A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The brain and the eyes are one, in a sense, because they are so closely connected. I happen to like this analogy of the brain looking through the eyes, as a window, because it allows someone to visualize what is going on, even though it may not be a perfect analogy. There are very few perfect analogies, but they can still serve a purpose. If you don't like this analogy, don't use it.

I explain to you why your analogy is completely retarded, and your entire response is that you like it anyway?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I give up. There is no meeting of the minds because you are ignoring the entire claim that distance is not a factor in this account. If distance is not a factor, can you at least admit that maybe what a person sees has nothing to do with the time it takes for photons to arrive?

You can't just twitch your nose and magic away distance. Distance must be a factor in any model because it physically exists in reality.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I give up.

No you don't. That's a lie.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no meeting of the minds because you are ignoring the entire claim that distance is not a factor in this account.

Because that claim is obviously wrong. Distance is still a factor in your account because you need to explain where the photons at the eye came from and how they got there. If they came from a distant source then you need to explain how they covered that distance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If distance is not a factor, can you at least admit that maybe what a person sees has nothing to do with the time it takes for photons to arrive?

Only if you can tell me where the photons at the retina came from and how they got there.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seriously LadyShea, if light keeps dispersing, there would be no telescope large enough that could capture an image coming from that light. This is more absurd than any fundie idea I've ever heard. Can you not see why this absurd, or are you so trapped in your way of thinking that you can't even entertain the idea?

Why do you think the Hubble had to gather light coming from the same exact direction for 10 full days before an image could be formed?

A bucket can be filled drop by drop given enough time.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you do that LadyShea? You are the queen of cutting and pasting large portions of text which you think will discredit Lessans. I am trying to find a way to explain this version of sight that will satisfy scientists, and I'll look for help in my effort to do just that. Organized light is different than photons, even though it's all light. That's why we can see light coming from a laser, or we can see words on a computer screen, but we can't see photons.

I use what I've found to back up my arguments. It's called evidential support.

You take words you don't understand and use them incorrectly. Such as dispersion. That is a function of an independent entity traveling away from a source, yet you insist that non traveling photons that are not independent of the source disperse somehow.

Whether light is organized or not has nothing to do with its visibility. You are claiming it does because you didn't understand what you read. Light is photons. Organized light is organized photons. There are invisible lasers (infrared), which are organized light, and there is visible light that is not organized...like sunlight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I use what I've found to back up my arguments. It's called evidential support.

You take words you don't understand and use them incorrectly. Such as dispersion. That is a function of an independent entity traveling away from a source, yet you insist that non traveling photons that are not independent of the source disperse somehow.

Whether light is organized or not has nothing to do with its visibility. You are claiming it does because you didn't understand what you read. Light is photons. Organized light is organized photons. There are invisible lasers (infrared), which are organized light, and there is visible light that is not organized...like sunlight.

What does this have to do with anything. You need to reboot.

LadyShea, I'm sorry to say that you're trying to find ways to discredit his claim because you have given your allegience to science, so what science says is right. Afterall, afferent vision has been accepted as fact since millenium. Doesn't this prove that science is right? I am asking you to release your beliefs for a moment, to see if what Lessans explains makes any sense. You won't do that. You are fighting against it because you are determined to make science right at all costs. Does this sound familiar with the woo's? I am not trying to embarrass you, but there is a similarity. Do you not see why this is causing a serious problem in validation of any truth?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am asking you to release your beliefs for a moment, to see if what Lessans explains makes any sense.

We've tried that and it doesn't. You keep positing light at the retina without being able to explain where it came from or how it got there. That doesn't make sense.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true LadyShea, but there are different configurations of light that make some visible and some not. Laser light is visible because it's organized light. We can see headlights too, because it's organized light. It's light used in a certain way. Flashlights are organized so we are able to see the light that is emitted differently than what a photon provides. Photons provide light, but they aren't organized in the same way.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does this have to do with anything. You need to reboot.

Your claims about organized light are incorrect and confused. You need to reboot.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I'm sorry to say that you're trying to find ways to discredit his claim because you have given your allegience to science, so what science says is right. Afterall, afferent vision has been accepted as fact since millenium. Doesn't this prove that science is right? I am asking you to release your beliefs for a moment, to see if what Lessans explains makes any sense. You won't do that. You are fighting against it because you are determined to make science right at all costs. Does this sound familiar with the woo's? I am not trying to embarrass you, but there is a similarity. Do you not see why this is causing a serious problem in validation of any truth?

