A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not plugging in any assumptions. There are no assumptions here at all. I'm simply asking whether or not certain things are possible options or not for your own account. You can answer either Yes or No - no assumptions are involved.

Your failure to even address the problems proves that it's not plausible.

It does involve time. You've already conceded this. The photons at the retina came from somewhere else, and didn't travel infinitely fast or teleport, so they had to have a travel time.

Your analysis fails because it doesn't even bother to posit a mechanism.

Once again, I haven't been saying anything at all about images.

Your account fails on your reasoning, because it is still flatly contradictory and fails to explain where the photons at the retina came from or how they got there.

I am not going back to this discussion because you will think that this model is implausible coming from your software program, or your plug ins. You are trying very hard to fill in the blanks of what you imagine to be a violation of physics, but you're wrong, and until someone else can explain this better than me, I'm done. This conversation will end with you thinking you proved this model wrong, and I am not going to allow that to happen, not because I would fall apart if he was wrong, but because the way you're going about figuring this out is inadequate. It is like putting the wrong key in the keyhole. It won't ever fit, but that still does not mean that there is anything wrong with the keyhole. You're just not finding the right key that will open the door.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not going back to this discussion because you will think that this model is implausible coming from your software program, or your plug ins.

What the fuck are you even talking about? There is no software program. There are no plug ins. The only assumptions here are your own.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just not finding the right key that will open the door.

You mean YOU can't find a way to explain your own impossible model.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where is this my stupid strawman? Doesn't light bring something to the eye, according to the theory? Yes or no?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, light doesn't bring anything to the eye.

It brings a pattern even though it's just light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is it that allows us to see an image if not for the light (the non-absorbed photons) that are interacting with the retina? Why are you shooting yourself in the foot?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why do you keep talking about images when we are talking about light? Non-absorbed photons are not images. They are light.

If you don't know by now what I mean by images, I don't know what to say. It's the pattern that allows someone to decode an image (according to the afferent model) and the pattern that allows us to see the object (in the efferent model).

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is known, for a fact, is that light that travels until or unless it is absorbed. Light that is reflected or refracted or transmitted still travels because it is still light and retains the immutable properties of light. This can be empirically observed and measured. It is also known that light has a wavelength or frequency. All light has this, also an immutable property of light...so this statement below is nonsensical.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who the hell is arguing with this?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are. You said " white light (the full spectrum which has a different wavelength/frequency)" as if white light has its own frequency, which is doesn't

Fine, but it does have its own wavelength.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way to observe a light wave directly to see if it's a partial spectrum or a the full spectrum

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, there is...optical equipment like spectrometers do this.

Great! So there should be no problem in understanding what we see based on this knowledge.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Huh? We already know that we can see partial spectrum light. You are the only one who doesn't understand this.

I do understand this. But where does this bring us any closer to answering the question of whether we see in real time or delayed time?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who said anything about infrared? And who is confused aside from you?

Then why did you bring up the fact that my son is a radiologist? Of course they have equipment that can see things on x-ray that we can't see without this equipment. So what? What does this have to do with this discussion? Please tie it together.

How Infrared "X-ray" Works

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What the fuck are you even talking about? There is no software program. There are no plug ins. The only assumptions here are your own.

You mean YOU can't find a way to explain your own impossible model.

Let's leave it at that, okay Spacemonkey? You won. You should be happy.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It brings a pattern even though it's just light.

No, it arrives in a pattern. it doesn't bring anything. This is an important difference.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Fine, but it does have its own wavelength.

Damn, that's stupid. Even for you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let's leave it at that, okay Spacemonkey? You won. You should be happy.

Why should I be happy that you're fake-conceding again?

What does it say about the plausibility of your account of vision that you can't answer even the simplest questions about it?

Why should I "leave it at that" when your account is still flatly contradictory yet you're still insisting that it's plausible?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light travels until or unless it is absorbed. It cannot and does not "peter out".

Some light would interact with matter that absorbs it and cease being light, any light that this does not happen to will continue traveling.

There won't be any new light emitted since the Sun is off, however the light it had already emitted, and hadn't been absorbed by something, would still out there traveling.

This does not even make sense. If an object absorbs light, and the rest of the light travels until it strikes another object, how can that light be effective if it is not the full spectrum? What happens if the blue wavelength was absorbed by the last object? What happens to the next object if it absorbs all but blue? How will the light allow us to see blue if there is no blue wavelength in the light?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have stated that when we see something, photons are located at the retina. Spacemonkey is asking about the mechanism by which photons became located at the retina. Your whole last non-response is a big weasel.

You have said that light photons are located at the retina when someone sees the Sun.
Are photons located at the retina of a blind person who is facing the Sun but can't see it? If yes how did they get there. If no, why not?
Are photons located on the leaves a tree in that same sunlight? If yes how did they get there. If no, why not?

