A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not disagree on purpose. I am trying to understand so I can better explain Lessans' position. That's all I'm trying to do, so anything you conjure up in your mind to is pure imagination.

If you were honestly trying to understand the subject matter under discussion, and managed to actually understand it, you would abandon Lessans position as the nonsense it really is.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So right from the start, we have to make corrections? Doesn't this seem rather odd considering that everything that happens is so precise that the slightest change is immediately recognized and corrected? This is getting more absurd by the minute, even based on your own standards. BTW, I am not talking about artificial light. I am talking about daylight. Why are you trying to confuse things?

Even daylight, when reflected from a colored surface, and is the only source of light, is a partial spectrum and produces false color images. It is only your faulty understanding of light that causes you to believe that everything we see must be illuminated by full spectrum light.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His work is undeniable. If you think I'm going to take out the word scientific just for your sake, I'm not. I'm leaving the book as is, and if someone doesn't want to read it for that reason, I agree that they shouldn't read it.

So, your answer is: "Yes, I'm going to continue lying."


Thanks for clearing that up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, your answer is: "Yes, I'm going to continue lying."


Thanks for clearing that up.

Lone Ranger, you are using the word "lie" in a very deceitful way. So who is the liar here? The fact that you are focusing on this word to such a degree makes me wonder what your motive is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, color is based on the wavelengths of the source light and reflected or obstructed light from the environment

Not at all strange. This is exactly what optics predicts and explains.

You are either confused, or purposefully creating another strawman.

Your scenario in this post assumes that the reflected light off the first object is the only source of light for the second object, which is not the case in any standard viewing conditions. You need to answer my previous questions about the set up of your thought experiment.

What is the light source in this thought experiment? Is that source the only light? What objects are you talking about?


Here is a photograph showing reflected color hiding the true color of another object

Where the ball's color is reflected, and where it's shadow falls, we cannot see the true color of the table. Where the unobstructed/unreflected light hits the table we can see it's true color. This is easy to understand and see, why are you acting like it's some crazy nonsense you've never heard of?

Here's a really perfect set of examples








This is important in art, you see.
Color Studies - Part 3 The Influences of the Environment on Color
How to Paint From a Black and White Photograph | Stan Prokopenko's Blog

It doesn't answer the question as to why daylight (the full spectrum) provides a true representation of the color of an object. You would think we would be seeing all kinds of hues (like the ones you just showed) based on a partial spectrum. I have never seen a blue tree or purple grass. I know what your rebuttal will be: That an object receives light from all different angles, therefore the full spectrum of light would still be there. It still sounds very haphazard to me (and Occam's razor says that the simplest answer is usually correct), but of course not to you since you've got an answer for everything, kind of like the flat earthers.

[The Lone Ranger]

I'm not the one who's knowingly and deliberately using the word "scientific" to mean exactly the opposite of its true meaning.

I'm not the one who's dishonestly trying to use the hard-earned credibility of science to give Lessans' "model" respect that it hasn't earned.

I'm not the one who's outright said that she doesn't care that her claims aren't true -- she's going to keep right on making them.


Or in language you'll understand: Liar, liar, pants on fire.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You need to understand that Peacegirl is not looking for acceptance and agreement, that would be positive attention. Her goal is to keep getting negative attention, which she has been getting here and most other forums for the last 10 years. On one forum she was getting positive attetion, agreement, and people who were sympathetic to her ideas, at least for as long as she was there. She left on her own after only 3 pages, but part of that may have been that some of the posts were way off topic. This may, in part, explain her responses that seem to be intended to stir up controversity by constantly disagreeing and pretending to misunderstand what is being posted. This obcessiion with negative attention is one indication of her mental difficulties.

I left there because I wanted to go to a forum that was very active. This group was very small and there were only a limited number of members.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

It does seem as though being martyred by ridicule is an essential ingredient to the presentation and reaction to this information as if it were far more important to feel like he was standing up to and smarter than the scientific establishment than it was to save the world with his "discovery". Maybe Peacegirl is more invested in that same delusion of grandiosity than she is in actually spreading his ideas in a way that someone could accept with a straight face.