I am not embarrassed because this is all projection. You know nothing of my mindset or motivations so substitute your own. I am not the one with an emotionally held belief system that I've dedicated my life to promoting and defending, that would would be you. If I cared so much about my "belief" in science and in promoting and defending its views, I would have become a scientist. I have not given my allegiance to anything but the facts.

Once again, I follow the evidence when it comes to factual claims. You have none.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We've tried that and it doesn't. You keep positing light at the retina without being able to explain where it came from or how it got there. That doesn't make sense.

If Chewbacca doesn't make sense, you must acquit!

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1138096]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true LadyShea, but there are different configurations of light that make some visible and some not. Laser light is visible because it's organized light. We can see headlights too, because it's organized light. It's light used in a certain way. Flashlights are organized so we are able to see the light that is emitted differently than what a photon provides. Photons provide light, but they aren't organized in the same way.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Whether light is organized or not has nothing to do with its visibility.

Of course it does. You don't think there's a difference with light that is organized and light that isn't? Could it be that you don't want to know, as this would implicate you? Just wondering.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are claiming it does because you didn't understand what you read. Light is photons. Organized light is organized photons. There are invisible lasers (infrared), which are organized light, and there is visible light that is not organized...like sunlight.

What does this have to do with anything. You need to reboot.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your claims about organized light are incorrect and confused. You need to reboot.

Oh really? Show me how right you are when you don't have your cronies to back you up. You are so self-righteous in your ignorance because you don't know what is true, only what you have been taught is true. You don't have an independent thought in your head.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I'm sorry to say that you're trying to find ways to discredit his claim because you have given your allegience to science, so what science says is right. Afterall, afferent vision has been accepted as fact since millenium. Doesn't this prove that science is right? I am asking you to release your beliefs for a moment, to see if what Lessans explains makes any sense. You won't do that. You are fighting against it because you are determined to make science right at all costs. Does this sound familiar with the woo's? I am not trying to embarrass you, but there is a similarity. Do you not see why this is causing a serious problem in validation of any truth?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not embarrassed because this is all projection.

Where is the projection, mind you? This was an observation, not something that came from my dearly held beliefs.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You know nothing of my mindset or motivations so substitute your own.

I know enough to say that all you are doing is copying and pasting without an ounce of true understanding.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not the one with an emotionally held belief system that I've dedicated my life to promoting and defending, that would would be you.

So you are telling me you have no emotional involvement at all? Please be honest here, or I will see right through your lies. Why are you making me so different than you? Isn't this what you have done; tried to protect and defend your worldview? How are you so different LadyShea that gives you the right to be so full of yourself?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If I cared so much about my "belief" in science and in promoting and defending its views, I would have become a scientist. I have not given my allegiance to anything but the facts.

That is such BS. You are grasping at anything that can give you validation, but it isn't working for good reason. Just because you understand what science is trying to explain, does not mean you have to become a scientist. This is the nuttiest thing I've heard yet.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Once again, I follow the evidence when it comes to factual claims. You have none.

Factual claims is the elephant in the room. You cannot make what we are disputing fact, so as not to give any attention to the idea that the premise is wrong. Talk about circular, you are amazingly good at it, which makes you convince yourself that you know what you're talking about, when this is the furthest from the truth.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does this have to do with anything. You need to reboot.

LadyShea, I'm sorry to say that you're trying to find ways to discredit his claim because you have given your allegience to science, so what science says is right. Afterall, afferent vision has been accepted as fact since millenium. Doesn't this prove that science is right? I am asking you to release your beliefs for a moment, to see if what Lessans explains makes any sense. You won't do that. You are fighting against it because you are determined to make science right at all costs. Does this sound familiar with the woo's? I am not trying to embarrass you, but there is a similarity. Do you not see why this is causing a serious problem in validation of any truth?

Well at least we all agree that efferent sight is unscientific

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Oh really? Show me how I have to reboot and you don't. Show me how right you are because you have science to back you up. Can you show me without this backup, how right you are?

