A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I didn't answer questions there would be no thread. Every day I am answering posts.

You respond to posts, but you do not answer questions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Maybe everyone is focusing on too many different things.

Side A; The standard scientific model of vision states the we see through the means of photoreceptors in the eye that absorb light and transmit signals to the brain. Since light has a known speed, everything we see has a slight delay caused by the travel of light. However, since the speed of light is so great this delay is only apparent at great distances.

That is the standard model of vision.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Side B, "Efferent" vision states that the eyes see in real time through some unknown mechanism.

No, I was only saying that I don't know the exact mechanism as to how the brain is able to look through the eyes, but then again science doesn't know the exact mechanism as to how the brain is able to interpret normal vision from impulses either. They are putting certain beliefs together to form an inference. There is no proof that normal vision occurs within the brain.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Even, though we have no idea what this mechanism is we can say that it can't possibly be due to light being absorbed by the eye due restrictions of speed and distance. To claim that would be redefining the nature of light.

You are stating the first premise as the conclusion. The premise which states that light can only be absorbed through the eye due to speed and distance IS the afferent position, which is the very thing being disputed. This is circular reasoning and doesn't prove anything.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Is this a fair claim for both sides?

If so then the real disagreement is in the mechanism through which the eye sees and we can end the debate about light actually being “at the eye.”

Until you understand why the efferent model puts the eyes in optical range when the object is seen --- one that does not violate the laws of physics --- it will continue to elude you.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

However, I don't think the debate could really continue since peacegirl has already admitted;

That doesn't mean anything. Astute observation was key to seeing this reality. We're still talking about light when his discovery came from understanding the eyes. He didn't have to know the exact mechanism. He didn't have to know the exact mechanism as to why we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction either. We may never why something is the way it is. That isn't a necessary requirement. All that he had to do was explain his observations as to what is occurring, which happen to be spot on.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You respond to posts, but you do not answer questions.

Spacemonkey, that's such malarchy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

Here is what I wrote:

Yes, the light will be at the film instantly, BUT THE LIGHT DOES NOT HAVE TO REACH EARTH FOR THIS TO OCCUR.
How can light be there before it has had time to get there?

The entire Sun example was given for a purpose; to explain why light does not have to travel to Earth first.

Both of these statements say the same thing. When I said, "How can light be there before it had time to get there?" I was referring to full spectrum light. Light from the Sun cannot get to earth without traveling 8.5 minutes, but the nonabsorbed photons do not get reflected. In other words they allow us to see the object in real time only because the object is present. Our gaze is already within optical range the instant (no time involved) we see the object because the information that is at the photoreceptors or film does not get sent through space/time, although light continues to travel. It is there at the eye or film because the conditions necessary for sight or photography have been met; brightness and size. This is the problem. You believe that the light is carrying the information that will allow the image to be created on film or within the brain, and you think that this is the only possible way information from the external world can be received. You are starting off with a premise that you are assuming is accurate. You're still on the afferent merry-go-round. Round and round we go again and again and again, with no end in sight.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, that's such malarchy.

Nope. It's an astute observation. And I can prove it. Here's a question. You won't answer it:

How can light be at the retina or film on Earth before it has had time to get there?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Here is what I wrote:

Yes, the light will be at the film instantly, BUT THE LIGHT DOES NOT HAVE TO REACH EARTH FOR THIS TO OCCUR.

Nope. HERE'S what you wrote:

"I did not say that the photons would be at the film or retina on Earth because there are no photons on Earth in this hypothetical example."

Note how this says the exact opposite of what you said above.

[peacegirl]

Could someone help me out? I need someone to see if under the heading: Decline and Fall of All Evil, there is link to my new ebook. I think I have to clear my browser cache because it's not showing up.

- Decline and Fall of All Evil

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are stating the first premise as the conclusion. The premise which states that light can only be absorbed through the eye due to speed and distance IS the afferent position, which is the very thing being disputed. This is circular reasoning and doesn't prove anything.

Ok I guess that is where we are with the argument.

