A revolution in thought - Page 1604

peacegirl · #**40076** 08-09-2014, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

the size and luminosity of the object relative to the lens (in the efferent account) that make all the difference.

Is there an actual ratio involved? What is it?

It depends how you define ratio. The definition of a ratio is the relationship between two things (which is one of the standard definitions) and in this case it is the size and brightness of the object in relation to the viewer. If he can see the object (we're working this backwards) then the light has to be at the eye instantly (just like with the candle). This does not mean light doesn't travel; it only means that the light becomes a condition of sight where time is not a factor because this is not how it works in the efferent account. That is exactly why we would be able to see an object (in this case the Sun) from afar yet not see someone right next to us. Bear in mind that in this account the requirements for real time seeing are 1) that light be at the object and 2) if it can be seen because it is large enough and therefore within optical range. This places the light at the film or retina instantly because we couldn't see the object otherwise. This has become a big stumbling block since people can't seem to grasp why light doesn't have to travel 81/2 minutes to reach the eye, but can be at the eye before the light reaches Earth where the eye is located. That is only because time is not a factor (even though light travels 186,000 miles a second which Lessans never denied). If time was a factor, this account would be magical because then we're talking about photons being at the eye before they had a chance to get to the eye.

peacegirl · #**40077** 08-09-2014, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

No Spacemonkey. If you believe these questions are extremely pertinent just tell me what you think is wrong with my account based on your explanation and I will try to answer you otherwise I refuse to be harassed by this same questions over and over again.

Of course the questions are pertinent, Dingbat. The problem for you is the same one it's always been - you need light to be somewhere before it has had time to get there. But as per usual, you'd rather lie, weasel, and evade than be honest and reasonable. The questions only get repeated because you keep refusing to answer them, so you have no-one to blame but yourself. Why are you still refusing to answer these perfectly reasonable questions?

That is absolutely not true Spacemonkey. You are not seeing the relations in this model of sight AT ALL. And then you blame me for your lack of understanding.

davidm · #**40078** 08-09-2014, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

the size and luminosity of the object relative to the lens (in the efferent account) that make all the difference.

Is there an actual ratio involved? What is it?

It depends how you define ratio.

Yes, of course! The Father/Daughter Blockhead team has their own idiosyncratic definition for everything! Ratio now means to peacegirl: "something-something-bullshit-word-salad-fucktardery that I can pretend supports the bilge I am spewing."

Just like Lessans had his own idiosyncratic definition of "mathematically undeniable." Unfortunately for him and peacegirl, The Lone Ranger earlier produced a truly mathematically undeniable demonstration that if we used Lessans' real-time seeing to send spacecraft to Mars, we would miss the planet by a mathematically undeniable specific margin. Dishonest dum-dum here has of course refused to address this issue. Oh, well, something else must be going on there, eh, peacegirl?

peacegirl · #**40079** 08-09-2014, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In this experiment two video screens are separated by a wall so the dog had to choose which one to walk up to.

Can your dog recognize you from a picture? | Smart Animal Training Systems...
Dogs spot the dog

No levers! The dogs simply chose a picture and walked to it and touched it with a nose

Here's some articles about another experiment:
Study proves dogs recognize their owners' faces | MNN - Mother Nature Network (note I do not approve of the word prove here, but that's what the source chose)
BBC - Earth News - Dogs recognise their owner's face

This article talks about the myriad issues surrounding studying animals, and includes the Hans the Clever Horse story

Quote:

Animal Cognition (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The method that Darwin, Romanes and their contemporaries first used to investigate these questions could be described as the anecdotal method. Stories about animal behavior were collected from a variety of people, including military officers, amateur naturalists, and layfolk, and were compiled and used as evidence for a particular cognitive capacity in that species. This approach was widely criticized. The “evidence” gathered was often a story told about an event witnessed by a single person, usually not a trained scientific observer. In addition, these stories were often acquired second- or third- hand, so there were worries that the reports had been embellished or otherwise altered along the way. These problems were recognized early on, and in response Romanes developed three principles for accepting anecdotes in order to avoid some of these problems:

*Never accept an incident report as fact without considering the authority or respectability of the observer.
* If the observer isn't known, and the incident report is sufficiently important, consider whether the observer may have reason or cause to make an inaccurate report.
*Look for corroborations of the observation by examining similar or analogous observations made by other independent observers (Romanes 1970).

