A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

This is how afferent vision works. Everyone has been saying it till they are blue in the face.

No, that's not what they're saying. They're saying that light has to reach Earth to strike the eyes. Even in this hypothetical example, if it takes a nanosecond for the Sun to be turned on and the light travel to where it would be at our eyes, this just means that in that nanosecond we wouldn't be able to see the Sun because there was not enough light present. The Sun, therefore, would be out of our field of view. But if you think about this model in reverse (where we see the object) we're talking about the Sun emitting light comparable to the space of a baseball field. The actual distance between the object and the eye is not what determines sight in this account; only brightness and size. In this example, if the light has reached the end of the baseball field (a nanosecond in time, if that), and we step into this field and look up, we would be in optical range. Obviously, if the Sun was just turned on and there was no light being emitted, there would be no connecting link since light is a necessary condition of sight. Light still has to be at our eyes in this account. It's not magic.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not what they're saying. They're saying that light has to reach Earth to strike the eyes. Even in this hypothetical example, if it takes a nanosecond for the Sun to be turned on and the light travel to where it would be at our eyes, this just means that in that nanosecond we wouldn't be able to see the Sun because there was not enough light present. The Sun, therefore, would be out of our field of view. But if you think about this model in reverse (where we see the object) we're talking about the Sun emitting light comparable to the space of a baseball field. The actual distance between the object and the eye is not what determines sight in this account; only brightness and size. In this example, if the light has reached the end of the baseball field (a nanosecond in time, if that), and we step into this field and look up, we would be in optical range. Obviously, if the Sun was just turned on and there was no light being emitted, there would be no connecting link since light is a necessary condition of sight. Light still has to be at our eyes in this account. It's not magic.

But you also claim that the light is instantly on the eye. In the sun at noon scenario there is no delay between the sun being turned on and the eye seeing it.
Is the light that is instantly at the eye the same light that is first emmited from the sun? If so how can it be instantly at the eye while also still being at the sun. I mean if you're talking "instantly" then the very instant the sun is turned on light will still be at the sun (though it could travel several hundred miles before the eye could even process any image, if there was anything to see.)
What is the connecting link between the sun and the eye the instant that it is turned on?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said that in Lessans newly ignited Sun scenario, we would see the Sun in a mirror at 12:00 and not have to wait for the light from the Sun. If a mirror reflection is light, where would that light come from, and how would it get to the mirror, in Lessans scenario?

Light is always traveling, but you're missing the point. If we're not interpreting the image from the light, distance is not what counts. It would make no difference if it was the object to the mirror, or the image in the mirror to our eyes versus the Sun to the mirror and the image to our eyes. It would not take anymore time because the size of the box (so to speak) is not what matters. What matters is the size of the object and its luminosity (remember, this is a closed system), yet you are trying to get me to say that traveling photons are time related and therefore there is a delay.

[Artemis Entreri]

Also if "the brain is looking through the eyes as if through a window" and we see in "real time", then why do people still have a measurable delay in their vision.
If you flash an image/object infront of the eyes for less than 1/300th of a second you will not see it. Pilots can typically see down to around 1/220th of a second.
How does the efferent model account for this "gap" in real time vision? There shouldn't be any delay if we are seeing things instantly as they are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not what they're saying. They're saying that light has to reach Earth to strike the eyes. Even in this hypothetical example, if it takes a nanosecond for the Sun to be turned on and the light travel to where it would be at our eyes, this just means that in that nanosecond we wouldn't be able to see the Sun because there was not enough light present. The Sun, therefore, would be out of our field of view. But if you think about this model in reverse (where we see the object, not the light) we're talking about the Sun emitting light comparable to the space of a baseball field. This would be instant. The actual distance between the object and the eye is not what determines sight in this account; only brightness and size. In this example, if the light has reached the end of the baseball field (a nanosecond in time, if that), and we step into this field and look up, we would be in optical range. Obviously, if the Sun was just turned on and there was no light being emitted, there would be no connecting link since light is a necessary condition of sight. Light still has to be at our eyes in this account. It's not magic.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

But you also claim that the light is instantly on the eye. In the sun at noon scenario there is no delay between the sun being turned on and the eye seeing it.

