A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

You can't dismiss cameras because if efferent vision is true for the eyes, but not cameras, what we see and what we photograph would not match if we are talking about stars etc.

[LadyShea]

We discussed what information means a lot. Information is gained when something is seen. That knowledge cannot be gained faster than light can travel between the object being seen and the seer.

So, if the Sun is turned on at noon, and we can see it at noon as per Lessans, the information/knowledge that "the Sun is on" is gained by the seer faster than the light can travel from the Sun to the eyes. This violates physics. As you well know by now.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not true that the light would not be at the retina if we're getting a mirror image.

Again, you did not tell us what the mechanism is. You just can't, you have no idea.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why don't we stick to the eyes and if Lessans turns out to be right, then we can extend it to cameras.

Evading again. If you cannot explain instantaneous vision on even the simplest example, which in this case is the pinhole camera (a lens camera would be the next), you cannot explain it at all. Explain the mechanism by means of the simplest example. Failing to do so shows you have no idea.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I said it's better to stick to the eyes. Bringing in pinhole cameras is only going to confuse the issue, as it has already done.

No. You said instantaneous vision works with a pinhole camera. Don't confuse the issue by bringing in the needless complexity of eye vision and the brain.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light never stops traveling, but if Lessans is right we are able to get a mirror image of the scene because distance and time are not factors. You keep thinking in terms of light having to travel long distances for us to get the image. That IS the afferent account and the very thing that is being disputed.

• According to standard theory, light takes takes time to travel through the air, spectacles, and eye lens to the retina, where it creates an image. So distance and time play a role.
• According to your efferent account of vision, the image is there instantaneous.
• According to you both types of vision work the same.

That is a flat out contradiction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, they're not different. According to the afferent account, it's false that the object has to be present for us to get an image. Ask anyone.

This is flat out wrong. To see an object it must be there: it produces light of itself, or it reflects light falling on it. Why should I see objects that radiate light themselves instantaneous, and objects that reflect light only after the light has travelled to us? You say that both kinds of photons are the same. So how can you explain this difference?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are missing the concept. I tried to make an analogy with two sides of a highway. I also tried to make an analogy using an enclosure such as a box to show that light from the Sun could be at the eye instantly if we were gazing at it (if it met the requirements), without the light having to travel 8 minutes.

You have no concept:

• You say the wavelength/frequency is that of photons.
• You say that the wavelength/frequency is at the retina instantaneous.
• It is a scientifically proven fact that photons travel with 300,000 km/s.

No concept can cover this. Propositions that lead to contradictions cannot be explained. Therefore you cannot explain your ideas.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light is already at the eye as a mirror image only because of the efferent account which causes a closed system. In other words, we cannot see without the object being within our field of view. We cannot see the object from just the light. This does not mean that light does not travel; it just means we are not waiting for light to arrive (delayed time) in order to create an image in the brain.

If we see something even when the light has not reached us, we do not need light to see according to you. You are continuously contradicting yourself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it doesn't contradict. It only changes what we see from delayed to real time. I know this changes some things, but it certainly doesn't change GPS systems, fiber optics, or any other technologies that depend on light for their successful operations.

We had that already. Special relativity is a thoroughly proven theory. It says that information needs time (at least the time needed to pass the distance with light speed) to get somewhere else. That is a flat out contradiction with instantaneous vision. Your 'this only applies to things that travel' is empty. Information must travel to get at some other point in space.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are absolutely right that the brain is not involved the moment the image is projected onto the retina, but this is what we need to find out since it is how the brain works in relation to the retina that is central to this debate.

If the brain is essential, then photo cameras and pinhole cameras do not show images of self-lighting objects instantaneously. You are contradicting yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't dismiss cameras because if efferent vision is true for the eyes, but not cameras, what we see and what we photograph would not match if we are talking about stars etc.

That's true but I think it's better to see if Lessans is right about the eyes first. Then it would be a natural progression to see if cameras work the same way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We discussed what information means a lot. Information is gained when something is seen. That knowledge cannot be gained faster than light can travel between the object being seen and the seer.

So, if the Sun is turned on at noon, and we can see it at noon as per Lessans, the information/knowledge that "the Sun is on" is gained by the seer faster than the light can travel from the Sun to the eyes. This violates physics. As you well know by now.