The third principle was the one he most relied on, writing “This principle I have found to be a great use in guiding my selection of instances, for where statements of fact which present nothing intrinsically improbable are found to be unconsciously confirmed by different observers, they have as good a right to be deemed trustworthy as statements which stand on the single authority of a known observer, and I have found the former to be at least as abundant as the latter” (Romanes 1970, ix).

Despite Romanes' attempts, the method remained problematic insofar as it didn't provide any statistical information about the frequency of such behaviors; selection bias would lead people to report only the interesting intelligent behaviors and ignore the frequency of behaviors that might serve as counterevidence. Thus, the anecdotal method as practiced by Darwin and Romanes lacks many of the virtues associated with good scientific methods.

Quote:

Today scientists continue to conduct experiments in laboratory settings, but they also attempt to mirror the richness of the animal's natural environment. For example, the research coming out of Kyoto University's Primate Research Institute (PRI) is based on a three-part research program (Matsuzawa et al. 2006). First, the physical, cognitive, and social development of chimpanzees is taken into account in the design of experiments, and subjects are raised by their mothers rather than by human caregivers or unrelated animals. In addition, lab work and fieldwork is synthesized; field observations are used to develop experiments, and experiments are conducted both in the field and in the laboratory. Finally, the method includes analysis of the physiological and biological features of the species that could be related to cognitive abilities.

Research is ongoing all over the world, so Lessans was missing a ton of information when he wrote about dog cognition

You are making a huge assumption that Lessans could not have made a correct claim because he didn't have enough information. That's just not true. None of these experiments have proven him wrong. Not one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Duke University | Evolutionary Anthropology: Duke Canine Cognition Center

The first experiment didn't show dogs recognizing their masters. It showed that dogs seem to be able to differentiate between humans and their own species. I agree. I know my dogs identify other dogs by their gait and movement in general, yet they react differently when they see a human being. My friend's dog is a Rotweiler and he runs up to the t.v. when he sees the movement of animals running on the screen. Again, this is something that is easily observed but to see a dog look a few seconds longer at a picture, or even walk up to a television screen because he sees a dog's face, does not necessarily translate to the dog recognizing individual faces of either dogs or humans. This still does not answer the question as to why we have to prove through lab tests that they can recognize faces when this is something we should easily observe if the eyes were a sense organ. Why would their brain not identify the visual stimuli bouncing off a picture unless the eyes functioned differently?

Cynthia of Syracuse · #**40080** 08-09-2014, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Note that peacegirl claims that a dog cannot recognize a photograph of its master. What this (and several other) study shows is that dogs pay much more attention to photos of their masters than to photos of strangers.

So, peacegirl, do you think that's just a coincidence?

She thinks it is whatever she needs it to be at any given moment to keep her slavish belief in Daddy's pronouncements undisturbed. Today it's coincidence, tomorrow it'll be a law of god. Next week it won't be true, and when all else fails, something else will be going on. Plus ça change...

thedoc · #**40081** 08-09-2014, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I remember one video where the owner's hat may have clued the dog because it was a particular shape.

WTF! It would be no stretch at all to say that if a dog can recognize the shape of it's owners hat in a photo, that same dog could recognize it's owners facial features. Just how dumb can you get, how far from reality can you stray in your delusions. :doh:

thedoc · #**40082** 08-09-2014, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

At press time, fresh instances of WTFs, OMGUSes and Facepalms were reported as Peacegirl was unstrapped from her bed, given her meds, and allowed recreational time on the institutional computer.

Thankyou for posting this very useful information.

thedoc · #**40083** 08-09-2014, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Angakuk, this doesn't have to be a controlled experiment. It is an observation which can have value depending on the skill of the person making the observation.

So let's not talk about pictures and dogs. There are other ways to prove that dogs do not have the ability to match individual features with their masters.

An experiment without controls will yield no valid data. Your fathers skill as an observer has not been established, in fact there are doubts that he had any skill in this area at all. He certainly didn't leave any record of his observations for others to verify.

If you are going to talk about dogs recognizing their masters from a photo, then you must use dogs and photos in your experiments, there is no other way to get valid results.

peacegirl · #**40084** 08-09-2014, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here's another one

Quote:

So far the specialized skill for recognizing facial features holistically has been assumed to be a quality that only humans and possibly primates possess. Although it’s well known, that faces and eye contact play an important role in the communication between dogs and humans, this was the first study, where facial recognition of dogs was investigated with eye movement tracking.

