A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

This happens to be one of those non-sarcastic, serious questions. So, please give it serious consideration. Why do you think it is the case that we cannot see the back of another person's head when we are standing face to face with that person in full daylight?

If there's no mirror we can't see the back of someone's head because our eyes are not in optical range. What's your point?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there's no mirror we can't see the back of someone's head because our eyes are not in optical range. What's your point?

Can you explain what you think 'range' means?

To the rest of us it is purely a measure of distance. Do you really think the problem is that the back of the person's head is too far away to be seen?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, you have stated that in efferent vision the object is surrounded by non-absorbed photons that is not carrying the image away from the object, this implys that the photons are not traveling away from the object.

Light is traveling away from the object, but when we're looking at the object directly, these photons are at the eye instantly due to the fact that we are in optical range. If these traveling photons go beyond the resolution point (at which time there will be no non-absorbed photons at the film/retina), no image will show up.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Then you state that when we look at the object those photons are instantly at our retina. If the photons are not traveling and are instantly at the retina

Light is traveling, but if the eyes are efferent, we're looking directly at the object. We're not waiting for the light to arrive since there's no pattern that will show up beyond the objects (or material substance) that are in our field of view.

Originally Posted by thedoc

, why is it only the photons that are on the side facing the eye? Why do all the photons not arrive at the eye instantly? I don't understand why "Line of Sight" should have any effect on efferent vision? The brain looks out through the eyes and contacts, with the retina, the photons surrounding the object.

All matter that we see is due to light's properties, for without light we couldn't see anything. All that is required is brightness and size in the efferent account. For some reason people have a hard time understanding this, and I can't make it better.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Can you explain what you think 'range' means?

To the rest of us it is purely a measure of distance. Do you really think the problem is that the back of the person's head is too far away to be seen?

Because the back of someone's head will not provide that light that we need at the retina to see it. How can we see it if there's no photons at our eye that would allow us to see it?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is traveling away from the object, but when we're looking at the object directly, these photons are at the eye instantly due to the fact that we are in optical range.

You're putting photons at two places at once again, and/or having them teleport instantly across non-zero distances.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is traveling, but if the eyes are efferent, we're looking directly at the object. We're not waiting for the light to arrive since there's no pattern that will show up beyond the objects (or material substance) that are in our field of view.

Is there red light traveling away from the red parts of an object and blue light traveling away from the blue parts, etc? Then there is a pattern there to be detected consisting of nothing but the traveling light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All that is required is brightness and size in the efferent account.

Then you should be able to see the back of someone's head when looking at their face. Neither brightness nor size are an issue there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For some reason people have a hard time understanding this, and I can't make it better.

If you can't make it better than contradictory and impossible then it cannot be true.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the back of someone's head will not provide that light that we need at the retina to see it. How can we see it if there's no photons at our eye that would allow us to see it?

Why will it not provide the light to the retina? The photons are their leaving the back of the person's head. They are in range, it is bright enough, and the person's head is big enough to be seen. Why won't those photons be instantly at the eye?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All that is required is brightness and size in the efferent account. For some reason people have a hard time understanding this, and I can't make it better.

That's because after all this time, you have yet to post an explanation of 'the efferent account' that makes any sense.

Unless and until you are able to explain how it might work in a manner that is logically consistent you have no chance of persuading anyone who possesses the power of reason.

It wouldn't matter so much that the efferent model was wrong and that our universe doesn't work that way - if the model was self-consistent it would still be worth discussing.

We're quite happy to debate systems and models that are not based on the actual reality of the universe - you'll find many threads here discussing superheros, star trek, cartoon ponies, elves, Harry Potter and so on. Those are at least mostly self-consistent within their own fictional worlds. But when we notice things that don't make sense and are self-conflicting within their own framework then we mock them: look up the 'Kessel Run' for an example.

The Lessans world is much less compelling than the Harry Potter world or the My Little Pony world as it fails to make sense even within its own framework. In Star Wars terms it consists mostly of 'Kessel Run' errors and doesn't even have the saving grace of an interesting story line.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round ...

I liked how she spent pages arguing that cameras see differently than eyes do, because cameras don't have brains.

