A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

I am not going to answer you because your entire list of choices is based on photons traveling. The photons obviously are coming from a light source or an object that is reflecting that light. You have failed to understand the efferent account even the slightest, and asking me the same question over and over again isn't going to get you any closer to understanding this model, just like repeating over and over that compatibilism reconciles free will (not the libertarian kind) and determinism doesn't make it so. Focusing on traveling photons and where they are located does not even apply because TIME is not involved when one is looking from the inside out through the eyes. You're a broken record because you will not try to grasp the mechanism behind efferent vision, which I have tried to explain more times than I can count. What allows the non-absorbed photons to be at the eye or film without light having to travel to Earth first is because of the function of the eyes and brain, not light. Light continues to travel, nothing is static. The photons are already at the eye if the requirements of efferent vision are met, since actual distance between the object and the viewer is not relevant in this model, as long as the object (the real substance) is bright enough and large enough to be seen. We interpret distance in our brain. I know the moon is 238,000 miles away from Earth and a candle in a dark room is only a feet away, yet the principle is the same in both cases.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not going to answer you because...

Because you're a dishonest lying weasel without a shred of integrity, apparently. You have no excuse for not answering this post.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...your entire list of choices is based on photons traveling.

That is a plain lie, and shows you haven't even read the post. The list of choices is NOT based on photons traveling (not that you even disagree with that anyway!). Traveling photons is only one of four possible options, and the post proves that there are no further options beyond these.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The photons obviously are coming from a light source or an object that is reflecting that light.

The only light source in the scenario is the Sun. So how do these photons get from the Sun to the film/retina on Earth without teleporting and without traveling there? You don't know, do you? You have absolutely no fucking idea how any of this is supposed to work!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep asking me where did the photons come from which shows me you have failed to understand the efferent account even the slightest...

That you cannot answer that question without contradicting yourself shows that YOU don't understand the efferent account in the slightest. The post you just refused to answer proves that the light cannot have come from the Sun if it doesn't travel or teleport to the film/retina.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...asking me where the same question over and over again doesn't even apply in this model...

Again, as long as you say light will be at the retina, the question of where that light came from and how it got there certainly DOES apply.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...because TIME is not involved when you are looking from inside out through the eyes, not from the outside in.

Weasel. Cameras don't have eyes and cannot look outwards, yet you need to explain the same problem for photography, so this answer does not work. Also, you need to SHOW, and not just claim, that time will not be involved. That is what you cannot do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're a broken record because you will not even try to grasp the mechanism behind efferent vision...

You have yet to postulate any mechanism for how the light gets from the Sun to the film/retina. Doing so without any time involved is either faster-than-light travel or teleportation by definition. You have no mechanism.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because you're a dishonest lying weasel without a shred of integrity, apparently. You have no excuse for not answering this post.

That is a plain lie, and shows you haven't even read the post. The list of choices is NOT based on photons traveling (not that you even disagree with that anyway!). Traveling photons is only one of four possible options, and the post proves that there are no further options beyond these.

The only light source in the scenario is the Sun. So how do these photons get from the Sun to the film/retina on Earth without teleporting and without traveling there? You don't know, do you? You have absolutely no fucking idea how any of this is supposed to work!

That you cannot answer that question without contradicting yourself shows that YOU don't understand the efferent account in the slightest. The post you just refused to answer proves that the light cannot have come from the Sun if it doesn't travel or teleport to the film/retina.

Again, as long as you say light will be at the retina, the question of where that light came from and how it got there certainly DOES apply.

Weasel. Cameras don't have eyes and cannot look outwards, yet you need to explain the same problem for photography, so this answer does not work. Also, you need to SHOW, and not just claim, that time will not be involved. That is what you cannot do.

You have yet to postulate any mechanism for how the light gets from the Sun to the film/retina. Doing so without any time involved is either faster-than-light travel or teleportation by definition. You have no mechanism.

Let it go Spacemonkey. I [believe] you are wrong about vision, and you're wrong about compatibilism, so let's agree to disagree, okay?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

... just like repeating over and over that compatibilism reconciles free will (not the libertarian kind) and determinism doesn't make it so.

You really are pathetically desperate to change the subject, aren't you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What allows the non-absorbed photons to be at the eye or film without light having to travel to Earth first is because of the function of the eyes and brain, not light.