The results indicate that dogs were able to perceive faces in the images. Dogs looked at images of dogs longer than images of humans, regardless of the familiarity of the faces presented in the images. This corresponds to a previous study by Professor Vainio's research group, where it was found that dogs prefer viewing conspecific faces over human faces.

Dogs fixed their gaze more often on familiar faces and eyes rather than strange ones, i.e. dogs scanned familiar faces more thoroughly.

In addition, part of the images was presented in inverted forms i.e. upside-down. The inverted faces were presented because their physical properties correspond to normal upright facial images e.g. same colors, contrasts, shapes. It's known that the human brain process upside-down images in a different way than normal facial images. Thus far, it had not been studied how dogs gaze at inverted or familiar faces. Dogs viewed upright faces as long as inverted faces, but they gazed more at the eye area of upright faces, just like humans.

This eye tracking is used in human research too. It removes the need for the subject to perform an action to indicate things.

Even Mercola picked up on this one

Quote:

For social animals that live in groups as humans and dogs do, it's important to be able to tell one individual in the group from another through facial recognition. But until recently, the aptitude for recognizing facial features was presumed to be a quality that only humans and possibly primates possess.

As it turns out, this highly developed skill is one we also share with our canine companions, which makes sense, since it's an established fact that faces and eye contact play an important role in human-dog communication.

Direct eye contact between two dogs can be a threat. That's why dogs who don't want to fight often retreat by showing signs of submission. Human-dog communication is hardly the main role in how they interact. My sheepdog was always nervous when I first came in the house until she identified me through smell. At the vets she heard my voice and started barking in recognition (and by the way these were astute observations that didn't need an empirical test to prove it) so that was another way she could identify me. But I never saw her identify me through sight alone. I trust careful observations just as much if not more than these contrived experiments which are interpreted in a very subjective manner in spite of having controls in place.

peacegirl · #**40085** 08-09-2014, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I remember one video where the owner's hat may have clued the dog because it was a particular shape.

Do you remember that one like you remember the ones using levers...that never existed?

It was something the dog had to push.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Or how you remember being prescribed a drug that was pulled from the market due to causing cancer, except it wasn't pulled nor did it cause cancer. You really shouldn't rely on your memory.

There was a drug Seroquil that was being reported as having a bad effect on the liver.

Quote:

Regardless, I have not seen any replication of any of these studies. Wouldn't you think that's the first thing they would do if they wanted the study to lend support to their hypothesis?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Replication is done by interested different researchers, not the same scientists. I thought you understood scientific methodology :facepalm:

It takes someone else to say "I don't trust those methods or results, I am going to try their experiment out myself!". Not all research gets replicated, because not all of it interests others, or nobody thinks the methodology is flawed and so lets it stand as is.

And there are wrong conclusions based on scanty research.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The same researchers replicating their own tests wouldn't lead to verification or find possible flaws in their methodology, because they would believe they used a good set up and good methods the first time, or they wouldn't have used them.

This is another area where you and Lessans fail to understand good scholarship, you think you can find and correct your own mistakes...how can you do that if you don't think you made a mistake?

He always welcomed anyone who wanted to do more empirical testing. You keep insisting that he made mistakes (as if you know :dumb:

) when I don't believe he did.

peacegirl · #**40086** 08-09-2014, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to understand the efferent account. The light is not bringing us anything. We are using the light to see. Magnification is consistent with this account because optics is consistent with this account. But time is not a factor because, once again, we're not waiting for the light to arrive to get the information. We are seeing the real object due to light's presence. Light is a condition of sight; it is not a cause of sight.

The actual bug and the magnified image of the bug are different sizes. If we were seeing the actual bug and the light was merely revealing it wouldn't we be seeing it in its actual size?

No Angakuk because optics works the same way. We are seeing through the light, and if the lens is convex which bends the light, the light would magnify the bug.

That doesn't explain at all how magnification works in efferent vision, or how it is compatible with your statement "We are seeing the real object due to light's presence".

You are simply re-stating how it works with the standard afferent model (which is what optics is), and in the standard model we are not seeing the real object at all...we are seeing a virtual image made of light.

