera, which has previously travelled from the object to get there. So if the object is blue at the time that light is arriving at the camera, and was not blue at any moment before that, then...

Why is the arriving light of blue wavelength?

What color wavelength was that light just before it arrived at the camera?

Bump.

[Dragar]

So, peacegirl, I've answered your demands (again). So here's some of my unanswered questions.

What is an image? It is there, on the back of say a pinhole camera, even if we don't look at it. So what is it?

And two new ones:

How can we tell if an object is 'out of range' or 'out of the field of view' of a camera?

Since you accept we can detect light, do you accept that we can work out where the light is coming from when it enters a camera? Even roughly, such as 'in the top/bottom/right side/left-side of the viewing angle of the camera'?

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, here are your current answers:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?
Light

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?
At the film.

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?
The wavelengths.

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

5. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?
Of course not.

6. Can light travel faster than light?
No.

7. Is wavelength a property of light?
Yes.

8. Can light travel without any wavelength?
No.

9. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?
Objects reflect light.

10. What does a reflection consist of?
Light.

11. What does light consist of?
Photons.

12. 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.

Do you agree that real-time photography is impossible given these answers?

If so, then which of these above answers do you think can be plausibly changed?

If not, then please answer the following: You've agreed that the color of the photograph is determined by the wavelength of the light at the camera, which has previously travelled from the object to get there. So if the object is blue at the time that light is arriving at the camera, and was not blue at any moment before that, then...

Why is the arriving light of blue wavelength?

What color wavelength was that light just before it arrived at the camera?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought a lens is a collector of light so if the wavelength that bounces off an object is traveling straight toward the lens, why don't we see the image on film if the object is just out of the field of view?

If it's out of the field of view, we don't get an image because the camera can't focus light from an object that is not comeing from the object to the camera. If the light travels in a straight line from the object to the camera, the object is in the field of view. What part of this do you not understand?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If it's out of the field of view, we don't get an image because the camera can't focus light from an object that is not comeing from the object to the camera. If the light travels in a straight line from the object to the camera, the object is in the field of view. What part of this do you not understand?

peacegirl uses 'out of field of view' to mean 'out of range'. Like if the object becomes too small to see. Of course, she doesn't read my explanations as to why we can't see things when this happens, or she chooses to ignore them. She also doesn't appear to know what an image is.

She does accept we can detect light using telescopes, and presumably also cameras. I wonder if she'd accept we can work out where the light is coming from?

Note that we're half-way to making a crude 4-pixel image if we can determine if the light is coming from up, down, left or right!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

[Spacemonkey"]But efferent vision is not proven, and never can be so long as your own account of it remains logically contradictory. Until you can resolve that contradiction (within your own account, and not just between efferent vision and current science) efferent vision isn't even a logical possibility.

I don't see where there's a logical contradiction with my own account.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know you're trying to create an inconsistency with cameras to prove that if there is a delayed image, then that means the photograph would be different from what the eyes see, which it never is. That would mean that light travels to the eye as well. I believe that your approach to this problem is logically consistent but not sound. That means somewhere along the line the basic properties of light have to be reevaluated in terms of efferent sight, if it's shown (through further investigation) that there is something to this claim.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not creating the inconsistency, you are. Until you can resolve it, efferent vision is not even logically possible. You first need to work out which parts of the basic properties of light your account needs to reject. And then you will have to face up to the empirical observations and actual evidence we have showing these basic properties to be factually correct.

Are you kidding? I'd be here another 1000 pages and there would be no progress. I really am tired of haggling over this. The only way out of this is to do more empirical studies on the brain and the eyes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because this is not how he came upon this finding. If you follow the reasoning of science as it stands, you will always conclude that Lessans was wrong because there will be contradictions, just as there are contradictions with his claim of determinism. I believe they are both right and until proven otherwise, I stand with Lessans. You can think I'm a fundie, it's okay.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

My question had nothing to do with how Lessans came to his conclusions. I'm asking why you show no interest in resolving contradictions between your own beliefs. Why is your faith more important to you than the consistency and truth of your own beliefs? I'm not asking you to follow "the reasoning of science as it stands", but rather the direct implications of your own stated beliefs.