How exactly does the "function of the eyes and brain" allow light from the Sun to be at the CAMERA FILM on Earth without having traveled there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The photons are already at the eye if the requirements of efferent vision are met, since actual distance between the object and the viewer is not relevant in this model, as long as the object (the real substance) is bright enough and large enough to be seen.

Stating conditions still isn't a mechanism. We've told you this countless times before. You just don't learn, do you?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let it go Spacemonkey. I [believe] you are wrong about vision, and you're wrong about compatibilism, so let's agree to disagree, okay?

No. And stop trying to change the subject. Weasel.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, you've now claimed that the photons at the retina/film came from the Sun. Note that this is exactly the premise from which the following reasoning begins. So please explain what part of the following you disagree with...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Let's try this another way, Peacegirl. Let's start by assuming that the photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Assumption #1: The photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Now lets define traveling and teleporting. Traveling is getting from A to B by passing through all intervening points. Teleporting is getting from A to B without passing through all intervening points. Clearly these are jointly exhaustive - if you get from A to B you must do so either by passing through the intervening points or by not passing through them. So...

Conclusion #1: If the photons came from the Sun then they either traveled there or teleported there.

Now you insist that they neither traveled there nor teleported, so we can conclude via modus tollens (If A then B, not B, therefore not A) that these photons cannot have come from the Sun.

Assumption #2: The photons at the film/retina did not travel or teleport there.

Conclusion #2: The photons at the film/retina did not come from the Sun.

So now the million-dollar question: Where the fuck did these photons come from? We can note also that the exact same reasoning as above will still apply for any location other than the Sun - as long as the photons are getting from A to B, they have to either travel there or teleport there - so we can know that...

Conclusion #3: The photons at the film/retina did not get there from anywhere else.

That leaves two remaining possibilities: (i) These photons were always there, i.e. sitting stationary at the film/retina surface; or (ii) They did not previously exist, and instead came into existence at the film/retina. But of course neither of these are plausible either, as photons cannot be stationary, and they do not pop into existence in our eyes or on film. But unless you accept one of these options we are forced to conclude that...

Conclusion #4: Assumption #2 was bollocks.

Basically, what we have proven is that you have only four options for the photons at the film/retina:

(i) Traveling photons.
(ii) Teleporting photons.
(iii) Stationary photons.
(iv) Newly existing photons.

So which is it going to be? (Remember, weaseling and fake-conceding are not honest responses.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, you've now claimed that the photons at the retina/film came from the Sun. Note that this is exactly the premise from which the following reasoning begins. So please explain what part of the following you disagree with...

NONE!!! You are not going to win Spacemonkey by forcing me to choose.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

NONE!!! You are not going to win Spacemonkey by forcing me to choose.

Stop weaseling and address the post. If none of those options are acceptable to you, then efferent vision is disproven - for those are the ONLY possible options. If you think otherwise then you need to show how and where the preceding reasoning is mistaken. Try it! Try being honest and reasonable!

[LadyShea]

There IS a mechanism. Lessans describes how the brain and eyes work in relation to light

No he didn't. He never once said a single word about light being located "at the retina" or on camera film. That's all you.

You are wrong LadyShea. There is nothing that changes except that we see in real time.

And that light can be located somewhere without any explanation of how it is there.
And that only white light travels, and reflected light does something else entirely...hangs around objects waiting for us to direct our gaze at it, apparently.

[LadyShea]

If I see a tree, that is an object within my field of view. But you are saying that objects are not required, all we need in order to see are the images that are received from photons coming from that object.

Objects are required to see those objects. If there is no tree, we cannot see the tree. If the light reflecting off the tree is blocked or absorbed, or if it is too dispersed by distance, we cannot see the tree because the light from the tree cannot intersect with our retina . What are you talking about?

If you are referring to galactic distances, where the light travel time delay becomes noticeable, then the object still has to exist somewhere/somewhen in spacetime. But since you used a tree as an example, I assume you are not talking about objects from outside of the Earth.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is you who won't admit that there is a difference between seeing the real object because it is within optical range of the person looking...

We see things because 'they're within optical range' isn't an explanation. You've never explained what 'within optical range' means other than 'visible'. As usual you've reverted to 'we can see things because we can see things'. As I said, incoherent ramblings.