In both models, we cannot see without light. We are using light in different ways but light is necessary in both accounts. In the efferent account it is that same bent light (due to the convex lens) that will cause the eyes to see the bug magnified. We are still seeing the bug in real time, just larger.

peacegirl · #**40087** 08-09-2014, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just remember that if we see the object, the light is already at the eye.

And that right there is where your account is incompatible with physics, optics, and reality. Unless you can explain how the light gets to the eye faster than it could possibly travel to the eye, you are talking about magic

ETA: If we see things instantly as per Lessans

Light is always traveling LadyShea, but the efferent account is what changes this phenomenon. I'm not going over this for the 100th time. It's your lack of ability to grasp why we would see the Sun instantly just like the candle because we are no longer looking at time since we're not waiting for the arrival of light to bring the information. We are able to see the real thing in real time as long as it meets the requirements of brightness and size, which is proportional to the viewer. I don't care if you believe this is magic. .

Its your lack of ability to explain how this is possible within the known laws of physics. You can't explain it at all, so how could I possibly "grasp" something that is unexplained and seemingly impossible?

You need to figure out how it works, rather than merely asserting that it does work without any evidence or mechanism.

Quote:

We are not talking about light getting to the eye faster than it could travel to the eye. That's nuts altogether

Yes it is nuts, that's why we keep questioning your claims that light is at the eye, and on camera film, instantly without needing the time to travel there. Your claim is nuts.

Unbelievable. You all have no conception of how this works because you refuse to understand that time is not involved. If I don't see the object the light is not at the eye. If I see the object, the light is absolutely at the eye. No one is saying light is at the eye before light gets there. You gave an example about cars in a garage. The posts were moving so fast I didn't get to respond. Just to let you know this analogy really doesn't apply to the efferent account, but if you want to repost I will try to show you that this misunderstanding is at the heart of the problem.

Artemis Entreri · #**40088** 08-09-2014, 09:32 PM

You PG are sayin that the light is at the eye before it has had time to get there.
In the sun at noon scenario, if the sun is the only source of light when it is turned on at noon all of the light will still be a the sun he instant it is turned on. There would be no light at the eye until it has had time to travel there. Traveling at the speed of light it would take 8.5minutes before light reaches the eye.

Also you still havent explained optics from a non-afferent, efferent point of view. If time is not a factor then how can a change in the speed of light effect vision??

thedoc · #**40089** 08-09-2014, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The same researchers replicating their own tests wouldn't lead to verification or find possible flaws in their methodology, because they would believe they used a good set up and good methods the first time, or they wouldn't have used them.

This is another area where you and Lessans fail to understand good scholarship, you think you can find and correct your own mistakes...how can you do that if you don't think you made a mistake?

He always welcomed anyone who wanted to do more empirical testing. You keep insisting that he made mistakes (as if you know :dumb:

) when I don't believe he did.

His opinion of the experts, who could have helped him with his ideas, was obvious through the first part of the book.

His mistakes run rampant throughout the whole book. To enumerate them and explain how they are wrong, would take a book larger than his, and just as dull.

peacegirl · #**40090** 08-09-2014, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

You PG are sayin that the light is at the eye before it has had time to get there.
In the sun at noon scenario, if the sun is the only source of light when it is turned on at noon all of the light will still be a the sun he instant it is turned on. There would be no light at the eye until it has had time to travel there. Traveling at the speed of light it would take 8.5minutes before light reaches the eye.

No Artemis, that is the afferent account, not the efferent. This is not about light reaching the eye before it gets there. It's already there if we can see the object. That does not mean light is not traveling. It only means that the light would be at the eye IF AND ONLY IF we can see the object first, because then the requirements will have been met which are antithetical to the afferent position, which is why people aren't getting it and are accusing Lessans of violating the laws of physics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Also you still havent explained optics from a non-afferent, efferent point of view. If time is not a factor then how can a change in the speed of light effect vision??

