A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm telling you the same thing I have always said; that there is a difference between light traveling over long distances to strike the eye with the pattern of the object (even if the object is no longer present), or the object having to be present [in real time] for an image to show up on film. These two accounts are opposite in every way due to how the eyes work. That's why it's important for scientists to determine whether Lessans was right about the eyes, not light.

Scientists have already determined that Lessans was wrong about the eyes, Lessans claimed that there were no afferent nerve endings in the eye, but science had found that the retina is made up entirely of afferent nerve endings. The efferent nerve to the eye are not directly associated with seeing, but with controlling the movement of the eye, to facilitate vision. The efferent nerves to the eye allow vision to take place, the afferent nerves actually preform the function of vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Scientists have already determined that Lessans was wrong about the eyes, Lessans claimed that there were no afferent nerve endings in the eye, but science had found that the retina is made up entirely of afferent nerve endings. The efferent nerve to the eye are not directly associated with seeing, but with controlling the movement of the eye, to facilitate vision. The efferent nerves to the eye allow vision to take place, the afferent nerves actually preform the function of vision.

So why can't dogs recognize their masters doc if the eyes are a sense organ? Shouldn't they? Doesn't Occam's razor say this? Please don't answer. I can't stomach you. Others can answer this question and I will listen.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So why can't dogs recognize their masters doc if the eyes are a sense organ? Shouldn't they? Doesn't Occam's razor say this? Please don't answer. I can't stomach you. Others can answer this question and I will listen.

1. It's completely irrelevant to the topic. Whether dogs can recognize someone doesn't have anything to do with real-time vision.

2. Actually, they can. It's irrelevant, but you're wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So why can't dogs recognize their masters doc if the eyes are a sense organ? Shouldn't they? Doesn't Occam's razor say this? Please don't answer. I can't stomach you. Others can answer this question and I will listen.

It has not been established that dogs do not recognize an image of it's master, if fact some tests show that a dog can recognize it's master from a photo. It was only claimed by Lessans that dogs do not recognize their master in a photo, just another of his unsupported assertions. Obviously he never studied vision in dogs or humans, just pulled ideas of his posterior and expected everyone to accept them without question. Lessans was wrong.

To invoke Occam's Razor would be to opt for the simplest solution, and that would be that the eyes are sense organs just like all the others. The eyes receive light as the external stimuli, and transmit that information to the brain where it is interpreted as an image. Much simpler that inventing some idea that the brain somehow projects words through the eyes onto the outside world and "looks" at the outside world without being there. Vision has all been worked out, examined and tested to the point that science knows how it works, something Lessans knew nothing about.

[The Lone Ranger]

"Occam's Razor" -- yet another phrase that peacegirl likes to use, while demonstrating that she has exactly zero understanding of what it actually means.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I also said that if he is right, the object must be within the field of view of the camera, not just light. This is exactly why there is no time involved because we're not waiting for light to send us the information. It's already there.

So light is involved, light is travelling with 300,000km/s, but the image is there instantaneously.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not avoiding anything GdB. Show me an example of where it takes 8 minutes for a lens to project an image.

In the sun-at-noon experiment, every image, at the retina, the film of a photo camera, or the screen of a pinhole camera only appears 8 minutes after the sun has turned on.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's believed that we are seeing the image based on Roemer's experiment, but there is room for error, is there not?

No, Rømer's measurements turned out to be based on the right assumptions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one is saying there is an image without light, but the image on the retina or film (when the requirements are fulfilled) does not require travel time, although light itself travels.

This is contradictory. For the image light is needed, the image is there instantaneously: but light travels.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to get you to see his reasoning based on this account. It's not magic. When he differentiated between "condition" and "cause", it was due to this opposite way of how we see. It does not change the properties of light.

So an image has no physical cause? That is what I call magic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A sense organ receives stimuli and interprets it in the brain. That's how a sense organ is defined, so why would a dog not be able to recognize the images coming into his eyes?

Because his brain cannot interpret the image on his retina precise enough. (I do agree with others that dogs can recognise there master, I've seen enough examples of it, but for the sake of argument I let this be.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm telling you the same thing I have always said; that there is a difference between light traveling over long distances to strike the eye with the pattern of the object (even if the object is no longer present), or the object having to be present [in real time] for an image to show up on film.

OK, now I understand what you mean. Of course the standard interpretation is correct. As long as the light radiated or reflected by an object is still on its way, the direction from where the light comes can be detected, e.g. by a telescope, and so be transformed into a picture.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would if there was no connection with light, but there is.

Ehh? What is this for empty statement?!?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it's not. You're just not yet understanding how it is absolutely possible without violating physics..

You do not understand relativity. That is why you think there is no problem.
I say it once again: from special relativity follows that information cannot be at a remote place instantaneously, whatever the means.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are seeing the actual object, not the image of the object, using light as the medium. Light IS at the retina due to this mechanism;

What mechanism? You never explained it! And when light is the medium: sorry light travels with 300,000km/s. You confirmed that!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the fact that it's the opposite of what is believed to be true does not mean that it should be thrown out as a crackpot theory.

It is not just believed: it is proven by endless experiments and observations. And there is a rock solid mathematical theory that explains all phenomena precisely. Your father's theory of vision is a crackpot theory.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nooo GdB, please stop trying to make me look foolish so you can use this thread as lulz like everyone else has. We can compare what's on the screen with the retina. The only difference is that the brain can see the actual object whereas the screen shows the image of the object in real time.

Well, you look foolish by opposing established science. And in the meantime you did not explain how a simple pinhole 'decodes' light into an image.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why they say that if the light from Columbus discovering America was traveling to another planet and it impinged on our eyes, we would see this event in the past even though it no longer exists. Lessans disputes this.