Only if there is enough light, but there would be enough light since the Sun relative to us is a large star. If the Sun was turned on, the luminosity would already be at our eyes which is why we would be able to see it at 12 noon, not 12:08. I am not saying that light is not a necessary connection. If a star is too far away, we wouldn't be able to see it because the light hasn't reached us and therefore the star would be outside of our field of view.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Is the light that is instantly at the eye the same light that is first emited from the sun? If so how can it be instantly at the eye while also still being at the sun. I mean if you're talking "instantly" then the very instant the sun is turned on light will still be at the sun (though it could travel several hundred miles before the eye could even process any image, if there was anything to see.)

You're back at the afferent account. We're not talking about individual photons, as if the blue photon gets here before the red, so we can't see the red image before the blue, and we're not talking about the same photon being two places at the same time. We're talking about different photons being constantly emitted and replaced. If the Sun was turned on at 12, it would be bright enough in the space from the eye to the object (where the image is not reflected and distance is not a factor), not the object to the eye (where photons would have to travel to us to bring the information about the object). I hope you can differentiate between "the image is not being reflected" and "traveling photons bringing information to the eye."

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

What is the connecting link between the sun and the eye the instant that it is turned on?

None, he was pointing out it would not take 81/2 minutes. Once again, light travels, but in this model we're not interpreting any image from the light itself (this is a theory that has graduated into fact), therefore the image of the Sun is not being reflected; we are seeing the Sun directly. The light from the Sun (remember, if the Sun was turned on it would already be bright enough (because of its location relative to our eyes in this opposite account) which means there would be enough luminosity (remember distance is not a factor here). The mirror image of the Sun would be at our photoreceptors instantly, allowing us to see it in real time.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

None, he was pointing out it would not take 81/2 minutes. Once again, light travels, but in this model we're not interpreting any image from the light itself (this is a theory that has graduated into fact), therefore the image of the Sun is not being reflected; we are seeing the Sun directly. The light from the Sun (remember, if the Sun was turned on it's already bright (enough photons) which means there would be enough luminosity. The mirror image of the Sun would be at our eyes allowing us to see it instantly.

I think this is a new statement... I haven't noticed it before.
What is creating this image on the eye?
It can't be light, since it hasn't even left the sun yet.
Don't dismiss that last statement as the "afferent model" since, regardless of afferent/efferent viewpoint, what we know about the nature of light tells us it's location. The light is at the sun heading out in all directions at the speed of light.

What is sounds like you're saying is that light can create an image on a distant surface (like the eye or a mirror or a photograph) without being there (at least not being there in anyway that we know)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Also if "the brain is looking through the eyes as if through a window" and we see in "real time", then why do people still have a measurable delay in their vision.
If you flash an image/object in front of the eyes for less than 1/300th of a second you will not see it. Pilots can typically see down to around 1/220th of a second.
How does the efferent model account for this "gap" in real time vision? There shouldn't be any delay if we are seeing things instantly as they are.

It might be that at 1/300th of a second the eyes may not be able to register that quickly and relay it back to the brain, so it doesn't see the object since it doesn't have enough time in which to process it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

I think this is a new statement... I haven't noticed it before.
What is creating this image on the eye?
It can't be light, since it hasn't even left the sun yet.
Don't dismiss that last statement as the "afferent model" since, regardless of afferent/efferent viewpoint, what we know about the nature of light tells us it's location. The light is at the sun heading out in all directions at the speed of light.

What is sounds like you're saying is that light can create an image on a distant surface (like the eye or a mirror or a photograph) without being there (at least not being there in anyway that we know)

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Light has to be there, but if you don't see the difference between light traveling (which requires a delay), and seeing the object due to this closed system where a mirror image (which takes no time) is at the eye, you just won't get it. I've given enough food for thought, at least I hope I have. I don't think there's anything more I can do to clarify this concept. I do appreciate your interest though.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I won't argue with that, because visual stimulation is very important to eye muscle control and overall visual development. That's why they sell black and white patterned toys, and toys with strong colors and contrasts, and mobiles for infants.


The article you posted stated it quite clearly

That doesn't say anything about the other senses needing to be stimulated to prevent strabismus.

Of course not because they don't know about this observation so they're giving their opinion as to what's going on.

