A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
This statement is completely banana pants. By a strict defintion of efference (and his contrasting it against the afference of the other senses) this statement could only mean that the brain is sending signals to our eyes but not the other way around.... so everything we see is just being created by our brain?
If this isn't what he meant then he should have picked his words better.

Quoted because the phrase banana pants is objectively awesome.

[LadyShea]

If you picture this box where the object is on one end and the viewer on the other (this is the parameter), it is not difficult to see that the light being reflected would be at the eye or film (as long as there was enough intensity), putting the viewer within optical range of the object which he sees in real time.

The word "intensity" refers to traveling photons, and the box having 2 ends indicates a Point A and a Point B separated by a physical space that the photons are traveling through. Optical range just means that the viewer is receiving enough photons to see the object.

There is nothing here on which to base a conclusion of "real time" seeing. You just tacked that on illicitly.

[davidm]

Peacegirl is positively ….

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quoted because the phrase banana pants is objectively awesome.

Just want to say in response to this post, there is no sending out of signals to the eyes. Nothing is created by the brain when it comes to vision. The brain looks out through the eyes to see the external world, period. Where did I ever mention anything even resembling "signals being created"? It's amazing what people will come up with!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The word "intensity" refers to traveling photons, and the box having 2 ends indicates a Point A and a Point B separated by a physical space that the photons are traveling through. Optical range just means that the viewer is receiving enough photons to see the object.

Of course that's what it says. No one knows about this alternate claim. I never denied that photons travel, but that still doesn't change the fact that the intensity of light coming from the object is a necessary requirement for sight in this model because it allows the subject to be within optical range. This does not stop photons from traveling to Earth at the same time we see a faraway object.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is nothing here on which to base a conclusion of "real time" seeing. You just tacked that on illicitly.

This blanket statement of yours just shows me you don't want to consider that this alternate model is even possible, just like you don't want to believe that Lessans' observations regarding determinism are anything more than an assertion. Oh well LadyShea. It's your loss.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, they did. If you now have a letter in your mailbox that came from Canada, then that means it somehow got from Canada to your mailbox. Likewise, if you now have photons at the film that came from the Sun, then that means they somehow got from the Sun to the film.

This is nonsensical. It doesn't matter how bright the Sun is. Any light from the Sun and which is now at the retina/film, had to get from the Sun to the film. It is a 92 million mile change of location that you are failing to explain. You might as well say the letter from Canada can be in your mailbox without leaving Canada so long as it is big enough to be read.

Another lie. You are NOT trying to explain it. You are completely refusing to even address the problem.

The box example doesn't help you at all, as the light would still have to travel from one end of the box to the other. Anything else is unexplained nonsensical magic.

The belief that this model doesn't work because "light has to travel 93 million miles" when there is no image in the light itself, just shows me that you cannot release yourself from this faulty logic which appears real. All you are doing is reverting back to the afferent position without even understanding that the requirements of efferent vision do work, regardless of how far away an object is since space, distance, and time, are irrelevant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Size and brightness don't enclose anything.

I'm not saying size and brightness enclose anything. I'm saying THE OBJECT PLUS THE VIEWER ENCLOSES SOMETHING.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop your lying and we won't have to call you out on it. You straight up lied about the duplicate post. There was never any duplicate. You just edited out words you regretted having typed, and called it a duplicate when it was not. It's not even the first time you've been called out on this dishonest practice.

I've been accused of lying when I weaseled a little, is all. I am not a liar Spacemonkey. My father wrote, "other than light" in one of his books. I edited a few words in the original post and at the bottom it usually tells you when it was edited. It didn't allow me to do that. It created a new post with the edit I made. Therefore I had one original, and one edited page that was almost identical. I took out the original because I wanted to keep the change I made but I didn't want people to think that these two posts were duplicated since they were almost exactly alike. What is it that you don't get? Why are you trying so hard to make me look deceitful? Could it be you want to discredit me, and by association my father?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No lies from me

If being called a liar makes you uncomfortable, you could try to stop lying.

You are a liar though. You say things you know are not true quite often. Just recently here, you claimed to be unable to edit a post that you clearly were able to edit since you edited it to say the word "duplicate" and it has an edit tag right on it Last edited by peacegirl; 06-16-14 at 10:55 AM. Additionally, the post was quoted before you edited it, so we know there is no "duplicate".

You even admitted that you "took out the post" when you said "No I'm not. I took out that post because the word "extend" is confusing and you'll accuse me of changing the properties of light." Taking out a post due to your using a confusing term is not the same a duplicate post, is it? So why did you replace it with the word duplicate, rather than "I took out this post" or "nevermind" or something truthful?

Light and its location is the primary focus of photography, which is my focus as you well know since I have stated it many times.

It is true that light and its interaction with film is your focus, but the camera will NOT get a photograph, using light, without aiming the lens AT THE OBJECT. What is it that's so difficult to grasp? It is assumed the lens is aimed at delayed light, which is what is being disputed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes of course, because
1) light travels and
2)if there are two points separated by physical distance, a point A and a point B, and light from A is also located at B, then per the properties of light, such as the property of "traveling at all times" then it stands to reason that it travels from A to B.

