A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Forget it Spacemonkey.

Why? Why can't you just answer the post honestly like a normal person?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can think I'm a weasel, a hypocrite, a liar, or anything else you want to throw in. I don't care.

Why don't you care about your own weaseling and dishonesty?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said over and over again that the efferent model changes everything in regard to how light can be at the retina without light having to travel to Earth.

So how does it get there without traveling? Why can't you even tell me where it came from?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are not receiving the image in the light which would require travel time.

I didn't say or ask anything about images in light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep going back to how did the photons get there.

Yes, because that is where efferent vision clearly falls apart.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know this concept is hard for you to wrap your head around, but I'm not going over this again.

You clearly haven't got your head around it either.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Other people will have to figure out the mechanism as to how the efferent model does not violate physics because I've done the best I can to explain it.

So you don't see any way it could work without violating physics? Why then claim that it is plausible? That's not honest.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can think I don't even understand the concept myself, which is also fine with me.

Why is it fine for you pushing a concept as plausible when you don't even understand it yourself?

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

light can be at the retina without light having to travel to Earth.

How would you test for that proposition? I'm asking for a test involving empirical observations, not metaphysical ruminations, so please don't say something like "because of efference."

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When we use language we have to be accurate.

That's rich coming from you, LOL

[Spacemonkey]

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't have a monopoly on Christian doctrine. You may know more of the new testament than I do, but your self-righteous attitude by telling me to go teach a dog how to suck eggs is very demeaning and prideful. I respect that you are a minister, but this does not give you the right to tell me that I can't speak my truth. God forgives and wipes the slate clean if one is repentant. No one is forever condemned (which a label often makes someone feel) if that person recognizes how to correct his error. That comes from Jewish teachings as well. BTW, lying itself is not inherently sinful. It depends on the situation in which a person may choose to lie as the best option. In some cases lying is necessary if it saves someone from embarrassment or some other negative outcome that could result if one does not lie.

Is someone who continues to lie, consistently and frequently and in order to benefit themselves rather than to protect others, truly repentant? Is that person working on amends?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Hermit

How would you test for that proposition? I'm asking for a test involving empirical observations, not metaphysical ruminations, so please don't say something like "because of efference."

The tests cannot come from astronomy because it is assumed that when we get an image, it is from light alone and it is no longer considered a theory. It is now believed to be a fact that the non-absorbed light is reflected and travels through space/time where it is decoded or seen on film as an image, even if the object is no longer present. This is in accordance with the definition of sense organ, which is a logical conclusion. Do you know why my father did not agree with this? Since you said you read the book (did you not say this?), do you know what his explanation was that led him to contesting this? I don't mean to put you on the spot, but everyone says they do understand and disagree, yet they have no idea what his observations were. He came to his conclusions indirectly (in the back door, so to speak) which was outside of the field of physics. That, I believe, would have been the only way to break through this "established" but mistaken fact. Within the field, no one would have reason to even challenge this. You seem to want proof, not a description of what is going on based on his observations, but I cannot provide this unless we do further tests here on earth like the one with the vicious dog. It would either rule out my father's claim as being valid, or invalid. Why are people so resistant to this simple test? If people say it has already been done, show me the results that prove dogs can recognize their master from a photograph after their master has been gone for a long period of time and would be very excited to see him, or a vicious dog recognizing his master through a glass window where he could not smell or hear him. I would love to see it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Is someone who continues to lie, consistently and frequently and in order to benefit themselves rather than to protect others, truly repentant? Is that person working on amends?