Light is absorbed through contact with the eye. Which requires to reach the eye. In order for anything to for the light to be there it has to get from the sun to the eye. Light moves at a known speed so it takes time to get there.

So you are either arguing that the light somehow at more than one place at once; at the sun and at the eye.
Or you're arguing that the eye can detect the light from 93million miles away, without any means of explaining this detection.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Our gaze is already within optical range the instant (no time involved) we see the object because the information that is at the photoreceptors or film does not get sent through space/time, although light continues to travel. It is there at the eye or film because the conditions necessary for sight or photography have been met; brightness and size. This is the problem. You believe that the light is carrying the information that will allow the image to be created on film or within the brain, and you think that this is the only possible way information from the external world can be received. You are starting off with a premise that you are assuming is accurate. You're still on the afferent merry-go-round. Round and round we go again and again and again, with no end in sight.

1. What "information" is instantly on the eye?
2. Brightness is a property of light; it is the intensity of light. How can the eye detect the intensity of light which has not yet reached it?
3. It's not our belief that light is carrying information, the light itself is being absorbed and interpreted by the eyes and brain.

Clarification: Brightness = Luminance in this situation since we're talking about a light source, the sun. Brightness can also refer to color, but that has to do with reflection of light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Our gaze is already within optical range the instant (no time involved) we see the object because the information that is at the photoreceptors or film does not get sent through space/time, although light continues to travel. It is there at the eye or film because the conditions necessary for sight or photography have been met; brightness and size. This is the problem. You believe that the light is carrying the information that will allow the image to be created on film or within the brain, and you think that this is the only possible way information from the external world can be received. You are starting off with a premise that you are assuming is accurate. You're still on the afferent merry-go-round. Round and round we go again and again and again, with no end in sight.

1. What "information" is instantly on the eye?

The nonabsorbed photons at the photoreceptors.

2. Brightness is a property of light; it is the intensity of light. How can the eye detect the intensity of light which has not yet reached it?

But it has reached it. Remember, the distance between the eye looking out at the object is not the same as the image or information in the light traveling to us over space/time. That's why I gave the example of the box. The Sun's rays could reach the eye whereby we could see the Sun before the photons reached Earth.

3. It's not our belief that light is carrying information, the light itself is being absorbed and interpreted by the eyes and brain.

Light is definitely at the eye. What is not conclusively determined (although science believes it is established beyond any doubt) is that the light is being absorbed and interpreted by the eyes and brain. This is what is being challenged.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Ok I guess that is where we are with the argument.

Light is absorbed through contact with the eye. Which requires to reach the eye. In order for anything to for the light to be there it has to get from the sun to the eye. Light moves at a known speed so it takes time to get there.

Right, but if we can see the Sun (the material object), we know the light is already there otherwise we couldn't see it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you are either arguing that the light somehow at more than one place at once; at the sun and at the eye.
Or you're arguing that the eye can detect the light from 93million miles away, without any means of explaining this detection.

Neither Spacemonkey. I said that the distance between the object and the eye is not important because all it takes is for the object to be large enough to be seen. Obviously, the Sun is a very large object covering 75% of the entire solar system. If it wasn't that large, we wouldn't be able to see it because the light would not have reached our eyes. But remember, this account involves both the object and the light to be present (a closed system), for us to see, not just the light. Light would give us no image at all if the object was not there because the light is revealing the actual object. The light is not bringing the information about the object through space/time.

[peacegirl]

Can somebody please go to my website and let me know if the ebook is being sold under the heading: Decline and Fall of All Evil. It will only take a second. I just cleared my cache and I still don't see it.

- Decline and Fall of All Evil

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember, the distance between the eye looking out at the object is not the same as the image or information in the light traveling to us over space/time.

How is the distance not the same?
The distance between the eye looking at the object (the sun) is different than the distance from the sun to the eye??

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can somebody please go to my website and let me know if the ebook is being sold under the heading: Decline and Fall of All Evil. It will only take a second. I just cleared my cache and I still don't see it.