I don't see a contradiction or inconsistency with my belief. You see an inconsistency because you believe that the first photon has to arrive at the lens before the second and so on. But you're missing the whole meaning of "efferent." I believe there is another way of looking at it, and I've already expressed it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl uses 'out of field of view' to mean 'out of range'. Like if the object becomes too small to see. Of course, she doesn't read my explanations as to why we can't see things when this happens, or she chooses to ignore them. She also doesn't appear to know what an image is.

I know what an image is. It's a two-dimensional picture.

Originally Posted by Dragar

She does accept we can detect light using telescopes, and presumably also cameras. I wonder if she'd accept we can work out where the light is coming from?

Note that we're half-way to making a crude 4-pixel image if we can determine if the light is coming from up, down, left or right!

I never said that we can't take a picture of light. What do you think a rainbow is?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what an image is. It's a two-dimensional picture.

'Picture' is just anothe word for 'image'. I don't want synonyms, I want to know what it is in terms of other things. What is an image?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that we can't take a picture of light. What do you think a rainbow is?

Oh, so we can 'take a picture of light' (lol). So why can't we 'take a picture of light' that has been reflected by real objects (and not by moisture in the atmosphere, which is what happens for us to see rainbows)?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If it's out of the field of view, we don't get an image because the camera can't focus light from an object that is not comeing from the object to the camera. If the light travels in a straight line from the object to the camera, the object is in the field of view. What part of this do you not understand?

I don't understand why the camera cannot focus the light if it's in a straight line with it. It doesn't add up.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't understand why the camera cannot focus the light if it's in a straight line with it. It doesn't add up.

Maybe read my posts?

By the way, how do we tell if an object is out of range of a camera?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This was not a made up guy. His name was Dave.

Of course.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you this already but you conveniently forgot.

We've never discussed this topic before. I guess you conveniently made that up and launched it out your shitter.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This person was not imaginary; she was a close relative.

Of course.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

She was getting sicker and sicker from the psychiatrist's advice and the drugs she was given.

It's a good thing this is a self-aggrandizing bullshit story. Otherwise, one might be concerned about a seventh-grade dropout whose principal talents lie in the fields of and clown punching and 9-ball dispensing medical diagnoses and advice.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't hate medicine;

Sorry, but that's factually incorrect.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

That's the thing about Lessans' book. Absent the verbosity, poor grammar, incorrect word use and voluminous butthurt over academics and presidents not taking him seriously, the Sacred Text would have been fifty pages or less in length. The version peacegirl had online was 589 pages, over ten times longer than necessary.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl uses 'out of field of view' to mean 'out of range'. Like if the object becomes too small to see. Of course, she doesn't read my explanations as to why we can't see things when this happens, or she chooses to ignore them. She also doesn't appear to know what an image is.

I know what an image is. It's a two-dimensional picture.

Originally Posted by Dragar"'Picture' is just anothe word for 'image'. I don't want synonyms, I want to know what it is in terms of other things. What is an image?[/quote]

It's a representation of the actual thing. Is that better?

[quote="Dragar

She does accept we can detect light using telescopes, and presumably also cameras. I wonder if she'd accept we can work out where the light is coming from?

Note that we're half-way to making a crude 4-pixel image if we can determine if the light is coming from up, down, left or right!

I never said that we can't take a picture of light. What do you think a rainbow is?

Originally Posted by Dragar

Oh, so we can take a picture of light. So why can't we take a picture of light that has been reflected by real objects (and not by moisture in the atmosphere, which is what happens for us to see rainbows)?

We see rainbows in real time as well. Why? Because the rainbow is in our field of view. If the rainbow was not in our field of view, we wouldn't be able to see it either.

[Dragar]

We see rainbows in real time also because the rainbow is in our field of vision. Light has certain properties that interact with the atmosphere and allow us to see all kinds of phenomenon, but we're talking about objects that have their own properties.

That's a dodge. We can take 'pictures of light' when it comes to rainbows; why can't we 'take pictures of light' reflected from objects? Answer the question; don't start rambling about things that have nothing to do with what I said.

And by the way, how do we tell if an object is in the field of view of a camera?

[Dragar]

It's a representation of the actual thing. Is that better?