No, but under the new conditions of a no free will environment, he would have no reason to lie. A person lies because it benefits him in some way, and no matter how much we blame that person for being sinful or having no integrity, he will continue to lie if this is the option that seems to him to be the best choice for his circumstances, even with the knowledge that if he is caught there will be severe consequences. Threats of punishment will only go so far if a student finds it worthwhile to take the risk of lying or cheating if he thinks he can get away with it. Children in the new world will have no reason to want to cheat but in this world they do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's rich coming from you, LOL

I'm trying very hard to be accurate in my language. I, as well as everyone here, may fall short of this goal from time to time, but the truth is unless we have a basis for communication (which means a greater understanding of the words choice and compulsion as they relate to the real world), there can be no clarity on this issue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why? Why can't you just answer the post honestly like a normal person?

Why don't you care about your own weaseling and dishonesty?

So how does it get there without traveling? Why can't you even tell me where it came from?

I didn't say or ask anything about images in light.

Yes, because that is where efferent vision clearly falls apart.

You clearly haven't got your head around it either.

So you don't see any way it could work without violating physics? Why then claim that it is plausible? That's not honest.

Why is it fine for you pushing a concept as plausible when you don't even understand it yourself?

I will not answer this post because you are looking at this great distance and thinking that the light could not have reached the eye (the afferent model), therefore it's impossible for this model to be correct. I am saying that it doesn't matter how far the distance is, if the object is within optical range, we would be able to see it as long as the light is bright enough. That, along with the observation that the brain is looking through the eyes (the efferent account) would create this phenomenon. To get into a debate with you regarding traveling photons and their location is barking up the wrong tree and I'm tired of trying to prove to you that this model does not violate physics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Got any documentation to back that up?

I have the book Maturin. That is my documentation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Well, that's what he wrote.

That is not what he wrote. He never said the eye doesn't need light in order to function. Why are you lying about things he didn't say?

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

We know he believed that because in the hypothetical the eye detected an object long before any light came in contact with the eye.

When seeing is reversed from afferent to efferent, and we are looking through the eyes at real objects that are within our field of view, light is at the eye because there is no time element involved.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's not Lessans; it's your attempt at an explanation. I give you props for taking a run at an explanation rather than relying on pure pontification. However, you still have a ways to go. For instance, can you explain how a photon in physical contact with the sun can also be in physical contact with a retina 96 million miles away at the same instant? (Protip: "Because of efferent vision" is not an explanation.)

But that IS an explanation because that is what creates the conditions that allow us to see the material world in real time. If I had said we see in real time without the explanation of efferent vision, then it wouldn't make sense because of the retina being 96 million miles away.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The first few proofs of mine, I did not use the sentence that was in only one of his books. He didn't write "other than light" in all of his books because I guess he assumed people already knew this. But it was taken out of his book. I told you this long ago. Did you forget?

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

The post you're responding to is 19 months old. I recall the exchange. LadyShea knew what you were telling her, but she didn't believe you because you refused to produce any documentation. Will you produce the documentation now?

That's her problem. I am honest. In order for me to produce the documentation (which I shouldn't have to do) I would have to scan that page and upload it. I don't have a scanner but I could ask my son later to help me. I think he has a scanner but I'm not sure.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This discussion is from 2012. I didn't forget, but why are you responding to it now?

I thought you posted it again.

[LadyShea]

That's her problem. I am honest. In order for me to produce the documentation (which I shouldn't have to do) I would have to scan that page and upload it. I don't have a scanner but I could ask my son later to help me. I think he has a scanner but I'm not sure.

I have not found you to be an honest person, but I dropped any expectation of you providing this evidence over a year ago.

If you wish to provide it now, and you have a phone with a camera you can use that instead of a scanner.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Maturin

...can you explain how a photon in physical contact with the sun can also be in physical contact with a retina 96 million miles away at the same instant? (Protip: "Because of efferent vision" is not an explanation.)

Without a plausible explanation of the physical mechanisms by which "efferent vision creates the (physical) conditions", you are making assertions. What is confusing to you about this?

How does the brain looking through the eyes as windows (efferent vision) change the known properties of light to allow photons to be in two places at once, or to get to a physical location without traveling or teleporting there?