- Decline and Fall of All Evil

Isnt there

[Artemis Entreri]

You've mentioned Lessans observations about efferent vission. What were those observations? What observations did he make that could only fit in an "efferent" vision model and not in afferent vision. He claimed the eye did not have afferent nerves but we know that is false. Is there anything else?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope. HERE'S what you wrote:

"I did not say that the photons would be at the film or retina on Earth because there are no photons on Earth in this hypothetical example."

Note how this says the exact opposite of what you said above.

It is not the opposite. I said there can be no light at the retina ON EARTH if the light hasn't gotten to Earth yet, but that doesn't mean the nonabsorbed light (the light that is revealing the object) is not at the retina because the requirements are different. We're on different sides of the highway, remember? This creates an entirely different mechanism, one that does not violate the laws of physics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Isnt there

What browser are you using? Never mind, the audio started working when I upgraded wordpress. At least I got one thing working.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

You've mentioned Lessans observations about efferent vission. What were those observations? What observations did he make that could only fit in an "efferent" vision model and not in afferent vision. He claimed the eye did not have afferent nerves but we know that is false. Is there anything else?

He said there are no similar afferent nerve endings. He didn't say there were no afferent nerves. His explanation as to why we see in real time did not come from physics; that's why proving his claim this way is causing problems. I'm assuming you didn't get to read Chapter Four when it was online.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are stating the first premise as the conclusion. The premise which states that light can only be absorbed through the eye due to speed and distance IS the afferent position, which is the very thing being disputed. This is circular reasoning and doesn't prove anything.

No actually it's not circular reasoning. If the "efferent vision" model doesn't dispute the nature of light, particularly the speed, then it can't claim that vision due to light being absorbed by the eye AND is instaneous. Light travels at a set speed, this causes a delay between it's source and the eye.

Here's a good example of cicular reasoning.
The efferent model puts the eyes in optical range when the object is seen. The object is seen because it is in optical range.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until you understand why the efferent model (which states that we can see the real world through the eyes), puts the eyes in optical range when the object is seen, creates a completely different requirement, one that does not violate the laws of physics.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He said there are no similar afferent nerve endings. He didn't say there were no afferent nerves. His explanation as to why we see in real time did not come from physics; that's why proving his claim this way is causing problems. I'm assuming you didn't get to read Chapter Four when it was online.

No I wasn't around when you first started this thread.

You didn't actually answer the question. Is this efferent vision idea based on anything else?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

No I wasn't around when you first started this thread.

You didn't actually answer the question. Is this efferent vision idea based on anything else?

Yes, it is based on his observation as to what the brain is doing. He does not prove this empirically, which everyone is demanding. His observations are spot on though. I gave the example of a baby who cannot focus the eyes until there is enough stimulation from the other senses which then creates a desire to focus the eyes in order to see what it is that the baby is experiencing. I gave this already but here it is again:

p. 116 Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.

If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ.

The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This
desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see
that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception —
in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike
the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But
in order to look, there must be a desire to see.

The child becomes
aware that something will soon follow something else which then
arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the
relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when
this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a
nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a
potato, a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called a sense
organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an inaccurate
observation that was never corrected.”

“Well I say, what difference does it make whether we have four
senses and a pair of eyes instead of five senses?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Even, though we have no idea what this mechanism is we can say that it can't possibly be due to light being absorbed by the eye due restrictions of speed and distance. To claim that would be redefining the nature of light.

This is not redefining the nature of light. This is redefining the nature of how we see.

You are stating the first premise as the conclusion. The premise which states that light can only be absorbed through the eye due to speed and distance IS the afferent position, which is the very thing being disputed. This is circular reasoning and doesn't prove anything.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

No actually it's not circular reasoning. If the "efferent vision" model doesn't dispute the nature of light, particularly the speed, then it can't claim that vision due to light being absorbed by the eye AND is instantaneous. Light travels at a set speed, this causes a delay between it's source and the eye.

