A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

if the retina is on Earth, and the light is "at" the retina, then the light is on Earth. This is just simple fact.

Seriously that is the most blatantly illogical and contradictory statement, peacegirl. How does that makes sense even to you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has many assigned functions (but I don't want to get religious on you), just as conscience has a function which is to keep us from doing what we know is wrong. If there wasn't a purpose for these things, they wouldn't exist.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In a universe without a personal deity, and only laws of nature, there are no assigned functions or purposes because there is nothing to do the assigning. So are you finally admitting that to you God is a real deity that has thoughts and opinions and intentions rather than just the impersonal laws of the Universe?

No, that is not what I'm finally admitting. I do believe if we looked behind the curtain (tongue and cheek) of how everything began, we would find a Supreme intelligence that set everything in motion.

It's superficial to say that light is just a product of combustion and that there is no purpose to anything under the Sun other than a physical reaction.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's superstitious and arrogant to say that light has an assigned purpose and function involving humans.

I didn't say that light has an assigned purpose and function involving humans. I said that it has a function for the entire world of living things. I'm not even referring to this world only; I'm referring to the entire universe.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Either we live in an impersonal Universe or we live in one governed by a deity that has human-like qualities. Which is it peacegirl?

I believe that the universe is impersonal in the sense that there is no personal deity, but I do believe that there is design to this world and for that reason I like to use the personal pronoun God. It just feels good LadyShea, and I don't feel any conflict using it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

Seriously that is the most blatantly illogical and contradictory statement, peacegirl. How does that makes sense even to you?

Until you understand the box example, which shows that light travels to Earth in 81/2 minutes (the finite speed of light), even though we are able to see in real time because distance is no longer a factor, this discussion on light and sight will continue to confound you.

[LadyShea]

I didn't say that light has an assigned purpose and function involving humans. I said that it has a function for the entire world of living things. I'm not even referring to this world only; I'm referring to the entire universe.

What is its assigned purpose and function for the vastly larger portion of the Universe that is lifeless? What of the numerous lifeforms that do not need or use light in their lifecycle?

LOL, you really think some deity created light just for us living things?

I believe that the universe is impersonal in the sense that there is no personal deity, but I do believe that there is design to this world and for that reason I like to use the personal pronoun God. It just feels good LadyShea, and I don't feel any conflict using it.

Feeling good is one thing. Using an argument that boils down to nothing more than "God did it" is another. There is a conflict because you are resorting to superstition in a discussion where there supposedly is no deity, because you can't make your case logically or scientifically.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until you understand the box example, which shows that light travels to Earth in 81/2 minutes, but if the eyes are efferent we can see the Sun (or any faraway object) in real time, as time and distance have no bearing on this account, you will continue to tell me that it's a contradiction when it isn't.

The box example is just as nonsensical and illogical. You've simply taken the problem (that light can't be where it hasn't traveled to without violating laws of physics) and put it in a box, literally. You still have to explain how the light gets to all points in the box without traversing it.

Again, if you had stuck to Lessans argument, the one you used above about "seeing" exclusively, and never mentioned the location of light photons, then you would not have painted yourself into this corner. You didn't though. You fucked up and said light photons are "at" the retina and on the surface of camera film. You have to explain how they get there, or you are talking about magic.

[peacegirl]

I didn't say that light has an assigned purpose and function involving humans. I said that it has a function for the entire world of living things. I'm not even referring to this world only; I'm referring to the entire universe.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is its assigned purpose and function for the vastly larger portion of the Universe that is lifeless? What of the numerous lifeforms that do not need or use light in their lifecycle?

LOL, you really think some deity created light just for us living things?

Light was created for various functions. Light is essential to life. I do believe there is an intelligence (not a physical one) that started the ball rolling. It's amazing that so far we have only found life on earth, but that just makes this whole thing more mysterious and awe inspiring.

I believe that the universe is impersonal in the sense that there is no personal deity, but I do believe that there is design to this world and for that reason I like to use the personal pronoun God. It just feels good LadyShea, and I don't feel any conflict using it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Feeling good is one thing. Using an argument that boils down to nothing more than "God did it" is another.

I didn't say God did it as if there is an entity pulling strings; I said that there is design to the universe. I do not believe this world came about by chance. Everything is evolving in perfect order, which indicates to me there is something much greater than what we can possibly understand on an intellectual level.

Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
October 18, 2004
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein

Joel Primack has a long and distinguished career as an astrophysicist. A University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the cold dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and structure of the universe.

That may strike some people as peculiar. After all, in some corners popular belief renders science and religion incompatible.

Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people, according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds, including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict between their faith and their work.

"In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God."

Evolution

The notion that science and religion are irreconcilable centers in large part on the issue of evolution. Charles Darwin, in his 1859 book The Origin of Species, explained that the myriad species inhabiting Earth were a result of repeated evolutionary branching from common ancestors.