The best visual stimulation for baby’s eyes.
The best way you as a parent can stimulate baby’s vision is using black and white stripes or light and dark contrasting colors. So what about those nice soft pastels that used to be so popular in baby toys and nurseries? While these may look pretty to you, they do nothing visually for your baby. Research has proven that black and white contrasts register powerfully on baby’s retina and send the strongest visual signals to baby’s brain. Stronger signals mean more brain growth and faster visual development. Surround a baby with soft pastel colors, and you might as well be blindfolding him. Surround your baby with black and white or light and dark pictures, and watch your baby’s eyes light up.Visual Stimulation for Newborns | Ask Dr Sears® | The Trusted Resource for Parents

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And experiences of all kinds are critical to mental and emotional development, this is well known and many kids adopted from institutional orphanages suffer from RAD and other such disorders. I wouldn't argue with that either.

True, but it's interesting to note that all of the other sense organs are fully developed at birth. Obviously, they have to gain more experience to know how to interpret the sensory input, but that doesn't change the fact that their hearing, tasting, touch, and smell are in full working order, yet they can't focus their eyes. Any kind of stimulation will help a baby to focus, whether it's visual stimulation or other types of sensory stimulation from being held, to being rocked, to being sang to, to being fed, etc. Babies that are fed by propping a bottle on a pillow so they can feed themselves don't do as well because they don't have the warmth of the mother.

[Artemis Entreri]

LadyShea, Spacemonkey, you can have it. I couldn't make it more than a few days arguing with this dingbat. I don't know how you've done it for years...
You know Louie C.K.'s bit out arguing with his 3yr old child about "pig newtons"... I think that sums it up pretty well.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can see it because of light LadyShea. Light has to be striking the eye regardless of what account we're discussing.

Then the question of how that light gets to the eye and where it came from DOES apply to your account. And until you can answer it, your account cannot be considered plausible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are calling it childlike to make it appear that the explanation has to be complicated. It doesn't have to be.

We call your explanation childlike because it is tautologous, and tautologies are not explanatory at all.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not what they're saying. They're saying that light has to reach Earth to strike the eyes.

Which is of course perfectly true. Light cannot strike the eyes on Earth before it has had time to get to the Earth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even in this hypothetical example, if it takes a nanosecond for the Sun to be turned on and the light travel to where it would be at our eyes, this just means that in that nanosecond we wouldn't be able to see the Sun because there was not enough light present.

But it doesn't take a nanosecond. It takes light 8min to get from the sun to our eyes on Earth. If light could get here from the Sun in a nanosecond, then that light would have traveled faster than the speed of light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if you think about this model in reverse (where we see the object) we're talking about the Sun emitting light comparable to the space of a baseball field.

The real distance of 93 million miles is definitely NOT comparable to the space of a baseball field. And even with a baseball field, it still takes light time to get from one end to the other.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The actual distance between the object and the eye is not what determines sight in this account; only brightness and size.

Brightness and size cannot explain how your needed photons can get from the Sun to the film or retina on Earth in zero time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light still has to be at our eyes in this account. It's not magic.

It will remain magic until you can explain where the light at the eyes came from and how it got there.

[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.)

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

True, but it's interesting to note that all of the other sense organs are fully developed at birth.

Says who*?

And it makes perfect sense that since there is absolutely nothing to see in the womb because there is no light and so nothing to focus on, the eye muscles cannot fully develop.

*What changes can I expect in my baby’s sensory development?
It’s helpful to watch for these changes in your child’s sensory development.

Hearing: Newborns can’t hear certain very quiet sounds. But, for the most part, their sense of hearing is already well developed. After about three months, she will show you she hears a sound by turning her head toward the direction of the sound. By four to eight months, she will hear the full range of sound frequencies.

Smell: A newborn’s sense of smell is so acute that she can already tell the difference between the smell of her mother’s milk and that of another mother. Researchers conducted experiments where two breast pads (one from the infant’s mother, the other from another lactating mother) were placed at the sides of the newborns’ heads. The babies reliably turned towards the breast pad of their own mothers. By about age five, your child can identify some foods by smell.

Taste: A newborn can distinguish between sweet, salty, sour, and bitter tastes. She shows a preference for sweet taste, such as breast milk, and for salty tastes later on. Your baby will achieve a full sensitivity to taste by 12 to 19 months.

Touch: The term touch here is used to describe all of the physical sensations that can be felt through the skin. Touch is actually not a single sense, but several. There are separate nerves in the skin to register heat, cold, pressure, pain, and touch. At birth or shortly after, your baby can distinguish between hot and cold temperatures and feel pain. Your baby’s hands and mouth are especially sensitive to touch. Between one to nine months of age, she will be able to distinguish differences in textures with hands and mouth. As a preschooler, she will be able to distinguish size and shape differences by touch.