I was wrong. I needed time to figure it out. The light that the eyes use to see an object is the same light that would be at the film. It has to be, therefore we will get the same exact image whether we see it directly or whether we see it on film.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

She spent page after page insisting this was so, ignoring the repeatedly-made point that this would mean we'd be able to see distant objects that we couldn't photograph.

If I said that I was completely wrong. That was early on and I hadn't thought it through. Does that make me a liar? Nooooooooooooooo.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

When it was pointed out that pictures of such things as supernova explosions flatly disprove the claim, she fell back on her favorite excuse: "something else must be going on."

I don't remember saying that in reference to supernovas. I remember saying that in regard to the moons of Jupiter. Maybe I forgot, so don't get all bent out of shape.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

She even suggested that the measured speed of light must be wrong somehow, and that therefore the supernovae are really quite close.

I must admit that was a ridiculous statement, but this still does not prove him wrong.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

(And she repeatedly ignored the fact that we don't use the speed of light to determine the distance to astronomical objects.)

I just gave a link that explains how we use the speed of light to determine trajectory and distance.

Mars Exploration Rover Mission: Technology

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

She continued to make the claim even though it was pointed out that if supernovae were as close as she claimed, they'd necessarily be inside the solar system, and so would destroy the Earth.

I don't remember saying that. They would have to be far away, and we could get debris from those explosions.

http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/25306.aspx

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No matter: Lessans had declared it to be so, and so it must be.

Except ... oops! Upon reexamination of the sacred tome, she discovered that, actually, that's not what Lessans had claimed. So, after pages of insistence that cameras don't see in "real time," she instantly switched to insisting that they do -- just like our eyes.

I really hadn't thought it through carefully. I'm not coming from this background, so it's hard for me to put it all together, but I'm doing this as a courtesy to YOU since this knowledge doesn't even come from this. It comes from understanding how conditioning takes place, which could not take place if the eyes did not have this projecting capacity.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And when confronted by her change of mind -- one that clearly had nothing whatsoever to do with actual evidence, but was driven entirely by her absolute faith in Lessans' infallibility -- she lied and insisted that she'd never claimed that cameras and eyes work differently. Even though she'd just spent many pages doing exactly that.

I admit I said that. For the last time, I was new at this. I am fallible, but that doesn't make his claim fallible. Get that? So stop trying to ruin it for Lessans on account of me.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Ah, we were so young and naive then. ...

It just took a little time for me to get the facts straight. This does not mean I have deceived anyone, or that I'm a liar.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I said that I was completely wrong. That was early on and I hadn't thought it through. Does that make me a liar? Nooooooooooooooo.

Actually it does, as you'd already been through the exact same process at IIDB. So you'd had plenty of time to work out whether or not cameras should work in real time too.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It comes from understanding how conditioning takes place, which could not take place if the eyes did not have this projecting capacity.

What do the eyes project, Peacegirl?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

That's because after all this time, you have yet to post an explanation of 'the efferent account' that makes any sense.

Unless and until you are able to explain how it might work in a manner that is logically consistent you have no chance of persuading anyone who possesses the power of reason.

It wouldn't matter so much that the efferent model was wrong and that our universe doesn't work that way - if the model was self-consistent it would still be worth discussing.

We're quite happy to debate systems and models that are not based on the actual reality of the universe - you'll find many threads here discussing superheros, star trek, cartoon ponies, elves, Harry Potter and so on. Those are at least mostly self-consistent within their own fictional worlds. But when we notice things that don't make sense and are self-conflicting within their own framework then we mock them: look up the 'Kessel Run' for an example.

The Lessans world is much less compelling than the Harry Potter world or the My Little Pony world as it fails to make sense even within its own framework. In Star Wars terms it consists mostly of 'Kessel Run' errors and doesn't even have the saving grace of an interesting story line.

This isn't a story, but if was, I think it would make a very exciting story and an even more exciting movie. The Golden Age of Man now playing at your local theatre. It has a nice ring to it.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there's no mirror we can't see the back of someone's head because our eyes are not in optical range. What's your point?

The distance/range is, for all practical purposes, the same for the front of the head and the back of the head, even for fatheads. So what is your point?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All matter that we see is due to light's properties, for without light we couldn't see anything. All that is required is brightness and size in the efferent account. For some reason people have a hard time understanding this, and I can't make it better.