One would be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientist today who does not believe in evolution. As laid out in a cover story in the November issue of National Geographic magazine, the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Yet in a 2001 Gallup poll 45 percent of U.S. adults said they believe evolution has played no role in shaping humans. According to the creationist view, God produced humans fully formed, with no previous related species.

But what if evolution is God's tool? Darwin never said anything about God. Many scientists—and theologians—maintain that it would be perfectly logical to think that a divine being used evolution as a method to create the world.

Continued on Next Page >>

Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is a conflict because you are resorting to superstition in a discussion where there supposedly is no deity, because you can't make your case logically or scientifically.

It is not superstitious to believe there is design to the world. My case is purely scientific; it has nothing to do with logic. You just haven't been able to grasp it yet, so you put the onus on me to explain the contradiction (when there isn't any) when you're the one that's blocked.

[LadyShea]

It is not superstitious to believe there is design to the world. My case is purely scientific; it has nothing to do with logic.

Well saying that God designed light and gave it a purpose and function to benefit living things is an excellent way to weasel out of answering questions about light physics that you have no answer for. It's not magic, it is God! How convenient. Discussing the function and purpose of light, as assigned by a designer, rather than its properties, is not making a scientific case.

Unfortunately that also puts the lie to your claims of this being a scientific discovery that can be scientifically validated.

[LadyShea]

Light was created for various functions. Light is essential to life.

Light is not essential to all life.

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, that's the position of physics based on the immutable properties of light. You can't have photons physically located somewhere unless they traveled there. It doesn't matter what our eyes or brains do, light exists and has the same properties even in the absence of eyes.

Your model must be compatible with those properties, or it is impossible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by LadyShea

if the retina is on Earth, and the light is "at" the retina, then the light is on Earth. This is just simple fact.

The light is at the eye but it has not yet arrived on Earth. I see the moon instantly, but the light isn't here for another 2.5 seconds. You still don't get it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seriously that is the most blatantly illogical and contradictory statement, peacegirl. How does that makes sense even to you?

Until you understand the box example, which shows that light travels to Earth in 81/2 minutes, but if the eyes are efferent we can see the Sun (or any faraway object) in real time, as time and distance have no bearing on this account, you will continue to tell me that it's a contradiction when it isn't.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The box example is just as nonsensical and illogical. You've simply taken the problem (that light can't be where it hasn't traveled to without violating laws of physics) and put it in a box, literally. You still have to explain how the light gets to all points in the box without traversing it.

You still don't understand that distance does not play a part in this model, which is why we are instantly in optical range. We are not focusing the light from light that has traveled. We are focusing the light from the object that is seen, which puts the light at the retina instantly. The light that reveals the object is not being reflected. He was right and soon he will be lauded for this discovery, as well as his other two. It's going to take other people who can grasp this concept more fully. You obviously don't. I know it's tough because this is a new concept. You are still thinking in terms of the afferent account where light has to travel and arrive even though this light does not contain information that can be decoded because there is no information in this light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, if you had stuck to Lessans argument, the one you used above about "seeing" exclusively, and never mentioned the location of light photons, then you would not have painted yourself into this corner. You didn't though. You fucked up and said light photons are "at" the retina and on the surface of camera film. You have to explain how they get there, or you are talking about magic.

What are you talking about LadyShea? Light has to be at the retina or film. You are the one who doesn't get the plausibility of this concept so you're trying to turn it into magic. My father never said light doesn't have to be at the retina. Light IS at the retina in this account when our eyes are turned in the direction of the object because the distance between the object and the viewer is immaterial. The only requirements are that the object has enough luminosity and that it's large enough since this would put the viewer within the field of view of the object with no waiting time. I don't even think you're paying attention. You are just waiting for me to finish so you can argue back.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It IS compatible with these properties; the only thing that is being disputed is that the light brings information to the brain which is then turned into normal vision. There is nothing in this alternate model that violates these immutable laws. It's YOU that is not understanding.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not about the light not traveling. Light travels. What is missing is that you don't understand why the efferent account puts the object within visual range if the object can be seen. The box example exemplifies what is happening and why light is at the eye without light having to travel to Earth first.

Why do you keep contradicting yourself?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing that proves we couldn't see the Sun in real time.

The photon problem proves we couldn't see the Sun in real time. Photons need to be at the film or retina, and they cannot be there before they have had time to get there. Also, where did you get that crap about the Sun covering 75% of the solar system?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You made a false statement, the Sun does not cover 75% of the solar system. Admit you made a mistake, hypocrite. Here is the simple math from davidm

I stated it incorrectly (I admitted it, are you happy now? ), but this doesn't change the facts. The Sun is large enough in relation to the Earth that it could be seen. It couldn't be seen with the naked eye like it could be seen with a telescope, but that just shows that objects can be magnified in such a way that we can see many more details, which fits very nicely with the efferent account.