Vision: Newborns can focus on objects about eight to 15 inches away. By one month, she will see about three feet away. At birth, she has limited color vision. But by two months, she can discriminate between basic colors. She will achieve full color vision between four and seven months of age. Depth perception develops between three and seven months. It will achieve full adult acuity (20/25) during her second year.

Sensory Processing: Given all of the sensory information a newborn can take in, she must begin to develop her processing skills and learn how to use the incoming sensory information to effectively act on her environment. When overstimulated by all of this sensory information, an infant will need help to calm herself. As she matures, she will learn self-regulation and display the skills needed to calm herself. In tandem with developing better control of her motor skills, her system will be learning to process the sensation of movement coming from her body through the vestibular and proprioceptive nerve receptors. As she matures, she will then learn to use all of the sights, sounds, and other sensory information in the environment to explore and learn about herself and her world.

- See more at: How Your Child’s Sensory System Develops

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Which is of course perfectly true. Light cannot strike the eyes on Earth before it has had time to get to the Earth.

But it doesn't take a nanosecond. It takes light 8min to get from the sun to our eyes on Earth. If light could get here from the Sun in a nanosecond, then that light would have traveled faster than the speed of light.

You're obviously still thinking about light bringing the information or image to the eye. If the object is seen instantly due to light revealing it not reflecting it, then we are not talking about traveling photons at all. I may have confused you talking about nanoseconds because this still is referring to time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if you think about this model in reverse (where we see the object) we're talking about the Sun emitting light comparable to the space of a baseball field.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

The real distance of 93 million miles is definitely NOT comparable to the space of a baseball field. And even with a baseball field, it still takes light time to get from one end to the other.

It absolutely does, but in the efferent account you have to work it backwards. If we see the object, this means the light is already at the eye. If we don't see the object, the light is not at the eye because the object is out of our field of view (optics), or the light is too dim. The image doesn't get reflected and travel through space/time so we're not talking about having to wait for the photons to arrive.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The actual distance between the object and the eye is not what determines sight in this account; only brightness and size.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Brightness and size cannot explain how your needed photons can get from the Sun to the film or retina on Earth in zero time.

Oh my goodness. I don't know how many times I have explained that light does not have to travel to Earth in the efferent account, as we look out at the external world. I have also said that light alone would not bring an image to us, so the 81/2 minutes that you believe is necessary, is not necessary since there is no information in the light that could be decoded in the brain as normal sight. No one seems to be following me which just shows how difficult it is to put aside what you have been taught to believe.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light still has to be at our eyes in this account. It's not magic.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

It will remain magic until you can explain where the light at the eyes came from and how it got there.

It's really not magic when you understand that efferent vision is the exact opposite of what science claims. The object that we see is due light being at the retina as a mirror image. Distance is also irrelevant as long as we can see the object due to size and brightness (which you falsely claim is unimportant), which does not require light to travel to earth, as you surmised. Until you grasp this concept more fully, you, Spacemonkey, LadyShea, Dragar, Angakuk, thedoc, Davidm and others will think it's magic when it is anything but. I really need a break from discussing light and sight because obviously people aren't getting it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Says who*?

And it makes perfect sense that since there is absolutely nothing to see in the womb because there is no light and so nothing to focus on, the eye muscles cannot fully develop.

You have no empirical proof that this is what is actually going on. The belief that the muscles are weak is just another theory with very little scientific evidence to back it up.

*What changes can I expect in my baby’s sensory development?
It’s helpful to watch for these changes in your child’s sensory development.

Hearing: Newborns can’t hear certain very quiet sounds. But, for the most part, their sense of hearing is already well developed. After about three months, she will show you she hears a sound by turning her head toward the direction of the sound. By four to eight months, she will hear the full range of sound frequencies.

Smell: A newborn’s sense of smell is so acute that she can already tell the difference between the smell of her mother’s milk and that of another mother. Researchers conducted experiments where two breast pads (one from the infant’s mother, the other from another lactating mother) were placed at the sides of the newborns’ heads. The babies reliably turned towards the breast pad of their own mothers. By about age five, your child can identify some foods by smell.

Taste: A newborn can distinguish between sweet, salty, sour, and bitter tastes. She shows a preference for sweet taste, such as breast milk, and for salty tastes later on. Your baby will achieve a full sensitivity to taste by 12 to 19 months.