You have had and continue to have the opportunity to explain light being located at two points separated by physical distance without it traveling, but have been unable to provide any explanation that takes the laws of physics into account.

The function of light in photography is to physically interact with the chemicals on camera film or the photosites on a digital sensor These physical interactions require that light photons be located on the film or sensor.

Sensors array and photosites.

No, I can't imagine that, since you haven't offered any mechanism at all, let alone one that conforms with the laws of physics.

LOL! Is it a closed system highway or an open system highway?

Cameras absolutely create an image from photons. They don't and can't work without photons.

That's why you aren't making any sense, because you seem to think you can remove photons from that scenario and get a photograph. You can't. Photons must be inside the camera...where do they come from and how do they get there, peacegirl?

When did Lessans ever say that photons are not involved in the process? But the distance in the efferent account where photons have to travel the span of thousands or millions of miles is irrelevant in real time vision. What is most important is size and brightness because the lens of the eye or camera, pointing to the actual object, (can you image this for a nanosecond?) allows those photons to interact with the retina or film since it puts the lens within optical range of the object. This is an instant process which has nothing to do with any kind of delay. It's easy for me to see this; why you can't, especially with my box example, is more than likely a block you (and Spacemonkey) are having rather than anything wrong with the model itself.

[LadyShea]

It is true that light and its interaction with film is your focus, but the camera will NOT get a photograph, using light, without aiming the lens AT THE OBJECT.

So what? In terms of standard optics, the light the camera uses to create an image of an object is coming from that object, so the camera has to pointed at that object to receive that light.

How do you explain how the light gets inside the camera and where that light comes from in the efferent account?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just want to say in response to this post, there is no sending out of signals to the eyes. Nothing is created by the brain when it comes to vision. The brain looks out through the eyes to see the external world, period. Where did I ever mention anything even resembling "signals being created"? It's amazing what people will come up with!

The word efferent means the brain sending signals out to another part of the body. As Artemis clearly stated "By a strict defintion of efference...." So no, it's not at all amazing or odd that someone would use the normal understanding of a word, because he/she is not familiar with Lessans use of idiosyncratic definitions of many, many words.

We've joked about a Lessans to English dictionary many times because of this.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course that's what it says. No one knows about this alternate claim. I never denied that photons travel, but that still doesn't change the fact that the intensity of light coming from the object is a necessary requirement for sight in this model because it allows the subject to be within optical range. This does not stop photons from traveling to Earth at the same time we see a faraway object.

This blanket statement of yours just shows me you don't want to consider that this alternate model is even possible, just like you don't want to believe that Lessans' observations regarding determinism are anything more than an assertion. Oh well LadyShea. It's your loss.

LOL, I am asking you for your mechanism and explanations to demonstrate that it is possible at all, and so you talk about standard optics then add "real time" onto it as if that works. You got nothin'

If the Sun is turned on at Noon, and a camera takes a photograph of the Sun at noon, where did the photons inside the camera come from and how did they get there, since the light photons from the Sun won't reach Earth until 12:08?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not saying size and brightness enclose anything. I'm saying THE OBJECT PLUS THE VIEWER ENCLOSES SOMETHING.

What is the "something" the object and a person encloses, and how do they enclose it, and what do they enclose it with?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When did Lessans ever say that photons are not involved in the process? But the distance in the efferent account where photons have to travel the span of thousands or millions of miles is irrelevant in real time vision. What is most important is size and brightness because the lens of the eye or camera, pointing to the actual object, (can you image this for a nanosecond?) allows those photons to interact with the retina or film since it puts the lens within optical range of the object. This is an instant process which has nothing to do with any kind of delay. It's easy for me to see this; why you can't, especially with my box example, is more than likely a block you (and Spacemonkey) are having rather than anything wrong with the model itself.

None of this addresses my post at all. You keep repeating assertions that don't explain anything. You are demonstrating to everyone, including your imaginary interested lurkers, that you are dishonest. Optical range, brightness and size are not explanations of how anything happens. They are just nouns you've strung together, like a list of ingredients. My "Flour, yeast, salt and water = bread" analogy is not only fair, it is highly apt. You are missing all of the mechanisms.

The distance photons have to travel is highly relevant to photography and physics. Handwaving it away as irrelevant is a weaselly cop out.

Photons must be inside the camera for a photograph to be created...where do they come from and how do they get there, peacegirl?

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The word efferent means the brain sending signals out to another part of the body. As Artemis clearly stated "By a strict defintion of efference...." So no, it's not at all amazing or odd that someone would use the normal understanding of a word, because he/she is not familiar with Lessans use of idiosyncratic definitions of many, many words.

We've joked about a Lessans to English dictionary many times because of this.

I was writing a long response but you summed that part up nicely. I was using strict definition of the two words in "efferent vision" since there is no other reference to that term on the whole of internet (atleast the part that google searches) that didn't originate from peacegirl.
Also it seemed to fit with the quote from Lessans "...this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ." Which I believe is incorrect, if it is true then I'd love to see some evidence and studies about that.
If the there is no afference from the eyes to the brain then what we preceive as vision would have to be created by the brain. Strictly speaking what we preceive as vision is created by the brain but it's formed from the signals from our eyes.