[LadyShea]

I am saying that it doesn't matter how far the distance is, if the object is within optical range, we would be able to see it as long as the light is bright enough. That, along with the observation that the brain is looking through the eyes (the efferent account) would create this phenomenon.

Once again, if you had stuck with this, you wouldn't have these questions. However when you said repeatedly that light photons are "at the retina" or "on the surface of camera film", you got into trouble, because you are now committed to positing a physical mechanism by which lights comes to be "at" that physical location.

You can't do it, so you keep weaseling, and retreating back to Lessans language, which didn't say anything at all about light being physically located "at the retina" or on the surface of camera film when we see.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have not found you to be an honest person, but I dropped any expectation of you providing this evidence over a year ago.

I am a very honest person, so your opinion doesn't matter to me.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you wish to provide it now, and you have a phone with a camera you can use that instead of a scanner.

I don't have an iphone internet connection. I'll ask my son to upload the page on his iphone when I visit.

[peacegirl]

I am saying that it doesn't matter how far the distance is, if the object is within optical range, we would be able to see it as long as the light is bright enough. That, along with the observation that the brain is looking through the eyes (the efferent account) would create this phenomenon.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Once again, if you had stuck with this, you wouldn't have these questions. However when you said repeatedly that light photons are "at the retina" or "on the surface of camera film", you got into trouble, because you are now committed to positing a physical mechanism by which lights comes to be "at" that physical location.

The light has to be at the retina for the brain to be able to use the retina to see the outside world. I cannot provide anymore. If you want to denounce this claim because I can't explain the mechanism that is behind this phenomenon, be my guest.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't do it, so you keep weaseling, and retreating back to Lessans language, which didn't say anything at all about light being physically located "at the retina" or on the surface of camera film when we see.

I'm not retreating, weaseling, or anything else. Light has to be physically present at the eye. Scientists will need to examine how this is possible in the efferent account. My father made his contribution. You reject everything he wrote, but others will not. Eventually they will take a better look at this probably when he is found to be right regarding his other discoveries.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Without a plausible explanation of the physical mechanisms by which "efferent vision creates the (physical) conditions", you are making assertions. What is confusing to you about this?

How does the brain looking through the eyes as windows (efferent vision) change the known properties of light to allow photons to be in two places at once, or to get to a physical location without traveling or teleporting there?

The light is not at two places at one time. The distance between an object and the viewer is irrelevant when we're discussing the efferent model. It has no bearing on this issue.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has to be physically present at the eye.

Then you need to offer a physical mechanism within the laws of physics for it to get there, otherwise you are spouting crackpottery. You might as well claim it is magic.

The distance between an object and the viewer is irrelevant when we're discussing the efferent model.

If physical distance is irrelevant when discussing the efferent model, then so are the laws of physics irrelevant when discussing the efferent model. Are you prepared to assert that?

The light has to be at the retina for the brain to be able to use the retina to see the outside world. I cannot provide anymore. If you want to denounce this claim because I can't explain the mechanism that is behind this phenomenon, be my guest.

I have and will. The claim is absolute nonsense.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am a very honest person, so your opinion doesn't matter to me.

I don't have an iphone internet connection. I'll ask my son to upload the page on his iphone when I visit.

Huh, what is an iphone internet connection? Do you have a smart phone (iPhone or other) with a camera and with phone service?