The speed of light does not affect vision because this would mean time is involved. We are not waiting for light to arrive. We are seeing the object which places the light at the eye or film instantly because the light is already there or we would not see the object through the lens. You can compare this to a candle because it's the same principle, even though the distance between the Sun and the viewer and the candle and the viewer would make you think otherwise. If the requirements of efferent vision are met (size and luminosity), we would see the object in real time because it's the proportion between the object and the viewer that matter, not the time it takes for the light to reach Earth which is only necessary if we want to see each other. The properties of light still remain intact, but the function of light changes entirely when it comes to vision. If you think in terms of travel time and getting there, you're already off-track because you are still thinking in terms of the afferent account. Reasoning from this premise as if it is fact will never bring you any closer to understanding why the efferent account is more than plausible.

thedoc · #**40091** 08-09-2014, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In both models, we cannot see without light. We are using light in different ways but light is necessary in both accounts. In the efferent account it is that same bent light (due to the convex lens) that will cause the eyes to see the bug magnified. We are still seeing the bug in real time, just larger.

Peacegirl, in your explanation of efferent vision we are seeing the object directly and there is no distance between the eye and the object, so any other item in the line of sight would be irrelevant. Or are you saying that we see the lens and the image of the object through it? Then we would need to wait for the light to arrive at the lens for the eye to see an image. We can't see the bug in real time, we see the image of the bug in the lens in real time?

thedoc · #**40092** 08-09-2014, 10:02 PM

In your scenario of the sun being turned on at noon, what would happen if you held up a lens and looked at the Sun through it. Would we see the Sun instantly at noon? or would we have to wait 8.5 minutes for the light to arrive at the lens. Light must be traveling for the lens to bend it and give a magnified image. Light that is there instantly is not traveling and cannot be bent or effected by the lens, there would be no magnified image. Would there be any image at all till the traveling light arrives 8.5 minutes later?

thedoc · #**40093** 08-09-2014, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The properties of light remain intact, but due to efferent vision the function of light changes entirely.

The properties of light determine it's function, you cannot change one without changing the other. For efferent vision to work you must change the properties of light, which you have denied all along.

Spacemonkey · #**40094** 08-09-2014, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dingbat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

No Spacemonkey. If you believe these questions are extremely pertinent just tell me what you think is wrong with my account based on your explanation and I will try to answer you otherwise I refuse to be harassed by this same questions over and over again.

Of course the questions are pertinent, Dingbat. The problem for you is the same one it's always been - you need light to be somewhere before it has had time to get there. But as per usual, you'd rather lie, weasel, and evade than be honest and reasonable. The questions only get repeated because you keep refusing to answer them, so you have no-one to blame but yourself. Why are you still refusing to answer these perfectly reasonable questions?

That is absolutely not true Spacemonkey. You are not seeing the relations in this model of sight AT ALL. And then you blame me for your lack of understanding.

No-one can understand what you refuse to explain. Of course it is your fault that people don't understand when you flat out refuse to answer the questions they ask. So why are you refusing to answer my above questions? Why are you refusing to be reasonable?

Artemis Entreri · #**40095** 08-09-2014, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Artemis, that is the afferent account, not the efferent. This is not about light reaching the eye before it gets there. It's already there if we can see the object. That does not mean light is not traveling. It only means that the light would be at the eye IF AND ONLY IF we can see the object first, because then the requirements will have been met which are antithetical to the afferent position, which is why people aren't getting it and are accusing Lessans of violating the laws of physics.

Aren't one of these requirements that light be at the eye. If so then how can the eye see the sun instantly when it is first turned on when it has not had time to travel to the eye?

Quote:

The speed of light does not affect vision because this would mean time is involved.

Then how does the lens bend light? Please explain how a lens can bend light without the speed of light being a factor.

Spacemonkey · #**40096** 08-09-2014, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lying Weasel

We are seeing the object which places the light at the eye or film instantly because the light is already there or we would not see the object.

So where did that light come from and how did it get to where it now is (i.e. the film or retina)?

It hasn't had time to travel there, and if it doesn't travel then it isn't light, remember?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lying Weasel

You can compare this to a candle because it's the same principle...

And what principle is that? We don't see the candle in real time either, and you don't have any principle that works for the candle or for the Sun.

LadyShea · #**40097** 08-10-2014, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

the size and luminosity of the object relative to the lens (in the efferent account) that make all the difference.

Is there an actual ratio involved? What is it?

It depends how you define ratio. The definition of a ratio is the relationship between two things (which is one of the standard definitions) and in this case it is the size and brightness of the object in relation to the viewer.

Um, no, nice try though. Ratio is the quantitative relation between two amounts showing the number of times one value contains or is contained within the other.