The front of the person's head and the back of the person's head are equally bright and of equal size. So why can't we see both sides at the same time?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the back of someone's head will not provide that light that we need at the retina to see it. How can we see it if there's no photons at our eye that would allow us to see it?

Both sides of the head are receiving an equal amount of light. Why doesn't the back of the head provide light at the retina in the same way that the front of the head does? What is different?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

when we're looking at the object directly, these photons are at the eye instantly due to the fact that we are in optical range.

Light is traveling, but if the eyes are efferent, we're looking directly at the object. We're not waiting for the light to arrive since there's no pattern that will show up beyond the objects (or material substance) that are in our field of view.

All that is required is brightness and size in the efferent account.

Mirrors are not a requirement for efferent vision, only that the object be bright enough (enough light around it) and large enough to put it into our 'optical range'. If a person's face is in our 'optical range' the back of their head is certainly in our 'optial range', so why can't we see it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Actually it does, as you'd already been through the exact same process at IIDB. So you'd had plenty of time to work out whether or not cameras should work in real time too.

According to you, and you're not me, so how could you determine how much time I needed? What gumption.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It comes from understanding how conditioning takes place, which could not take place if the eyes did not have this projecting capacity.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What do the eyes project, Peacegirl?

Words! Words that are projected onto a screen of the outside world that do not represent reality. Did you read the chapter or didn't you? Or have you forgotten what he wrote? Just tell me the truth.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the back of someone's head will not provide that light that we need at the retina to see it. How can we see it if there's no photons at our eye that would allow us to see it?

The back of a persons head, that is in our optical range, would have just as much light as their face and it's close enough if we can see the persons face.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Mirrors are not a requirement for efferent vision, only that the object be bright enough (enough light around it) and large enough to put it into our 'optical range'. If a person's face is in our 'optical range' the back of their head is certainly in our 'optial range', so why can't we see it?

Nope, I've already been through this. I said an object has to be present in some form, which means we can see the object indirectly through a mirror.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was wrong. I needed time to figure it out. The light that the eyes use to see an object is the same light that would be at the film. It has to be, therefore we will get the same exact image whether we see it directly or whether we see it on film.

Why does it have to be the same light? Why does it matter what light is at the film or the retina? Why won't any old light do?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I admit I said that. For the last time, I was new at this.

When were you new at this? Certainly not at any time since you started posting at . You already had years of experience promoting Lessans' book at other forums, and dealing with the very same questions, before you ever came here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It just took a little time for me to get the facts straight.

That is something you still haven't managed to accomplish.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

look up the 'Kessel Run' for an example.

In Star Wars terms it consists mostly of 'Kessel Run' errors and doesn't even have the saving grace of an interesting story line.

If you would provide a detailed description of traveling in 'Hyper Space' your criticism might be valid, but till then it might just be that what we see as a mesure of distance, might be more useful in 'Hyper Space' travel than a measure of time. That would be an actual description from experience and not a fictional account based on speculation.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, I've already been through this. I said an object has to be present in some form, which means we can see the object indirectly through a mirror.

If you are looking at someone face-to-face, then the back of that person's head is present. How come you can't see it?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to you, and you're not me, so how could you determine how much time I needed? What gumption.

The fact is you weren't approaching the vision vs. cameras issue for the first time, so you were lying about being new at dealing with it. You had been through it all before but then reverted back to your starting position when you came here and repeated the same mistakes again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Words! Words that are projected onto a screen of the outside world that do not represent reality.

Are words literally projected from the eyes? How fast and how far do they travel as they leave the eyes? How are they measured and why can't we see them?

[The Lone Ranger]

No, we don't use the speed of light to measure the distances to supernova. Here's a clue: they're well out of radar range. Did you even read the link that you posted? Hint: it doesn't say what you seem to think it does.


In any event, what makes you a lying liar is that after you spent pages insisting that cameras don't see the same way that we do (and implying that anyone who disagreed was too close-minded and/or too stupid to understand), you then denied having made any such claim. You didn't claim that you had misunderstood and had changed your mind -- you denied that you had ever made the claim.

On Planet Earth, that's called lying.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, I've already been through this. I said an object has to be present in some form, which means we can see the object indirectly through a mirror.

Mirrors are an option but not a requirement.