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The tests cannot come from astronomy because it is assumed that when we get an image, it is from light alone and it is no longer considered a theory. It is now believed to be a fact that the non-absorbed light is reflected and travels through space/time where it is decoded or seen on film as an image, even if the object is no longer present. This is in accordance with the definition of sense organ, which is a logical conclusion. Do you know why my father did not agree with this? Since you said you read the book (did you not say this?), do you know what his explanation was that led him to contesting this? I don't mean to put you on the spot, but everyone says they do understand and disagree, yet they have no idea what his observations were. He came to his conclusions indirectly (in the back door, so to speak) which was outside of the field of physics. That, I believe, would have been the only way to break through this "established" but mistaken fact. Within the field, no one would have reason to even challenge this. You seem to want proof, not a description of what is going on based on his observations, but I cannot provide this unless we do further tests here on earth like the one with the vicious dog. It would either rule out my father's claim as being valid, or invalid. Why are people so resistant to this simple test? If people say it has already been done, show me the results that prove dogs can recognize their master from a photograph after their master has been gone for a long period of time and would be very excited to see him, or a vicious dog recognizing his master through a glass window where he could not smell or hear him. I would love to see it. No, I can't think of a way to test the proposition empirically, so I just waffle on and on instead. It's what I do, you know. Haven't you noticed by now?

Thank you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has to be physically present at the eye.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then you need to offer a physical mechanism within the laws of physics for it to get there, otherwise you are spouting crackpottery. You might as well claim it is magic.

Not true. As long as you talk about light "getting there" which involves time, you will never understand this concept and why it is not magic.

The distance between an object and the viewer is irrelevant when we're discussing the efferent model.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If physical distance is irrelevant when discussing the efferent model, then so are the laws of physics irrelevant when discussing the efferent model. Are you prepared to assert that?

It's irrelevant because time is irrelevant in this model. Travel is irrelevant in this model. The laws of physics are not being violated. How many times have I said that light still travels at 186,000 miles a second. Lessans didn't dispute this.

The light has to be at the retina for the brain to be able to use the retina to see the outside world. I cannot provide anymore. If you want to denounce this claim because I can't explain the mechanism that is behind this phenomenon, be my guest.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have and will. The claim is absolute nonsense.

According to who, YOU? Your opinion has no bearing on this. You have no understanding as to why man's will is not free and why Lessans' proposition is the most accurate. And even though his claim of efferent vision doesn't sit well with you, at the very least you should keep an open mind instead of using your present knowledge and understanding to be the judge. I am not telling you to give up your belief that the eyes are a sense organ. I'm asking you to take a wait and see attitude. I hope you do that.

[LadyShea]

It's irrelevant because time is irrelevant in this model. Travel is irrelevant in this model. The laws of physics are not being violated.

If physical distances aren't accounted for by any mechanism in the model, then absolutely the laws of physics are being violated.

How many times have I said that light still travels at 186,000 miles a second. Lessans didn't dispute this.

The travel speed of light is one property of light, it does not encompass the whole of optics. There are other properties and other physical laws at play too.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Hermit

Thank you.

Hermit, I am not going to challenge you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If physical distances aren't accounted for by any mechanism in the model, then absolutely the laws of physics are being violated.

You are wrong. It isn't that there isn't distance between an object and the viewer but it doesn't play a part in the efferent account, otherwise there would be a delay since light travels at a finite speed. This would not be real time vision. What I am trying to say is that the requirements of this account are different than the requirements of the afferent account. I already said that if Lessans claimed we see instantly using the afferent account, then it would make no sense since we wouldn't be able to get an image if the light hadn't arrived for the eyes to receive it.

How many times have I said that light still travels at 186,000 miles a second. Lessans didn't dispute this.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The travel speed of light is one property of light, it does not encompass the whole of optics. There are other properties and other physical laws at play too.

He isn't violating optics at all. The only dispute is that the partial spectrum gets reflected.

[LadyShea]

The problem you have is with the physical location of light photons at any given time during the process of seeing. You (not Lessans) have light photons located both at the Sun and at the retina/film on Earth at the same time* in Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon.

Nothing about images arriving.


*This is two locations at once, right? So how do you reconcile that with your assertion

The light is not at two places at one time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As long as you talk about light "getting there" which involves time, you will never understand this concept and why it is not magic.

As long as you keep talking about light "being there" (at the retina/film), without a physical mechanism accounting for how it is there, then you are talking about magic and violating the laws of physics.