Touch: The term touch here is used to describe all of the physical sensations that can be felt through the skin. Touch is actually not a single sense, but several. There are separate nerves in the skin to register heat, cold, pressure, pain, and touch. At birth or shortly after, your baby can distinguish between hot and cold temperatures and feel pain. Your baby’s hands and mouth are especially sensitive to touch. Between one to nine months of age, she will be able to distinguish differences in textures with hands and mouth. As a preschooler, she will be able to distinguish size and shape differences by touch.

Vision: Newborns can focus on objects about eight to 15 inches away. By one month, she will see about three feet away. At birth, she has limited color vision. But by two months, she can discriminate between basic colors. She will achieve full color vision between four and seven months of age. Depth perception develops between three and seven months. It will achieve full adult acuity (20/25) during her second year.

Sensory Processing: Given all of the sensory information a newborn can take in, she must begin to develop her processing skills and learn how to use the incoming sensory information to effectively act on her environment. When overstimulated by all of this sensory information, an infant will need help to calm herself. As she matures, she will learn self-regulation and display the skills needed to calm herself. In tandem with developing better control of her motor skills, her system will be learning to process the sensation of movement coming from her body through the vestibular and proprioceptive nerve receptors. As she matures, she will then learn to use all of the sights, sounds, and other sensory information in the environment to explore and learn about herself and her world.

- See more at: How Your Child’s Sensory System Develops

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're obviously still thinking about light bringing the information or image to the eye.

No, he's not. Neither am I, and neither was Artemis. We are only talking about light being at a location. Whether it's an eye, a plant leaf, camera film, or solar panel, light always has the same properties...one of them being that it can't be somewhere it hasn't traveled to.

You need to be able to answer questions about light without vision involved at all to make your explanation even remotely possible. How about instead of eyes/retinas you explain how light gets to a plant leaf on Earth. And yes, it is analogous, because light does what it does regardless of whether eyes are around or not. In fact, a plant leaf is much more comparable to a camera than eyes are, because both photosynthesis and photography require light to be in physical contact. Your account must account for light's location.

If the Sun was newly ignited at noon, at what time would light be at a plant leaf to use for photosynthesis?

[LadyShea]

You have no empirical proof that this is what is actually going on. The belief that the muscles are weak is just another theory with very little scientific evidence to back it up.

What makes you say that? Have you researched the available evidence on neonatal vision development?

Also, other mammals are born with their eyes closed, so it's not like it's really odd or rare or makes no sense within nature for the sensory organ that detects light to not develop fully in the complete absence of stimulus. Hell some animals can walk and run within hours of birth, but not humans...why aren't our leg muscles fully developed at birth?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we see the object, this means the light is already at the eye.

Quite true. The question remains, how did the light that is at the eye come to be there?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, he's not. Neither am I, and neither was Artemis. We are only talking about light being at a location. Whether it's an eye, a plant leaf, camera film, or solar panel, light always has the same properties...one of them being that it can't be somewhere it hasn't traveled to.

You absolutely don't understand what I'm even talking about. No matter how smart you think you are, you've lost the concept entirely but you cannot see it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You need to be able to answer questions about light without vision involved at all to make your explanation even remotely possible. How about instead of eyes/retinas you explain how light gets to a plant leaf on Earth. And yes, it is analogous, because light does what it does regardless of whether eyes are around or not. In fact, a plant leaf is much more comparable to a camera than eyes are, because both photosynthesis and photography require light to be in physical contact. Your account must account for light's location.

If the Sun was newly ignited at noon, at what time would light be at a plant leaf to use for photosynthesis?

I devoted a lot of time in here, but I have to stop discussing this subject. It's depressing.

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1193976]

You have no empirical proof that this is what is actually going on. The belief that the muscles are weak is just another theory with very little scientific evidence to back it up.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What makes you say that? Have you researched the available evidence on neonatal vision development?

Again LadyShea, you are trying very hard to discredit the observations my father made regarding how we begin to focus. This claim does not require studying neonatal development just as the claim on efferent sight (due to his observations) does not require him to dissect the brain.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, other mammals are born with their eyes closed, so it's not like it's really odd or rare or makes no sense within nature for the sensory organ that detects light to not develop fully in the complete absence of stimulus. Hell some animals can walk and run within hours of birth, but not humans...why aren't our leg muscles fully developed at birth?