If the sun were an inch across, how far away would the planets be? | Tano Calvenoa's Natural Sciences Blog

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The photon problem proves we couldn't see the Sun in real time. Photons need to be at the film or retina, and they cannot be there before they have had time to get there. Also, where did you get that crap about the Sun covering 75% of the solar system?

That's your belief Spacemonkey. You are missing why this account causes this phenomenon. There is absolutely no information in the light that arrives on Earth until it strikes an object on Earth. Until it does, the light that is traveling is white light only, or the full spectrum. I want to get off of this subject as it's not getting us anywhere.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you are basing this comment as it relates to Earth. Photons do not have to reach Earth for the light to be at the retina. This changes the function of light but does not violate the laws of physics.

What? We were talking about your two flatly contradictory claims, one of which says the exact opposite to the other. Why are you trying to blame me for your inconsistency?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it isn't, and I've explained why it isn't.

Of course it is contradictory to say light both is and is not at the retina. That is a contradiction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When did I ever say light both is and is not at the retina?

Right here:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It either is or it isn't...

So which is it? Have you decided yet?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but the mechanism that puts light at the retina is different in both accounts.

What is it in your account then? How does the light from the Sun change location by 93 million miles in zero time without traveling and without teleporting?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light that lands on the retina in the efferent account, which reveals the object, is not being reflected...

It isn't being reflected in the standard account either. The light arriving at our eyes from the Sun is not reflected non-absorbed light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are still presupposing that light alone brings the information to the eyes, which is a misconception.

No, I'm not. I'm not saying or presupposing anything at all about information. I'm simply asking you how the light you say will be at the camera film could have gotten there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do you keep contradicting yourself?

It's not a contradiction. Light travels, the nonabsorbed photons which reveal the object do not get reflected. This means that the information is not in the light that travels over the span of space/time. I know you don't get this, and you probably never will, so let's call it a day.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What? We were talking about your two flatly contradictory claims, one of which says the exact opposite to the other. Why are you trying to blame me for your inconsistency?

Of course it is contradictory to say light both is and is not at the retina. That is a contradiction.

Right here:

So which is it? Have you decided yet?

What is it in your account then? How does the light from the Sun change location by 93 million miles in zero time without traveling and without teleporting?

It isn't being reflected in the standard account either. The light arriving at our eyes from the Sun is neither reflected light nor non-absorbed light.

No, I'm not. I'm not saying or presupposing anything at all about information. I'm simply asking you how the light you say will be at the camera film could have gotten there.

There IS no getting there. We are in optical range if we see the object. There is no image traveling where we are waiting for it to get to our eyes. Let's end this conversation, okay? I would have liked to talk about determinism, but you are so entrenched with your way of thinking I can't make headway. I wish there were more participants to prove to you that his discoveries are genuine.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's your belief Spacemonkey.

It is a fatal objection to efferent vision, and one that you are still refusing to address.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are missing why this account causes this phenomenon.

As are you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is absolutely no information in the light that arrives on Earth until it strikes an object on Earth.

We aren't discussing information, but rather the location and change in location of photons in your account.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until it does, the light that is traveling is white light only, or the full spectrum.

You know that's not true. You've agreed that when part of the spectrum is absorbed by an object, the remaining partial spectrum bounces off the object and travels away from it. ALL light travels, not just full spectrum light.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There IS no getting there.

Then there won't be any photons at the film. If they are there at the film and came from the Sun, then they have to have gotten there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no image traveling...

No shit. No-one anywhere thinks there is, remember?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let's end this conversation, okay?

No.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light is at the eye but it has not yet arrived on Earth. I see the moon instantly, but the light isn't here for another 2.5 seconds.

You see the moon 'instantly' (i.e. as soon as you look at it) because the photons entering your eye left the moon 2.5sec beforehand. That doesn't work with your newly ignited Sun example, because it wasn't emitting any photons 8.5min beforehand for them to be now arriving at your eye as soon as you look at it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about LadyShea? Light has to be at the retina or film.

Of course. So where does it come from, and how does it get there?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I stated it incorrectly (I admitted it, are you happy now? ), but this doesn't change the facts.

Stated what incorrectly? What did you mean to say? What was your source?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a contradiction. Light travels, the nonabsorbed photons which reveal the object do not get reflected. This means that the information is not in the light that travels over the span of space/time. I know you don't get this, and you probably never will, so let's call it a day.

Of course it's a contradiction. This has nothing to do with reflection or information. If all light travels, then any light at the retina must also have traveled to get to where it is.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Hell, to keep it more comparable to your example; What if the sun is suddenly turned off? In your efferent vision model would we see the sun appear to vanish the instant it was turned off yet still continue to have light for 8.5min? If we looked up would we just see a bright but empty sky (I don't mean litterally empty, I assume there would still be clouds, birds, planes, ect... the moon and stars would still be visible from the dark side of the earth... the moon for few minutes at least)

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.