Quote:

If he can see the object (we're working this backwards) then the light has to be at the eye instantly (just like with the candle).

Great, but you still need to explain how the light gets to the eye in keeping with the known and immutable properties of light.

LadyShea · #**40098** 08-10-2014, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just remember that if we see the object, the light is already at the eye.

And that right there is where your account is incompatible with physics, optics, and reality. Unless you can explain how the light gets to the eye faster than it could possibly travel to the eye, you are talking about magic

ETA: If we see things instantly as per Lessans

Light is always traveling LadyShea, but the efferent account is what changes this phenomenon. I'm not going over this for the 100th time. It's your lack of ability to grasp why we would see the Sun instantly just like the candle because we are no longer looking at time since we're not waiting for the arrival of light to bring the information. We are able to see the real thing in real time as long as it meets the requirements of brightness and size, which is proportional to the viewer. I don't care if you believe this is magic. .

Its your lack of ability to explain how this is possible within the known laws of physics. You can't explain it at all, so how could I possibly "grasp" something that is unexplained and seemingly impossible?

You need to figure out how it works, rather than merely asserting that it does work without any evidence or mechanism.

Quote:

We are not talking about light getting to the eye faster than it could travel to the eye. That's nuts altogether

Yes it is nuts, that's why we keep questioning your claims that light is at the eye, and on camera film, instantly without needing the time to travel there. Your claim is nuts.

Unbelievable. You all have no conception of how this works because you refuse to understand that time is not involved.

Because you refuse to explain how it is possible for time to not be involved in a way that is compatible with reality.

Quote:

If I see the object, the light is absolutely at the eye. No one is saying light is at the eye before light gets there.

How does the light from the newly ignited Sun get from the Sun to eye without traveling?

LadyShea · #**40099** 08-10-2014, 02:16 AM

Say there is a car in your garage that you say came from California. It is 12:00 noon EDT Sunday the 10th, 2014. The car left California at 9am PDT, Sunday the 10th, 2014. How can that be? The only known mechanism for cars to get from one place to another place is by traveling to that place, which takes time. So how can the car be in your garage at the same moment it is leaving California?

Explaining how a car got from California to your garage instantly is identical to explaining how light photons get to the eye or camera film at noon from the Sun which was ignited at noon. Saying that time is not involved is just moronic, because light follows the laws of physics, and time is definitely a factor in anything changing locations.

You just keep saying "The car is in the garage instantly because it is in the garage and time is not a factor" when you are being asked to explain how the car got to the garage from California instantaneously. Spacemonkeys letter scenario is the same thing. How did a letter from Japan arrive when there hasn't been time for a letter to travel from Japan?

LadyShea · #**40100** 08-10-2014, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here's another one

Quote:

So far the specialized skill for recognizing facial features holistically has been assumed to be a quality that only humans and possibly primates possess. Although it’s well known, that faces and eye contact play an important role in the communication between dogs and humans, this was the first study, where facial recognition of dogs was investigated with eye movement tracking.

The results indicate that dogs were able to perceive faces in the images. Dogs looked at images of dogs longer than images of humans, regardless of the familiarity of the faces presented in the images. This corresponds to a previous study by Professor Vainio's research group, where it was found that dogs prefer viewing conspecific faces over human faces.

Dogs fixed their gaze more often on familiar faces and eyes rather than strange ones, i.e. dogs scanned familiar faces more thoroughly.

In addition, part of the images was presented in inverted forms i.e. upside-down. The inverted faces were presented because their physical properties correspond to normal upright facial images e.g. same colors, contrasts, shapes. It's known that the human brain process upside-down images in a different way than normal facial images. Thus far, it had not been studied how dogs gaze at inverted or familiar faces. Dogs viewed upright faces as long as inverted faces, but they gazed more at the eye area of upright faces, just like humans.

This eye tracking is used in human research too. It removes the need for the subject to perform an action to indicate things.

Even Mercola picked up on this one

Quote:

For social animals that live in groups as humans and dogs do, it's important to be able to tell one individual in the group from another through facial recognition. But until recently, the aptitude for recognizing facial features was presumed to be a quality that only humans and possibly primates possess.

As it turns out, this highly developed skill is one we also share with our canine companions, which makes sense, since it's an established fact that faces and eye contact play an important role in human-dog communication.

Direct eye contact between two dogs can be a threat.

And what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?