Yeah, Shea. You would not talk like such a bigshot if you had to make stuff up as you go along, like PG has to do! Let's see you prove that afferent sight is correct using only non-scientific and irrational means!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks for repeating the standard theory, but we all know what the standard theory is, so why repeat it?

Sometimes it helps to review what actually happens in the real world, the standard model does not claim that light caries an image. The standard model includes the concept that light is photons, or photons are light, just 2 different words for the same thing, also that photons are either absorbed or reflected from an object and once reflected travel away from the object at c and are independent of that object. Photons also travel independently away from a source. Photons do not 'rest' and are always traveling, or they are not photons. All of the standard model has been tested and verified, and this testing also includes tests and experiments intended to disprove the standard model, these alternate tests have all failed.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Whether light is organized or not has nothing to do with its visibility

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it does. You don't think there's a difference with light that is organized and light that isn't? Could it be that you don't want to know, as this would implicate you? Just wondering.

There is a difference between organized light and light that is not organized, however that difference is not whether it is visible. Some organized light is not visible, some disorganized light is visible.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? Show me how right you are when you don't have your cronies to back you up. Can you show me without this backup? I really doubt it.

Edited version: Oh really? Show me how right you are when you don't have your cronies to back you up. You are so self-righteous in your ignorance because you don't know what is true, only what you have been taught is true. You don't have an independent thought in your head.

I did show you when I said this, which you conveniently ignored. No cronies "backing me up"

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light is photons. Organized light is organized photons. There are invisible lasers (infrared), which are organized light, and there is visible light that is not organized...like sunlight.

Are the above statements not true? If you feel they are not true, please explain why you think that and what evidence you have that they are not true.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yeah, Shea. You would not talk like such a bigshot if you had to make stuff up as you go along, like PG has to do! Let's see you prove that afferent sight is correct using only non-scientific and irrational means!

No shit! What am I supposed to use for back up when discussing science if not science? Tea leaves? Tarot Cards? Thoughts projected into my head from aliens?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light.
Laser Light

Laser light is very different from normal light. Laser light has the following properties:
The light released is monochromatic. It contains one specific wavelength of light (one specific color). The wavelength of light is determined by the amount of energy released when the electron drops to a lower orbit.
The light released is coherent. It is “organized” -- each photon moves in step with the others. This means that all of the photons have wave fronts that launch in unison.

The light is very directional. A laser light has a very tight beam and is very strong and concentrated. A flashlight, on the other hand, releases light in many directions, and the light is very weak and diffuse.
To make these three properties occur takes something called stimulated emission. This does not occur in your ordinary flashlight -- in a flashlight, all of the atoms release their photons randomly. In stimulated emission, photon emission is organized.

The photon that any atom releases has a certain wavelength that is dependent on the energy difference between the excited state and the ground state. If this photon (possessing a certain energy and phase) should encounter another atom that has an electron in the same excited state, stimulated emission can occur. The first photon can stimulate or induce atomic emission such that the subsequent emitted photon (from the second atom) vibrates with the same frequency and direction as the incoming photon.

The other key to a laser is a pair of mirrors, one at each end of the lasing medium. Photons, with a very specific wavelength and phase, reflect off the mirrors to travel back and forth through the lasing medium. In the process, they stimulate other electrons to make the downward energy jump and can cause the emission of more photons of the same wavelength and phase. A cascade effect occurs, and soon we have propagated many, many photons of the same wavelength and phase. The mirror at one end of the laser is "half-silvered," meaning it reflects some light and lets some light through. The light that makes it through is the laser light.

Peacegirl posted this explination of Laser Light and then demonstrated that she did not understand what was quoted. In the article it clearly states that a flashlight and other light, that is not a laser, is not organized, but that laser light is organized. She seems to think that flashlights, headlights and other sources of light emit organized light, but the article clearly states that lasers are the only source of organized light, and explaines why. Apparently anything technical in nature is beyond Peacegirl's comprehension.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where is the projection, mind you? This was an observation, not something that came from my dearly held beliefs.