By the way, we can see plenty of things without the object being needed. I can see trees on a TV screen without the need for a tree, because the TV is designed to project light in the same pattern that a tree would reflect it. We know that's what a TV is doing because we made them do it. Your ridiculous claims about vision can't even explain how a TV works!

[LadyShea]

And, we see things on TV and computer screens that aren't actual in any sense, like the color yellow. If you use a 60x magnifier on the image, you would not see any yellow pixels. Watch the video I posted a few pages back.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

NONE!!! You are not going to win Spacemonkey by forcing me to choose.

So you admit that all the choices are bad, and that there are no other choices. Thus you admit that you have been talking twaddle all along.

You have inadvertently revealed yourself. You know perfectly well that you're talking rubbish. But you can never ADMIT it, because in that case you would "lose." "Winning" to you is more important than what is true.

But even so you're a loser, because you haven't "won" anything in ten years on the Internet. You haven't convinced a single person that there is any merit in what you, in the post quoted above, implicitly concede is rubbish.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You really are pathetically desperate to change the subject, aren't you?

How exactly does the "function of the eyes and brain" allow light from the Sun to be at the CAMERA FILM on Earth without having traveled there?

Stating conditions still isn't a mechanism. We've told you this countless times before. You just don't learn, do you?

I won't learn something that isn't true. The mechanism is there. It's a combination of how the brain and eyes work. It's a closed system which makes the actual distance (which is time related) irrelevant in this account since our eyes are already within optical range of the actual object when we gaze in that direction. This is getting old, once again, so let's end on a friendly note.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

So you admit that all the choices are bad, and that there are no other choices. Thus you admit that you have been talking twaddle all along.

You have inadvertently revealed yourself. You know perfectly well that you're talking rubbish. But you can never ADMIT it, because in that case you would "lose." "Winning" to you is more important than what is true.

But even so you're a loser, because you haven't "won" anything in ten years on the Internet. You haven't convinced a single person that there is any merit in what you, in the post quoted above, implicitly concede is rubbish.

Changing a single person on an internet forum has no relevance whatsoever. People are having a hard time because this concept is new to them. Anytime something new is introduced it takes time to adjust to the idea. The fact that it hasn't been recognized yet by science adds to the problem, for who am I to come online and espouse something that goes against the grain of what science believes is factual? This still does not prove he was wrong, and I will maintain that he was right until someone listens.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I won't learn something that isn't true.

No-one's asking you to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The mechanism is there.

You still haven't specified one.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a combination of how the brain and eyes work.

Cameras don't have brains or eyes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a closed system which makes the actual distance (which is time related) irrelevant in this account...

You haven't explained how it could work without making the actual distance relevant.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is getting old, once again, so let's end on a friendly note.

I'd settle for ending on an honest note, but you don't seem capable of it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, you've now claimed that the photons at the retina/film came from the Sun. Note that this is exactly the premise from which the following reasoning begins. So please explain what part of the following you disagree with...

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And, we see things on TV and computer screens that aren't actual in any sense, like the color yellow. If you use a 60x magnifier on the image, you would not see any yellow pixels. Watch the video I posted a few pages back.

Each pixel, is a semiconductor material that absorbs photons and generates electrons.

pix·el
/ˈpiksəl/
noun
a minute area of illumination on a display screen, one of many from which an image is composed.

Just because the picture on the monitor is a representation of the real thing doesn't change the fact that the pixel itself is within optical range. A pixel is a material that absorbs photons to allow us to see the representation.

Remember the definition? Any kind of matter that is within optical range will produce an image as long as there is enough light present.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Done Spacemonkey. Your yelling at me with your LARGE FONT isn't going to get me to discuss this any further. You have failed to even acknowledge my reasoning as to why this account does not violate physics because you are stuck in a loop that goes right back to the same question over and over and over again regarding traveling photons. It doesn't even apply in this account, which is why I can't answer you. I'm not ignoring you and I"m not weaseling. I can't fit your thought system into mine. They are mutually exclusive.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No-one's asking you to.

That's yet to be determined.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The mechanism is there.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You still haven't specified one.

I'm doing the best I can but it's difficult when you are fixated on traveling photons.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a combination of how the brain and eyes work.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Cameras don't have brains or eyes.

No they don't, but if the camera is within optical range of the object, it works in the same way as the eyes. It just produces the image on film in real time instead of our eyes seeing the object in real time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a closed system which makes the actual distance (which is time related) irrelevant in this account...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't explained how it could work without making the actual distance relevant.