You are ignoring my father's reasoning based on very astute observations. All I can say in response is that as logical as it appears, the conclusions that science has come to where the eyes are concerned is based on theory, not fact. I understand that you want to side with science, and that's okay, but don't tell me that the evidence in favor of afferent vision is conclusive because it's not.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're obviously still thinking about light bringing the information or image to the eye.

No, I'm not. Even if light brought no information at all to the eyes or film, you still need that light to get from the Sun to the retina or film, and it still cannot do this in less than 8 minutes. Also, you have messed up your quote tags again, addressing all your responses to Artemis when it was me you were replying to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the object is seen instantly due to light revealing it not reflecting it...

No-one says that light reflects anything.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...then we are not talking about traveling photons at all.

All photons are traveling photons.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I may have confused you talking about nanoseconds because this still is referring to time.

You mean you confused yourself by admitting that time is involved as it obviously must be.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It absolutely does, but in the efferent account you have to work it backwards. If we see the object, this means the light is already at the eye.

And as I've explained to you several times, the next step in working it backwards is to try to work out how that light at the eye could have gotten there. Why won't you do this?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The image doesn't get reflected and travel through space/time...

No shit. No-one thinks this. No-one. Not a single person.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my goodness. I don't know how many times I have explained that light does not have to travel to Earth in the efferent account, as we look out at the external world.

Then light will not be at the retina or film, because the retina and film are on Earth and light cannot be anywhere it has not traveled to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have also said that light alone would not bring an image to us, so the 81/2 minutes that you believe is necessary, is not necessary since there is no information in the light that could be decoded in the brain as normal sight.

Again, that is not relevant at all. 8 minutes is necessary for the light to be at the film or retina, regardless of whether or not the light brings an image, information, or anything else to be decoded.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's really not magic when you understand that efferent vision is the exact opposite of what science claims. The object that we see is due light being at the retina as a mirror image. Distance is also irrelevant as long as we can see the object due to size and brightness...

The distance remains relevant so long as you maintain that the photons at the film or retina came from the Sun which is 93 million miles away. There is no possible way for these photons to get from the Sun to the film or retina in less than 8 minutes. You know this, and that is why you keep weaseling, lying, and trying to change the subject.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

LadyShea, Spacemonkey, you can have it. I couldn't make it more than a few days arguing with this dingbat. I don't know how you've done it for years...
You know Louie C.K.'s bit out arguing with his 3yr old child about "pig newtons"... I think that sums it up pretty well.

Oh my god, what a fraud you are. Amazing that you think your puny intelligence, when you haven't even read the chapter, gives you the right to be so disrespectful. You are no different than NA was. Bait and switch. I could care less what you think of me, you will not have the last word. I refuse to answer any of your posts from here on in, so don't even try to talk to me. You are despicable for faking interest only to attack my character when you couldn't get it, as if your intelligence is the end all. You suck.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You absolutely don't understand what I'm even talking about. No matter how smart you think you are, you've lost the concept entirely but you cannot see it.

I do understand what you are talking about, and it doesn't at all address the questions or concerns about the location of light in your model.

Your talking about mirror images, boxes, and brightness simply extends the same problem of light's location to imaginary structures.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I devoted a lot of time in here, but I have to stop discussing this subject. It's depressing.

Your lack of ability to address the problem is well noted, so another dishonest weasel is unsurprising.

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1193999]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again LadyShea, you are trying very hard to discredit the observations my father made regarding how we begin to focus. This claim does not require studying neonatal development just as the claim on efferent sight (due to his observations) does not require him to dissect the brain.

I was asking you how you came to your opinion that there is no empirical evidence for newborn eye muscles being weak and in need of development at birth.

That being said, if he was going to make claims about anatomy and eye development, he should have studied it some, he would have sounded less foolish.

You are ignoring my father's reasoning based on very astute observations. All I can say in response is that as logical as it appears, the conclusions that science has come to where the eyes are concerned is based on theory, not fact. I understand that you want to side with science, and that's okay, but don't tell me that the evidence in favor of afferent vision is conclusive because it's not.

Again your inability to answer direct questions about your own claims, and instead dishonestly weaseling away from an answer, is well noted.

I asked about your claim that there is no evidence for neonate eye muscle weakness. How do you know there is no conclusive evidence?