I'm not sure why she's using an funtional antonym to prefix vision. Now I'm going to go regurgitate my lunch, in order to take in it's life giving nutrients.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm saying THE OBJECT PLUS THE VIEWER ENCLOSES SOMETHING.

Can you please explain this further?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The word "intensity" refers to traveling photons, and the box having 2 ends indicates a Point A and a Point B separated by a physical space that the photons are traveling through. Optical range just means that the viewer is receiving enough photons to see the object.

Of course that's what it says. No one knows about this alternate claim. I never denied that photons travel, but that still doesn't change the fact that the intensity of light is a necessary condition for real time sight or photography. If the Sun was seen at noon because it met the requirements of efferent vision does not change the fact that light would still be traveling to Earth which takes 81/2 minutes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is nothing here on which to base a conclusion of "real time" seeing. You just tacked that on illicitly.

This blanket statement of yours just shows me you don't want to consider that this alternate model is even possible, just like you don't want to believe that Lessans' observations regarding determinism are anything more than an assertion. Oh well LadyShea. It's your loss.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So what? In terms of standard optics, the light the camera uses to create an image of an object is coming from that object, so the camera has to be pointed at that object to receive that light.

No, it is not believed to be pointed at the actual object; it is believed to be pointed at a delayed image coming from the light that has bounced off of the object. According to the efferent account, when the camera is focused on the actual object, the light will already be at the film or the object would not be seen through the lens.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do you explain how the light gets inside the camera and where that light comes from in the efferent account?

You keep going back to "where did the light come from" (Spacemonkey's famous words). If you analyze this account you will see that distance is not a factor, therefore travel time is not a factor, therefore delayed light is not a factor, which is why I cannot answer to this question because it doesn't relate.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It IS imaginary in that there is no actual box, but it illustrates what I'm trying to get across;

No, it doesn't. The only thing it illustrates is your ignorance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...the light from the object was bright enough and close enough to make contact with the film or the retina as the viewer gazes, or the lens is pointed, in that direction.

How close is close enough? Unless the eye is in direct physical contact with the object, then the light from the object has to travel some specific distance in order to make contact with the film or the retina. What is that distance?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...the requirements of efferent vision do work, regardless of how far away an object is since space, distance, and time, are irrelevant.

I agree that space, distance and time are irrelevant within the framework of efferent vision. Since efferent vision is irrelevant to anthing that happens in the real world it follows that everything in that framework is also irrelevant.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is most important is size and brightness because the lens of the eye or camera, pointing to the actual object, (can you image this for a nanosecond?) allows those photons to interact with the retina or film since it puts the lens within optical range of the object.

How does it do this?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The belief that this model doesn't work because "light has to travel 93 million miles" when there is no image in the light itself, just shows me that you cannot release yourself from this faulty logic which appears real. All you are doing is reverting back to the afferent position without even understanding that the requirements of efferent vision do work, regardless of how far away an object is since space, distance, and time, are irrelevant.

I haven't said there is an image in the light itself, I haven't used any faulty logic, and I have not reverted back to any afferent position. YOU have said there will be light at the film that came from the Sun 93 million miles away. That means YOU have a very relevant distance to deal with, and a 93 million mile change in the location of light that you are refusing to even try to explain.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep going back to "where did the light come from" (Spacemonkey's famous words).

It is a perfectly legitimate question, and one that your account needs to answer before it can be considered at all plausible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you analyze this account you will see that distance is not a factor, therefore travel time is not a factor, therefore delayed light is not a factor, which is why I cannot answer to this question because it doesn't relate.

But it does relate. We've analyzed your account and found that this distance still is a factor, because you need light to change location by 93 million miles instantaneously, and we know light cannot do this. You refuse to acknowledge that this distance is a relevant factor because YOU refuse to analyze your own account.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've been accused of lying when I weaseled a little, is all. I am not a liar Spacemonkey. My father wrote, "other than light" in one of his books. I edited a few words in the original post and at the bottom it usually tells you when it was edited. It didn't allow me to do that. It created a new post with the edit I made. Therefore I had one original, and one edited page that was almost identical. I took out the original because I wanted to keep the change I made but I didn't want people to think that these two posts were duplicated since they were almost exactly alike. What is it that you don't get? Why are you trying so hard to make me look deceitful? Could it be you want to discredit me, and by association my father?

You are a liar. You are lying right now. The forum did allow you to edit post #36642. No new post was created with the edit you made. You did not have an original post and a nearly identical edited copy. None of what you just said is even remotely true. What happened is that you regretted making a daft comment about extending brightness, so you went back and successfully deleted the post, calling it a duplicate when it was not. You even told us that this is what you'd done! If your above account were true then there'd still be an edited copy of the now deleted post #36642 remaining in the thread. But there is not. So stop lying about it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

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.)

Will we see any honesty today, or are you still evading this post?