The fact that the object has to be within our field of view, along with the brain looking through the eyes to see that object, creates a closed system. This system has all the requirements necessary for real time seeing to occur.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is getting old, once again, so let's end on a friendly note.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'd settle for ending on an honest note, but you don't seem capable of it.

Why revert back to these accusations about me not being honest just because you are a poor loser?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Done Spacemonkey. Your yelling at me with your LARGE FONT isn't going to get me to discuss this any further. You have failed to even acknowledge my reasoning as to why this account does not violate physics because you are stuck in a loop that goes right back to the same question over and over and over again regarding traveling photons. It doesn't even apply in this account, which is why I can't answer you. I'm not ignoring you and I"m not weaseling. I can't fit your thought system into mine. They are mutually exclusive.

You are simply not being honest, with us or yourself. You hypocritically object to my large font after yelling at me in ALL CAPS. I have directly addressed and refuted your reasoning, while you have point blank refused to even address mine. You have failed to show how your account can avoid violating physics, and my question certainly does apply just so long as you are positing light at the film/retina. Any time you do that, we get to ask where it came from and how it got there. You ARE ignoring the question and you ARE weaseling. No-one is asking you to fit my thought system onto yours. My questions concern only your own system - the very same one that you are refusing to investigate in any halfway reasonable or logical manner, because you KNOW it is rubbish.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's yet to be determined.

No it isn't. The point concerned was that stating requirements is not providing a mechanism. This is not something yet to be determined. It is a straightforward fact.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm doing the best I can but it's difficult when you are fixated on traveling photons.

You are not doing the best you can. You're doing nothing but weaseling. I am asking perfectly reasonable questions about the photons that YOU have stated to exist within your model. And you can't manage an honest answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No they don't, but if the camera is within optical range of the object, it works in the same way as the eyes. It just produces the image on film in real time instead of our eyes seeing the object in real time.

If cameras don't have eyes or brains, then there must be some mechanism that has nothing to do with eyes or brains that will explain how the photons at the film got to be there. And if vision works in the same way, then the explanation for how the photons get to be at the retina also cannot have anything to do with what the eyes and brain are doing. You can't explain how it works for either eyes or cameras, so appealing to the one to explain the other is not an honest move.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that the object has to be within our field of view, along with the brain looking through the eyes to see that object, creates a closed system. This system has all the requirements necessary for real time seeing to occur.

Again, that is just STATING that the actual distance is not relevant. What you need is some EXPLANATORY MECHANISM for how it could work without making the distance relevant.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why revert back to these accusations about me not being honest...

Because you are not being honest. Weaseling and refusing to answer questions is not honest.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Each pixel, is a semiconductor material that absorbs photons and generates electrons.

pix·el
/ˈpiksəl/
noun
a minute area of illumination on a display screen, one of many from which an image is composed.

Just because the picture on the monitor is a representation of the real thing doesn't change the fact that the pixel itself is within optical range. A pixel is a material that absorbs photons to allow us to see the representation.

Remember the definition? Any kind of matter that is within optical range will produce an image as long as there is enough light present.

Explain how it is that we are allowed to see yellow when there is no yellow "matter" there.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

right back to the same question over and over and over again regarding traveling photons. It doesn't even apply in this account, which is why I can't answer you. I'm not ignoring you and I"m not weaseling. I can't fit your thought system into mine. They are mutually exclusive.

Then you need to abandon the claim that light photons are physically located at the retina and on camera film in efferent vision (which Lessans didn't believe and never mentioned), and especially in the case of the Sun on at noon scenario, or you need to account for how light is located there and where it came from without changing the known properties of light and laws of physics.

"Eyes and brain" doesn't explain cameras. and neither does this:

No they don't, but if the camera is within optical range of the object, it works in the same way as the eyes. It just produces the image on film in real time instead of our eyes seeing the object in real time.

According to this statement, the brain is irrelevant to seeing. But Lessans thought it was the most important thing...in fact he said we wouldn't see anything with our eyes without the stimulation of our brain from the other senses. How does a camera fit into that at all?

Then you go right back to the brain, which doesn't explain cameras

The fact that the object has to be within our field of view, along with the brain looking through the eyes to see that object, creates a closed system

How does that fit with a camera?

As long as you make these contradictory and nonsensical claims, you are going to be challenged to explain and defend them, which you can't.