Your interpretation about me is understandable. Anyone reading this thread would think this. This whole online fiasco got me in trouble from day one, and there's no way to repair it. It's amazing to me how someone can be made to look foolish just by the way people have twisted the meaning of a few words, or taken something out of context. I do believe Lessans is right regarding the eyes. This discussion has overshadowed his other discovery since the free will/determinism debate doesn't seem to interest anyone, even though it's the most important.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't answer the question as to why daylight (the full spectrum) provides a true representation of the color of an object.

Well then you have even less understanding of the standard model of optics than I thought. Objects don't have a true color. All color is perceived by the light the object reflects. The properties of the source light, and the light in the environment are the main factors in what color we perceive, and those factors vary.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You would think we would be seeing all kinds of hues (just like the ones you just showed) based on a partial spectrum.

We do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never seen a blue tree or purpose grass.

I assume you mean purple grass. And plants reflect the green wavelength for the most part, though this changes as seen with Fall colors and though there are exceptions

Purple Fountain Grass

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But what if there is no other object around except for one, then what?

If full spectrum light is striking an object it absorbs whatever wavelengths it absorbs and reflects whatever wavelengths it reflects, which is based on its chemical composition, and we will perceive color based on the reflected wavelengths.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It still sounds very haphazard to me, but of course not to you since you've got an answer for everything

It is haphazard, because there are many factors involved.

Color correction is a huge aspect of photography, and lighting is a huge aspect of things like product display and decorating due to all the variables.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't answer the question as to why daylight (the full spectrum) provides a true representation of the color of an object.

You really are immune to learning anything, aren't you?

The examples posted show you that there IS NO "true color" of ANYTHING; colors are relative. As an oil painter and pastel artist, I know this very well. You, as usual, know absolutely nothing about anything.

And you are a liar. As The Lone Ranger and many others have explained, "scientific" is the opposite of "undeniable." Science claims are inductive claims; they are probability proofs. They are subject to revision (and are revised) because science is self-correcting. Deductive claims belong to math or logic, where, for example, certain truths are undeniable because they are analytic truths, like "All bachelors are unmarried."

Lessans' claims were not deductive, therefore they are not mathematical, deductive or undeniable. They are empirically checkable claims. And, when checked against reality, they are shown to be false without any hope of being true. They are flat-earth claims. However, all inductive claims, even claims like "the earth is an oblate spheroid" can never be shown to be absolutely true, beyond any possibility of doubt. It is always possible, for instance, that we are being deceived by Descarte's evil demon, or that we are brains in vats. Not that you understand any of this, uneducated as you are. Still, claims like "the earth is an oblate spheroid" and "evolution produced all species through descent with modification" are so well-attested that it would be perverse to withhold consent from them. And, in the same manner, Lessans' claim that we see in real time is as false as the claim that the earth is flat.

You know nothing. Your presumption that you can lecture your betters, like you father's identical presumption, is breathtaking in its contemptible audacity.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I'm not the one who's knowingly and deliberately using the word "scientific" to mean exactly the opposite of its true meaning.

I'm not the one who's dishonestly trying to use the hard-earned credibility of science to give Lessans' "model" respect that it hasn't earned.

You have to be kidding me Lone Ranger. You didn't know this man at all (you actually would have liked him; it's so sad to me how he is being portrayed) and you certainly have no idea what he went through to make these discoveries. Believe me, he probably studied more than any so-called scientist. You have nerve to say that.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I'm not the one who's outright said that she doesn't care that her claims aren't true -- she's going to keep right on making them.

Or in language you'll understand: Liar, liar, pants on fire.

I didn't say that I didn't care whether the claims are true. I believe they are true, and just as you will defend your position, I will defend mine. I'm just wondering to what length you would defend your position. Would put your hand on the chopping block to prove how right you are and how wrong I am? I doubt it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well then you have even less understanding of the standard model of optics than I thought. Objects don't have a true color. All color is perceived by the light the object reflects. The properties of the source light, and the light in the environment are the main factors in what color we perceive, and those factors vary.