It does not violate physics LadyShea if the eyes work the way Lessans described. You are still using the afferent model which involves travel time. If it does not involve travel time, there is no violation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Again, you did not tell us what the mechanism is. You just can't, you have no idea.

Evading again. If you cannot explain instantaneous vision on even the simplest example, which in this case is the pinhole camera (a lens camera would be the next), you cannot explain it at all. Explain the mechanism by means of the simplest example. Failing to do so shows you have no idea.

No. You said instantaneous vision works with a pinhole camera. Don't confuse the issue by bringing in the needless complexity of eye vision and the brain.

• According to standard theory, light takes takes time to travel through the air, spectacles, and eye lens to the retina, where it creates an image. So distance and time play a role.
• According to your efferent account of vision, the image is there instantaneous.
• According to you both types of vision work the same.

That is a flat out contradiction.

This is flat out wrong. To see an object it must be there: it produces light of itself, or it reflects light falling on it. Why should I see objects that radiate light themselves instantaneous, and objects that reflect light only after the light has travelled to us? You say that both kinds of photons are the same. So how can you explain this difference?

You have no concept:

• You say the wavelength/frequency is that of photons.
• You say that the wavelength/frequency is at the retina instantaneous.
• It is a scientifically proven fact that photons travel with 300,000 km/s.

No concept can cover this. Propositions that lead to contradictions cannot be explained. Therefore you cannot explain your ideas.

If we see something even when the light has not reached us, we do not need light to see according to you. You are continuously contradicting yourself.

We had that already. Special relativity is a thoroughly proven theory. It says that information needs time (at least the time needed to pass the distance with light speed) to get somewhere else. That is a flat out contradiction with instantaneous vision. Your 'this only applies to things that travel' is empty. Information must travel to get at some other point in space.

If the brain is essential, then photo cameras and pinhole cameras do not show images of self-lighting objects instantaneously. You are contradicting yourself.

GdB, I'll be back shortly to answer this post but I can tell you that looking at pinholes is not going to further clarify whether the eyes are efferent or afferent. We have to start with the eyes because if they don't work as Lessans' claimed, then the discussion is a waste of time.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

GdB, I'll be back shortly to answer this post but I can tell you that looking at pinholes is not going to further clarify whether the eyes are efferent or afferent. We have to start with the eyes because if they don't work as Lessans' claimed, then the discussion is a waste of time.

You answer my questions, or it is obvious that you simply can't. You said that pinhole cameras have instantaneous vision. Now explain the mechanism, or admit that you were wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

You answer my questions, or it is obvious that you simply can't. You said that pinhole cameras have instantaneous vision. Now explain the mechanism, or admit that you were wrong.

No GdB, my refusal to answer your questions does not in any way prove Lessans was wrong. The fact that you even say that makes me want to move on to other posts. You also believe that free will is a real thing, and we should be judged and punished accordingly. You need to rethink this as well, which is actually much more important than the topic we're discussing.

[GdB]

Here I have another thought experiment for you:

Aliens at more than 600 light years away are looking at our 'sun-at-noon' experiment with a strong telescope. At the moment you see the sun, you send a bright light signal in the direction of the aliens, wave a flag, and start a stop watch at the same time. What do they see, in what order, after how much time?

Here is a guess of mine, but maybe I am wrong.

1. They see the sun lighting up instantaneously at the same time we do (efferent vision).
2. After less than a second (because of your reaction time) they see your light signal.
3. Then 600 years plus 8 minutes later they see you waving the flag, and see that your stopwatch has been running for 8 minutes.

Please, correct me if necessary, and give your own account of what and when the aliens see these events.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No GdB, my refusal to answer your questions does not in any way prove Lessans was wrong.

I am not talking about free will at all. But I think I refuse to discuss free will with you, as long as you do not answer my above questions and react on my arguments, and above all explain the mechanism of instantaneously vision with the example of a pinhole camera. If you can't, then admit it. Avoiding the explanation will be taken as admitting that you can't, and are wrong about this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that you even say that makes me want to move on to other posts. You also believe that free will is a real thing, and we should be judged and punished accordingly. You need to rethink this as well, which is actually much more important than the topic we're discussing.