Sure, that's a bit better. But representations require something to be doing the representing. That's what represent means. So, when we have an image formed on the back of a camera, what is doing the representation?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl uses 'out of field of view' to mean 'out of range'. Like if the object becomes too small to see. Of course, she doesn't read my explanations as to why we can't see things when this happens, or she chooses to ignore them. She also doesn't appear to know what an image is.

She does accept we can detect light using telescopes, and presumably also cameras. I wonder if she'd accept we can work out where the light is coming from?

Note that we're half-way to making a crude 4-pixel image if we can determine if the light is coming from up, down, left or right!

Many pages ago Peacegirl introduced this impossable little puzzle and indicated that the object was relatively close but 'out of the field of view' and in a direct line of sight with the camera. She was setting a self contradictory test that could never happen as a condition that she would accept that efferent vision was not true. This bit of word salad is her way of clinging to her belief since no-one can demonstrate what she demands. Actually a very clever phrasing of the test to eliminate the possability of disproving Lessans.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You see an inconsistency because you believe that the first photon has to arrive at the lens before the second and so on. It is the only logical conclusion, according to you, so that would negate efferent vision right from the start.

Are you suggesting that somehow light does not arrive at the lens in the order that it was emitted. In other words light from the source, just arrives whenever and just because some is emitted first that does not mean that it will arrive first?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't understand why the camera cannot focus the light if it's in a straight line with it. It doesn't add up.

The camera does focus the light that is in a straight line with it, which means it is also in the field of view. They go together you can't seperate them. 'In the line of sight' means the same thing as 'in a straight line with the camera', which means the same thing as 'in the field of view'.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Why are you so *#$* nasty Stephen?

I know I mentioned early on in this thread that this was not made up.

Please don't go back to the old Stephen. You were more than nuts and bald and a son of a bitch.

I knew him, you didn't.

That's the thing about Lessans' book. Absent the verbosity, poor grammar, incorrect word use and voluminous butthurt over academics and presidents not taking him seriously, the Sacred Text would have been fifty pages or less in length. The version peacegirl had online was 589 pages, over ten times longer than necessary.

Actually his last book was 89 pages. Blame the verbosity on me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Are you suggesting that somehow light does not arrive at the lens in the order that it was emitted. In other words light from the source, just arrives whenever and just because some is emitted first that does not mean that it will arrive first?

I'm saying that light is a condition of sight. This means that we see the object in real time using light as a medium. What's with you doc?

[peacegirl]

With all the wolves smelling blood and waiting to pounce, this subject is going to have to come to a close.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So, peacegirl, I've answered your demands (again). So here's some of my unanswered questions.

What is an image? It is there, on the back of say a pinhole camera, even if we don't look at it. So what is it?

And two new ones:

How can we tell if an object is 'out of range' or 'out of the field of view' of a camera?

Since you accept we can detect light, do you accept that we can work out where the light is coming from when it enters a camera? Even roughly, such as 'in the top/bottom/right side/left-side of the viewing angle of the camera'?

Of course we can tell where the light is coming from depending on where it lands on the film.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if you understood this knowledge, you would see that there is a premise, a body of content, and a conclusion. His reasoning from beginning to end is accurate. Empirical evidence will only confirm what he knew all along. Neuroscience is not the only field that can provide hard evidence. Talk about narrow minded. I can see that you understood nothing regarding his first discovery, for if you did you would be able to understand why man's will is not free, and why a no blame environment would prevent the very thing that blame and punishment could never accomplish.

Premises, conclusions and reasoning are NOT hard data nor empirical evidence.

Hard data is numbers, consistent images, physical measurements, that sort of thing. Empirical evidence might include multiple survey statistics.

Neither are possible with the question of "free will" at this time. We can't measure greater satisfaction, we can't detect all factors entering into a decision being made in the brain. And speaking of the brain, which branch of science do you think is most likely to provide hard data about this organ, if not neuroscience?

So, it's philosophical at this time, and Lessans reasoning was poor in my opinion, and I don't really care about free will.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm saying that light is a condition of sight. This means that we see the object in real time using light as a medium. What's with you doc?

Does light arrive in the order that it is emitted? Do you know?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

With all the wolves smelling blood and waiting to pounce, this subject is going to have to come to a close.

You are once again retreating behind your histrionic persecution complex.

Nobody is a wolf out for blood. You are aware this is a defense mechanism for you, aren't you?