They really don't vary to the degree you are insisting. Yes, we see shadows that may change the hue somewhat, but this doesn't change green grass to red grass in daylight. God (or nature) did not intend grass to be red and that's why we don't see it as red. We see it as green because the green photons are at the retina. Your theory about bouncing light coming from all directions sounds redundant. Nature is not redundant.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You would think we would be seeing all kinds of hues ( like the ones you just showed) based on a partial spectrum.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We do.

We don't see completely different colors unless we purposely shine a blue light or red light on something.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never seen a blue tree or purple grass.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And plants reflect the green wavelength for the most part, though this changes as seen with Fall colors and though there are exceptions

Purple Fountain Grass

Great picture (thanks) but it doesn't change the fact that grass all over the world is green.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But what if there is no other object around except for one, then what?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If full spectrum light is striking an object it absorbs whatever wavelengths it absorbs and reflects whatever wavelengths it reflects, which is based on its chemical composition, and we will perceive color based on the reflected wavelengths.

Right, but in order to reveal its color the non-absorbed wavelength has to be there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It still sounds very haphazard to me, but of course not to you since you've got an answer for everything

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is haphazard, because there are many factors involved.

Nature is well-designed. It is not haphazard.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Color correction is a huge aspect of photography, and lighting is a huge aspect of things like product display and decorating due to all the variables.

We're talking about nature right now, not manipulating the lighting to get different effects. The truth is in daylight we get true colors everywhere we look because the full spectrum of light coming from the Sun is in every ray.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They really don't vary to the degree you are insisting.

They really do.
LED vs. Florescent vs. Strong Daylight vs. Cloudy Day vs. Forest/Sand/Water vs. Sunset vs. Noon vs. Shadows. Every one of these is different and will change color perception.

Yes, we see shadows that may change the hue somewhat, but this doesn't change green grass to red grass in daylight.

No it doesn't. Why would it? The chemical composition of plants reflects green for the most part. Green wavelengths are found in most types of source light.

God (or nature) did not intend grass to be red and that's why we don't see it as red.

ROFL, are you shitting me with this "intention" of nature?

Grass doesn't usually reflect red because for most varieties the chemical composition is such that the plant absorbs the red part of the spectrum for photosynthesis.


Absorption spectra showing how the different side chains in chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b result in slightly different absorptions of visible light. Light with a wavelength of 460 nm is not significantly absorbed by chlorophyll a, but will instead be captured by chlorophyll b, which absorbs strongly at that wavelength. The two kinds of chlorophyll in plants complement each other in absorbing sunlight. Plants are able to satisfy their energy requirements by absorbing light from the blue and red parts of the spectrum. However, there is still a large spectral region between 500 and 600 nm where chlorophyll absorbs very little light, and plants appear green because this light is reflected.

There are grasses that appear reddish and purplish though.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see it as green because the green photons are at the retina.

Yes, because that is the wavelength of light reflected off the green grass.

Your theory about bouncing light coming from all directions sounds redundant. Nature is not redundant.

Gibbering again.

Light travels and reflects off things and is absorbed by things all the time, because those are the immutable properties of light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We don't see completely different colors unless we purposely shine a blue light or red light on something.

Sure we do. See the examples I posted. Tell me how many distinctive hues and shades are represented in this picture of a single leaf. You can't because there are literally thousands.

Unique Color Count for this image is 164,280 according to my imaging software

Great picture (thanks) but it doesn't change the fact that grass all over the world is green.

As I said, plants reflect the green wavelength for the most part. That species of grass is purple, however. So now you have seen purple grass.

Right, but in order to reveal its color the non-absorbed wavelength has to be there.

The color is not "revealed", the color perceived is due to the wavelengths reflected.

Nature is well-designed. It is not haphazard.

Nonsense.

We're talking about nature right now, not manipulating the lighting to get different effects. The truth is in daylight we get true colors everywhere we look because the full spectrum of light coming from the Sun is in every ray.

Define "true color" there, Mother Nature. And LOL at "every ray".

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light should not be bringing special effects when we don't want them.

You are quite right. That is completely immoral. Bad light!

Peacegirl, have you never gone to a party where all the lights in the room except for a black light have been turned off? The effects are quite striking, even if you aren't stoned.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lone Ranger, you are using the word "lie" in a very deceitful way. So who is the liar here? The fact that you are focusing on this word to such a degree makes me wonder what your motive is.