It might be more important, but why should I discuss free will with a dishonest person? The only honest answer you can give on the topic of vision is: "Sorry, Lessans was wrong about vision". Or you give a consistent explanation of the mechanism of the instantaneous appearance of an image of the sun in a pinhole camera.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not violate physics LadyShea if the eyes work the way Lessans described. You are still using the afferent model which involves travel time. If it does not involve travel time, there is no violation.

If eyes work the way Lessans describes then the laws of physics must be different than they are known to be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If eyes work the way Lessans describes then the laws of physics must be different than they are known to be.

Not at all. Nothing changes about the properties of light. Light still travels. Nothing but nothing changes except that we see in real time. If this changes the conception of what is being seen, oh well, but it doesn't change any of the technologies that have been built successfully due to our understanding of light.

[peacegirl]

[quote=GdB;1234186]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No GdB, my refusal to answer your questions does not in any way prove Lessans was wrong.

I am not talking about free will at all. But I think I refuse to discuss free will with you, as long as you do not answer my above questions and react on my arguments, and above all explain the mechanism of instantaneously vision with the example of a pinhole camera. If you can't, then admit it. Avoiding the explanation will be taken as admitting that you can't, and are wrong about this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that you even say that makes me want to move on to other posts. You also believe that free will is a real thing, and we should be judged and punished accordingly. You need to rethink this as well, which is actually much more important than the topic we're discussing.

Originally Posted by GdB

It might be more important, but why should I discuss free will with a dishonest person?

Dishonest person? Really?

Originally Posted by GdB

The only honest answer you can give on the topic of vision is: "Sorry, Lessans was wrong about vision". Or you give a consistent explanation of the mechanism of the instantaneous appearance of an image of the sun in a pinhole camera.

I'm doing the best I can GdB, but for you to make the comment that I'm dishonest is completely off base. I really have no desire to continue.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. Nothing changes about the properties of light. Light still travels. Nothing but nothing changes except that we see in real time. If this changes the conception of what is being seen, oh well, but it doesn't change any of the technologies that have been built successfully due to our understanding of light.

If the Sun is turned on at noon, and we can see it at noon as per Lessans, the information/knowledge that "the Sun is on" is gained by the seer faster than the light can travel from the Sun to the eyes. This violates physics.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm doing the best I can GdB, but for you to make the comment that I'm dishonest is completely off base. I really have no desire to continue.

Listen, peacegirl, I started asking what the mechanism of instantaneous vision is already many posts ago, and you never answered it. You avoided it, by giving non-answers, by only giving the conditions that efferent vision would occur (which btw are the same as for just seeing an object according to the standard account of vision), you do not admit that there are several contradictions between your account of vision and established science.

From your reactions it is clear that you understand next to nothing from physics (supernova not visible with the naked eye, instantaneous getting of information of remote events, mixing up special and general relativity, saying that neutrinos might not exist, etc etc), and then, without even giving an explanation of how efferent vision works in something simple as a pinhole camera, you say that there is no contradiction with physics. Don't you think it is a dishonest way of discussing: not explaining how the mechanism of instantaneous vision works, knowing next to nothing about physics, and then still state that there is no contradiction with physics???

Come on, peacegirl, face the truth: you and your father are completely wrong about vision. Get real.

[But]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the Sun is turned on at noon, and we can see it at noon as per Lessans, the information/knowledge that "the Sun is on" is gained by the seer faster than the light can travel from the Sun to the eyes. This violates physics.

This. peacegirl, I don't know if you can't get it through your thick skull or you are deliberately evading it, but it doesn't get any simpler than that. Your idea contradicts relativity.

It doesn't matter one bit whether you say that it's "because of a mirror image" or something else. It doesn't matter how it's supposed to happen. All that counts is when the observer sees the object. If it's before relativity says it can happen, then there is a contradiction.

What about this do you not understand?

[GdB]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the Sun is turned on at noon, and we can see it at noon as per Lessans, the information/knowledge that "the Sun is on" is gained by the seer faster than the light can travel from the Sun to the eyes. This violates physics.