We're talking about the requirements for efferent vision. If light is not surrounding the leaf, we won't be able to see it because the light has not arrived. But if the brain is looking out through the eyes at the external world, and the object (regardless of how far away it is) meets those requirements, we would be able to see a faraway object and not see the leaf that is in front of us.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This does not even make sense. If an object absorbs light, and the rest of the light travels until it strikes another object, how can that light be effective if it is not the full spectrum? What happens if the blue wavelength was absorbed by the last object? What happens to the next object if it absorbs all but blue? How will the light allow us to see blue if there is no blue wavelength in the light?

Experiment and find out for yourself!

Turn the lights out in your room at night and shine a red torchlight at a blue object. Does it still look blue?

There's your answer.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who said anything about infrared? And who is confused aside from you?

In another post there was a reference to a 'Red Laser' that when shown in the right direction couldn't be seen. Peacegirl is confusing this reference with 'infrared light' which is invisible.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Let me try this one

As light disperses it means that there are fewer and fewer photons available to strike the retina. Fewer photons at the retina means that less of the object is revealed by the light. Less is equivalent to smaller. Therefore, if fewer photons are striking the retina less of the object is revealed and it appears to be smaller.

How did I do?

You forgot that distance is the more important factor and the angle at which the photons arrive at the eye dictated the apparent size. Fewer photons would only mean the object is dimmer in appearance. As you dim a light bulb, standing at the same distance from it, it does not appear to get smaller as it gets dimmer. As you dim a light bulb it produces fewer and fewer photons.

Speaking of dim, it appears that someone has turned Peacegirls switch all the way down, she is producing very little in the way of illumination.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why did you bring up the fact that my son is a radiologist? Of course they have equipment that can see things on x-ray that we can't see without this equipment. So what? What does this have to do with this discussion? Please tie it together.

How Infrared "X-ray" Works

Peacegirl, you did read the article didn't you? And do you understand that medical X-ray equipment that your son uses does not employ infrared light. Please try to get you information straight.

However the article was interesting and reminded me that photographers knew for years that some filters could make some fabrics used in clothing seem to disapear. You could photograph someone fully dressed and they would appear to be without clothing. Photographers had to be careful, and this also points up the fact that cameras respond to photons that have traveled from the person through the clothing to the camera. If cameras functioned efferently the photo would only show the clothing, the same as the eye can see. In some cases the eye can see a fully dressed person and the camera takes a photo of a nude person.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why should I be happy that you're fake-conceding again?

What does it say about the plausibility of your account of vision that you can't answer even the simplest questions about it?

Why should I "leave it at that" when your account is still flatly contradictory yet you're still insisting that it's plausible?

I don't understand why you are so persistent? Any scientist who thought this was a joke would never give this thread the time of day. A scientist would look at this thread and laugh. You seem to be more perceptive but you are mistaken in certain premises which is causing the problem. You are very aware of the conflict Spacemonkey but unfortunately we cannot meet on any common ground. That IS the elephant in the room, but this in no way, shape, or form negates efferent vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why did you bring up the fact that my son is a radiologist? Of course they have equipment that can see things on x-ray that we can't see without this equipment. So what? What does this have to do with this discussion? Please tie it together.

How Infrared "X-ray" Works

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Peacegirl, you did read the article didn't you? And do you understand that medical X-ray equipment that your son uses does not employ infrared light. Please try to get you information straight.

Really? Although this has nothing to do with Lessans' discoveries, could you please explain. You're right, I didn't read it because you would take me on a wild goose chase. I have to stick with the reason for my being here or we would be so off track that people would not even understand what this thread is about.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

However the article was interesting and reminded me that photographers knew for years that some filters could make some fabrics used in clothing seem to disapear. You could photograph someone fully dressed and they would appear to be without clothing. Photographers had to be careful, and this also points up the fact that cameras respond to photons that have traveled from the person through the clothing to the camera.

Are you serious?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If cameras functioned efferently the photo would only show the clothing, the same as the eye can see. In some cases the eye can see a fully dressed person and the camera takes a photo of a nude person.

You are going to have to dissect this for me because I don't get where efferent vision would show any difference at all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This does not even make sense. If an object absorbs light, and the rest of the light travels until it strikes another object, how can that light be effective if it is not the full spectrum? What happens if the blue wavelength was absorbed by the last object? What happens to the next object if it absorbs all but blue? How will the light allow us to see blue if there is no blue wavelength in the light?

You are correct, we would not be able to see the blue object if there were no blue light to be reflected. This has been tested and demonstrated, but you will need to search the internet for a video of the demonstration, or perhaps someone can find one and post it.

You ask how the light can be effective as if some deficiency of photons makes light incapable of functioning as light. But a red laser, which is composed of only photons that are of a frequency that corosponds to the color red, can function and produces a red spot when shown on an object.

A curious question comes up for someone to answer with an appropriate demonstration, if you shine a red laser on a red wall of just the right color, will you see the red spot. Assume that there is some other illumination in the room, I would assume that in a darkened room there will be a visible spot.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Really? Although this has nothing to do with Lessans' discoveries, could you please explain. You're right, I ddn't read it because you would take me on a wild goose chase. I have to stick with the reason for my being here or we would be so off track that people would not even understand what this thread is about.