Could the motives be 'truth' and 'honesty', words you are unfamiliar with, and do not understand.

[Angakuk]

I have never seen a purple cow,
And I never hope to see one.
But I can tell you now,
I'd rather see than be one.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I left there because I wanted to go to a forum that was very active. This group was very small and there were only a limited number of members.

And several of them were receptive to your ideas, or did you fail to notice that?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You are quite right. That is completely immoral. Bad light!

Peacegirl, have you never gone to a party where all the lights in the room except for a black light have been turned off? The effects are quite striking, even if you aren't stoned.

I'm begining to think that will never happen at a Peacegirl party, or even a Peacegirl day.

[thedoc]

There is a saying, "You don't have to be crazy to work here, but it sure helps."

I'm thinking that being crazy, or stoned, or both, might be a job requirement to be Peacegirl.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They really do.
LED vs. Florescent vs. Strong Daylight vs. Cloudy Day vs. Forest/Sand/Water vs. Sunset vs. Noon vs. Shadows. Every one of these is different and will change color perception.

Color perception is another factor that can have no positive definition for different individuals. We can hold up a sample of color in the same light for several individuals and they can all agree on the name of the particular shade, and this agreement can be consistant over time. The one thing we can't know is exactly how each individual's brain is intrepreting what the eye perceives. For all we know each person could be seeing a slightly different shade even though the sample and light is always the same. Color perception happens inside the brain and is dependent on the chemistry and neural physiology of each individual. The mental image of each person could be quite different from one individual to another and we would have no way to find out because the outward response to the same stimulis would be the same.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do believe Lessans is right regarding the eyes. This discussion has overshadowed his other discovery since the free will/determinism debate doesn't seem to interest anyone, even though it's the most important.

The 'free will/determinism' debate would be interesting but the topics are more subjective and not emperically testable. Optics and vision can be observed and emperically tested and therefore more provable. Because Lessans has made claims about vision that have been demonstrated to be incorrect there is no reason to believe that he was correct about free will and determinism. Lessans claimed proof of free will and determinism have been examined and found lacking, so unless you can provide evidence of more substance, Lessans free will/determinism is a dead issue for most.

[LadyShea]

[LadyShea]

I'm just wondering to what length you would defend your position. Would put your hand on the chopping block to prove how right you are and how wrong I am? I doubt it.

Since he explained that science is the opposite of "undeniable" why would he chop off his hand to defend any scientific position? He knows that scientific understanding is flexible and can change with new evidence. Only ideologues and fanatics talk like this you know...chopping block. Really?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

You know nothing. Your presumption that you can lecture your betters, like you father's identical presumption, is breathtaking in its contemptible audacity.

This has been Peacegirls stated intention in that she feels that she alone is qualified to inform others on Lessans book, and any knowledge that others may posess is of no interest to her and of no real importance. The book and her knowledge of the book are the only things of any real importance in Peacegirls world. In Peacegirls world anything that contradicts Lessans words have got to be incorrect and of no value.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If you read the book you will find she really doesn't have much of a choice. If her ideas about free will are even slightly tempered, the whole teetering edifice comes crashing down: this is a text-book example of an entire system being built on extremely narrow foundations.

We already offered an explanation that allows sight to be normal while not conflicting with the book as she shared it. However, she herself has intimated that this would have consequences for the the ideas about not-reincarnation as described in the part of the book that is missing from my version.

The entire cloud-castle is so lacking in robustness that smallest change would bring the whole thing crashing down, and then where is she? No eternally happy afterlife, no Brave New World, ten years wasted, and stacks and stacks of what has now suddenly become the worlds most expensive toiletpaper in stead of the Bible, Part 2.

I don't really disagree with any of that but I think that she absolutely already knows that sight doesn't work in the way that her father believed that it did, she knows that this isn't science or formal philosophy even by lay understandings of the terms and I don't think she's at all as befuddled as she appears. I think that she just has an extreme case of daddy-worship, some very weird ideas about relationships that no one would have been shocked at 100 years ago,she's stubborn as hell, has nothing much else to do with her time and as she says, this is her social life. Maybe I'm just a meanie but it doesn't ring true to me anymore.