LadyShea is completely right, peacegirl. What you fail to see is that energy and information at most have the speed of light: so no information can be seen before also the light could reach the eye.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the Sun is turned on at noon, and we can see it at noon as per Lessans, the information/knowledge that "the Sun is on" is gained by the seer faster than the light can travel from the Sun to the eyes. This violates physics.

Don't you see that this doesn't apply? This statement is being misused therefore you can't reject the claim on this basis. You can't just say he's wrong without doing the tests to determine whether he was wrong, and so far testing to determine whether his claim has any merit has not been done. To simply ignore his claim because of the reasons given is not good science, if you can call it that. If it turns out that the eyes are efferent, then you have to understand that this brings up the fact that light becomes a condition of sight automatically, which means it does not travel through space/time bringing the information to the eye to be decoded.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

LadyShea is completely right, peacegirl. What you fail to see is that energy and information at most have the speed of light: so no information can be seen before also the light could reach the eye.

But it has reached the eye. It's there at the eye when we see the object because of the conditions that allow this, but not through travel time.
LadyShea is not right; she's far from it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Listen, peacegirl, I started asking what the mechanism of instantaneous vision is already many posts ago, and you never answered it. You avoided it, by giving non-answers, by only giving the conditions that efferent vision would occur (which btw are the same as for just seeing an object according to the standard account of vision), you do not admit that there are several contradictions between your account of vision and established science.

From your reactions it is clear that you understand next to nothing from physics (supernova not visible with the naked eye, instantaneous getting of information of remote events, mixing up special and general relativity, saying that neutrinos might not exist, etc etc), and then, without even giving an explanation of how efferent vision works in something simple as a pinhole camera, you say that there is no contradiction with physics. Don't you think it is a dishonest way of discussing: not explaining how the mechanism of instantaneous vision works, knowing next to nothing about physics, and then still state that there is no contradiction with physics???

Come on, peacegirl, face the truth: you and your father are completely wrong about vision. Get real.

First of all, I told everyone that he was not a physicist. No physicist would have been able to see what Lessans saw because a physicist would have no reason to question the standard account of sight; it's already considered a fact. Lessans came to this finding indirectly but that doesn't mean it's invalid. I maintain that real time vision does not violate the laws of physics. Whatever technologies have been created work, which is proof of the pudding. Now, if his claim is one day proved to be right and some of the observations don't add up (e.g., the moons of Jupiter), then we have to rethink what we believe is happening that conflict with his findings. Please understand that whatever is seen from a pinhole camera is the same thing that would be seen if the Sun were just turned on at noon. The only difference is that there would be no light for 8 minutes in order to see any objects on Earth, including each other.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it has reached the eye. It's there at the eye when we see the object because of the conditions that allow this, but not through travel time.
LadyShea is not right; she's far from it.

That violates the known and proven laws of physics. And since you know nothing about physics you are in no position to criticize the laws of physics, or claim that some process doesn't violate them.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all, I told everyone that he was not a physicist. No physicist would have been able to see what Lessans saw because a physicist would have no reason to question the standard account of sight; it's already considered a fact. Lessans came to this finding indirectly but that doesn't mean it's invalid. I maintain that real time vision does not violate the laws of physics.

Lessans was not a physicist and knew nothing about physics. No physicist would see what Lessans saw because a physicists is grounded in reality, not fantasy. Lessans claims are invalid because they are nonsense. Real time vision does violate the known laws of physics. Lessans was wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

You answer my questions, or it is obvious that you simply can't. You said that pinhole cameras have instantaneous vision. Now explain the mechanism, or admit that you were wrong.

So now you think I said pinhole cameras can see? This is getting weirder and weirder by the second.

[peacegirl]

This is sort of related to our discussion. So cool.

https://www.facebook.com/17137140629...1359718297856/

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you see that this doesn't apply?

You can't just say he's wrong without doing the tests to determine whether he was wrong, and so far testing to determine whether his claim has any merit has not been done.

which means it does not travel through space/time bringing the information to the eye to be decoded.

The laws of physics apply to everything, there are no exceptions.

The tests and experiments have been done, and you know this. Lessans was wrong.

Light does travel through space and time to the eyes to be decoded by the brain as an image, that is established, undisputed theory of science. Lessans was wrong.