Medical X-rays use light from a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum than infrared light.

If you didn't read the article, why did you post it? it didn't say what you thought it did.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you serious?

You are going to have to dissect this for me because I don't get where efferent vision would show any difference at all.

According to you and Lessans there would be no difference in efferent vision because the camera and the eye would see exactly the same thing. But with different filters what the camera sees is different than what the eye sees. The filter blocks some wavelengths of light and allows others, and this is only possible in afferent vision where the light is traveling through the lens to produce an image on the film.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why should I be happy that you're fake-conceding again?

What does it say about the plausibility of your account of vision that you can't answer even the simplest questions about it?

Why should I "leave it at that" when your account is still flatly contradictory yet you're still insisting that it's plausible?

Are you playing with me? How many crackpots claim stuff that is disregarded? Why are you still here?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

According to you and Lessans there would be no difference in efferent vision because the camera and the eye would see exactly the same thing. But with different filters what the camera sees is different than what the eye sees. The filter blocks some wavelengths of light and allows others, and this is only possible in afferent vision where the light is traveling through the lens to produce an image on the film.

Explain to me how light can reveal a piece of substance when there is no wavelenth that can reveal it. This is not a trick question. Aren't you into physics? So explain the mystery. I'm just asking for a simple explanation. Is that breaking any rule?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It brings a pattern even though it's just light.

No, it doesn't bring anything. You are using words wrong, then get mad when you are not understood.

The pattern is formed on the retina from receiving light of different intensity, different wavelength, and from different angles.

Shoot a shotgun and you get a pattern on whatever it hits. Throw food at the wall, it lands in a pattern. The shotgun pellets don't bring a pattern. The food doesn't bring a pattern.


Shotgun pattern

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you don't know by now what I mean by images, I don't know what to say.

I do know what you mean, and that is the problem. The way you use it is what makes everything you say a strawman. Stop using it because it is not the right word to use. You do not understand the standard model so you keep misrepresenting it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's the pattern that allows someone to decode an image (according to the afferent model) and the pattern that allows us to see the object (in the efferent model).

The pattern is formed by light of different intensities and wavelengths and coming from different directions falling on the retina.

A pattern can be formed by small individual points of paint of different colors and intensities. The pattern is not brought by the paint, it is not a property of the paint.



The pattern is not a property of the light, it is not carried or brought by the light. The pattern is formed by the light falling on the retina.

Fine, but it does have its own wavelength.

No, it doesn't. You said you understood and weren't arguing and here you are making the same nonsense statement! White light is simply light of all wavelengths traveling together, it doesn't have it's own wavelength.

I do understand this. But where does this bring us any closer to answering the question of whether we see in real time or delayed time?

You made a statement and I refuted it. So how can you understand unless you no longer support the statement you made? Do you retract the statement bolded above?

Then why did you bring up the fact that my son is a radiologist? Of course they have equipment that can see things on x-ray that we can't see without this equipment. So what? What does this have to do with this discussion? Please tie it together.

He uses some of the equipment that can detect and measure different wavelengths, which refutes your statement bolded above.

[LadyShea]

You have me quoted as saying a whole bunch of stuff I didn't say. Fix your quote tags please.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have me quoted as saying a whole bunch of stuff I didn't say. Fix your quote tags please.

Hello, those were my posts she was quoting and attributing to you, I just didn't make the effort to correct them, sorry about that. I figured everyone else would know who said what, and correcting Peacegirl would be like nailing jello to a wall, useless. I think I have mine fixed now.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Explain to me how light can reveal a piece of substance when there is no wavelenth that can reveal it. This is not a trick question. Aren't you into physics? So explain the mystery. I'm just asking for a simple explanation. Is that breaking any rule?

Every substance that reflects light, does so by reflecting light of a particular frequency that corrosponds to the color of that substance. In photography the person's body reflects light that is the frequency of the color of the body, but the clothing also reflects light that is of a frequency that corosplnds to the color of the fabric but is so much more intense that it covers up the light from the body. The correct filter can block the light from the clothing and allow the light from the body to reach the film and not be drowned out but the light from the clothing.

[Vivisectus]

I think we can all agree that there are a few major stumbling blocks here:

1: You do not understand enough about optics to understand what it actually is you are disagreeing with. Because of this, you regularly argue against positions that no-one actually holds: your famous recurring travelling images are a good example of this.

2: Efferent vision is not really a theory: it is a conclusion. No-one, including you, knows how it works! Based on some (undisclosed) other ideas, the conclusion that sight must be efferent has been reached by you and your father, but as far as I can tell neither of you ever knew, or spent any time finding out, how it is supposed to work.

3: The reasons why this conclusion that sight is efferent was reached by you and your father has not been shared so far. We are simply expected to assume that there is a good reason to assume this is how sight works: the reason itself is not present in my version of the book.