How do I know it's projection? All I have to do is change the nouns in your own diatribe. You obviously are turning your own feelings about what you are experiencing into an accusation against me.

peacegirl, I'm sorry to say that you're trying to find ways to discredit science's claims because you have given your allegience to Lessans, so what Lessans says is right. Afterall, efferent vision came from astute but indirect observations. Doesn't this prove that Lessans is right? I am asking you to release your beliefs for a moment, to see if what science explains makes any sense. You won't do that. You are fighting against it because you are determined to make Lessans right at all costs. Does this sound familiar with the woo's? I am not trying to embarrass you, but there is a similarity. Do you not see why this is causing a serious problem in validation of any truth?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Factual claims is the elephant in the room. You cannot make what we are disputing fact, so as not to give any attention to the idea that the premise is wrong. Talk about circular, you are amazingly good at it, which makes you convince yourself that you know what you're talking about, when this is the furthest from the truth.

You have gone irrational in your snit. But, perhaps my terminology was confusing. So lets change factual claims to claims of fact as that is what was meant by the term.

Lessans and you have made claims of fact...you claim efferent vision is fact. Science makes claims of fact as well, that vision is the result of light being used to create images in the brain via afferent processes.

When anyone makes claims of fact, I follow the evidence. You have none, science has a lot.

[ChristinaM]

Peacegirl, do you agree with scientists that the earth is not flat? (This isn't a trick question, just another yes or no one.)

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by HowStuffWorks

laser light is organized in a coherent manner so that each photon follows the same course as the other, like well-trained troops marching. Additionally, ordinary light is diffused without specific direction unlike light from a laser, which is compact and directional with a tight beam. Laser light is monochromatic (all one color) because it is all one wavelength as determined by the amount of energy released.

How does laser light differ from ordinary light? - Curiosity

See, nothing about visibility.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know enough to say that all you are doing is copying and pasting without an ounce of true understanding.

What is it I've copied and pasted about light or vision without understanding it? You are the one who C&Pd about organized light and then completely misunderstood and misrepresented it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So you are telling me you have no emotional involvement at all?

Huh? How did you misread what I clearly said?

I have no emotionally held belief system that I've dedicated my life to promoting and defending. I did not say I lack emotional involvement completely.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you making me so different than you?

You have an emotionally held belief system you have dedicated your life to promoting and defending, and I do not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Isn't this what you have done; tried to protect and defend your worldview?

No. My worldview is not under attack or in danger.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How are you so different LadyShea that gives you the right to be so full of yourself?

My understanding of organized vs. disorganized light is correct and yours is incorrect.

I don't think that makes me "full of myself", being confident that I am correct about something, but your definition of being full of oneself may differ.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is such BS. You are grasping at anything that can give you validation, but it isn't working for good reason.

What is BS? You accused me of defending my "beliefs" "at all costs" and of giving my "allegience" to science... as if science was something I would sacrifice my life for or dedicate my life to as you have with Lessans book. If I cared that much, if "at all costs" was remotely applicable to my thinking, I would have dedicated my life to science by becoming a scientist.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because you understand what science is trying to explain, does not mean you have to become a scientist.

Of course not, which has nothing to do with anything I said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the nuttiest thing I've heard yet.

LOL then you haven't been listening to yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Well at least we all agree that efferent sight is unscientific

The fact that he wasn't a scientist in the formal sense (you know, having the right credentials) does not make this knowledge unscientific.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Factual claims is the elephant in the room. You cannot make what we are disputing fact, so as not to give any attention to the idea that the premise is wrong. Talk about circular, you are amazingly good at it, which makes you convince yourself that you know what you're talking about, when this is the furthest from the truth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have gone irrational in your snit. But, perhaps my terminology was confusing. So lets change factual claims to claims of fact as that is what was meant by the term.

I don't see the difference between a factual claim and a claim of fact. Aren't they both synonymous?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans and you have made claims of fact...you claim efferent vision is fact. Science makes claims of fact as well, that vision is the result of light being used to create images in the brain via afferent processes.

When anyone makes claims of fact, I follow the evidence. You have none, science has a lot.

So tell me, how can the largest telescope ever gather enough light from a past event (e.g., Columbus discovering America) to ever get an image when that light has dispersed beyond the point of resolution?

[Vivisectus]

The fact that he wasn't a scientist in the formal sense (you know, having the right credentials) does not make this knowledge unscientific.

That would be true, if that was the problem. The problem is that he was not a scientist in any sense at all. The ideas in the book are deeply unscientific - nothing more than a bunch of vaguely connected faith-claims and presuppositions held together by confused language and egotism.