That is true, but the light has reached the eye IF the actual object can be seen, for then we know that the light is at the eye. The confusion is that light travels, but the image (or nonabsorbed photons) is not reflected. It allows the object to be seen due to light. It reveals the object but it does not require that light travel to Earth because there is nothing in the light itself other than the full spectrum. This is the source of all the confusion.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Here's a good example of cicular reasoning.
The efferent model puts the eyes in optical range when the object is seen. The object is seen because it is in optical range.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until you understand why the efferent model (which states that we can see the real world through the eyes), puts the eyes in optical range when the object is seen, creates a completely different requirement, one that does not violate the laws of physics.

Here's another good example of circular reasoning:

The afferent model puts the lens in the field of view when the image is seen.

The image is seen because it is in the lenses field of view.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

How is the distance not the same?
The distance between the eye looking at the object (the sun) is different than the distance from the sun to the eye??

That is a perceptive question. The distance is the same but where the difference lies is the fact that the object is seen in real time in the efferent account of vision. It is a closed system, so it really doesn't matter how far away the object is as long as it's bright enough to be seen, which automatically puts the light (the nonabsorbed photons which are not reflected) at the eye or film. Remember, in this account, we are not seeing an image as a result of delayed light. This is what scientists assume. It's a logical assumption, but it's not true. This new understanding does not change the properties of light; it changes the function of light in that light becomes a condition of sight. It does not send us information through space/time which is then interpreted as an image in the brain. It reveals matter or substance in the external world. In other words it does nothing to bring the external world to our eyes. So when we look at a faraway object, we are seeing it in real time, as it is right now, because distance and time are not factors.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Our gaze is already within optical range the instant (no time involved) we see the object because the information that is at the photoreceptors or film does not get sent through space/time, although light continues to travel. It is there at the eye or film because the conditions necessary for sight or photography have been met; brightness and size. This is the problem. You believe that the light is carrying the information that will allow the image to be created on film or within the brain, and you think that this is the only possible way information from the external world can be received. You are starting off with a premise that you are assuming is accurate. You're still on the afferent merry-go-round. Round and round we go again and again and again, with no end in sight.

1. What "information" is instantly on the eye?

The nonabsorbed photons which allow us to see the actual object. These photons are instantly at the retina if the object meets the requirements (brightness and size) that would allow us to see it. I'm repeating this over and over in the hope that it will register one day.

2. Brightness is a property of light; it is the intensity of light. How can the eye detect the intensity of light which has not yet reached it?

How can it reach us if it's already there? We're not waiting for the light to reach us, as if we're waiting for it to arrive so we can interpret the information in our brains. If we can see the object (please try to think from this perspective) the light (the nonabsorbed photons) are at the eye because we are already in the field of view of the object, or we wouldn't be able to see it. It does not mean there is no interaction between the light and the retina.

3. It's not our belief that light is carrying information, the light itself is being absorbed and interpreted by the eyes and brain.

I know. That's the belief. Light is still striking the retina or we couldn't see. The problem, I believe, is that people cannot understand how photons can be at the eye without traveling to the eye. Remember, the nonabsorbed photons reveal the object. They do not get reflected although the full spectrum of light is constantly being replaced by new photons and traveling to Earth. But there is nothing in these photons that can be transduced into normal sight because the information is not in this white light. You have to work this problem backwards. We see the object first which changes the entire mechanism and puts our eyes within the field of view of the object. There is no travel time. I'm not changing the properties of light; I am just demonstrating how this phenomenon works. I realize how hard it is to envision given the belief that light is all that's necessary for sight.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Clarification: Brightness = Luminance in this situation since we're talking about a light source, the sun. Brightness can also refer to color, but that has to do with reflection of light.

[Artemis Entreri]

I think I could take you seriously if you simply stated that you believed that the eyes could detect the object at a distance without the light reaching them.
I wouldn't think you were right but I could at least understand what you meant and how you could be mistaken.
However, when you say "the non-absorbed photons are instantly at our eyes" while at the same time declaring that light is still traveling as it always does. Non-absorbed photons are light! To say that they are at the eyes is to say that they somehow got there faster than the speed of light. To make such a claim you really must come up with some compelling explanation for how this could happen.