The worse for Lessans. BTW: the scene of Columbus is lit by the sun. According to you, the landscape is only visible after it is lit by the sun. But then, afterwards, when making an image, it is at Rigel instantaneously? Please explain.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We need to change the afferent account to efferent, which does not change optics because light is still being used in the same way. The afferent account was believed to be true because it seemed logical that the eyes functioned like the other four senses.

Yes, the eyes function like the other senses. Ears detect sound, eyes detect light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm saying that the wavelength/frequency (the nonabsorbed photons) that show up after the other light is absorbed by the object, is at the eye without travel time. If you analyze this carefully you will see that understanding this alternate account of vision makes absolute sense and changes the concept of delayed vision to real time vision without violating optics.

There is no 'without travel time'. Forget it. I analyzed it carefully, and it doesn't work. It contradicts established science.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I tried to explain that the wavelength/frequency is already present if the object is within the pinhole's field of view.

No, you asserted that such was the case. You have never explained how that works. Any such explanation must include a description of the mechanism. This you have been unable to provide.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

1. It's completely irrelevant to the topic. Whether dogs can recognize someone doesn't have anything to do with real-time vision.

2. Actually, they can. It's irrelevant, but you're wrong.

It's not irrelevant at all. And guess what, there's been no conclusive proof that they can.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No, you asserted that such was the case. You have never explained how that works. Any such explanation must include a description of the mechanism. This you have been unable to provide.

I explained how it worked. I don't know what else I can say to make it more clear. If people can't extend the knowledge to see why light would be at the eye instantly (without any time involved), maybe it's too difficult to grasp when people have been taught all their lives that we see in delayed time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

"Occam's Razor" -- yet another phrase that peacegirl likes to use, while demonstrating that she has exactly zero understanding of what it actually means.

Maybe it didn't apply, I dunno. I thought it meant identifying the easiest route as to how something works, which is nature's way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It has not been established that dogs do not recognize an image of it's master, if fact some tests show that a dog can recognize it's master from a photo. It was only claimed by Lessans that dogs do not recognize their master in a photo, just another of his unsupported assertions.

That's complete bullshit. I could put a picture in front of a dog who adores his master and set up the conditions where he misses his master because he's been away, and the dog's pining for him. If I put a picture in front of the dog, he wouldn't recognize his master at all. We've been through this before. Even if we put the dog's master right in front of him but behind a thick window, if there was no other sense experience to give the dog a clue as to who this person was, he would not be able to recognize his master. A dog's sense of smell is dominant and without it, he cannot identify his master because he cannot distinguish his master's features, even though he can see quite well.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe that didn't apply. Spacemonkey used it once, so I decided to use it. I though it meant that identifying the easiest route as to how something works is usually correct, because that's how nature works.

So you admit that you are using a term that you have only heard and don't understand? Well you got lucky, the easiest way or the simplest way is pretty close to the correct definition, and that would be afferent vision, because it fits with all the observations so far. Lessans didn't document any observations, so it is assumed that he didn't make any, as opposed to scientists who have been making observations and documenting them for many years. The theory that fits the observations wins out over the idle speculations of a person who didn't know anything about the subjects he was criticizing. Afferent vision wins out because it doesn't require changing any of the known laws of physics to fit a theory that requires optics that are different that what has been observed. Occam's Razor doesn't do what you think it will do. Science has done a good job of discovering how nature works.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's complete bullshit. I could put a picture in front of a dog who adores his master and set up the conditions where he misses his master because he's been away, and the dog's pining for him. If I put a picture in front of the dog, he wouldn't recognize his master at all. We've been through this before. Even if we put the dog's master right in front of him but behind a thick window, if there was no other sense experience to give the dog a clue as to who this person was, he would not be able to recognize his master. A dog's sense of smell is dominant and without it, he cannot identify his master because he cannot distinguish his master's features, even though he can see quite well.

Yes, put a photo in front of a dog that doesn't know what is expected and you will get the same results if you put a photo in front of a person without an explanation of what they are expected to do. You consistently set up idiotic conditions to try and prove your position, but you just prove how desperate you are to support your fathers unsupportable claims. A dog trained to indicate which photo is one of it's master will do so in a reliable manner, perhaps not 100% but close enough to not be from chance. Random Chance from 4 photos would be 25%, dogs that have been trained, consistently do much better than that. You demand that some stray dog off the street would preform well enough to be conclusive, and that is just silly. Lessans was wrong.

You don't know that the dog doesn't recognize it's master because it can't tell you and you have some very specific requirements that are not realistic. The dog could well recognize it's master in the photo, but if it doesn't react in the way you demand, you will count it as a failure.

[LadyShea]

If people can't extend the knowledge to see why light would be at the eye instantly (without any time involved)

It's simple...light can't do that.

[lyrical]

Hi guys!

Peacegirl is no longer on TR AFAICT. How do you have the energy to keep up this dialogue with her?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes, put a photo in front of a dog that doesn't know what is expected and you will get the same results if you put a photo in front of a person without an explanation of what they are expected to do. You consistently set up idiotic conditions to try and prove your position, but you just prove how desperate you are to support your fathers unsupportable claims. A dog trained to indicate which photo is one of it's master will do so in a reliable manner, perhaps not 100% but close enough to not be from chance. Random Chance from 4 photos would be 25%, dogs that have been trained, consistently do much better than that. You demand that some stray dog off the street would preform well enough to be conclusive, and that is just silly. Lessans was wrong.

You don't know that the dog doesn't recognize it's master because it can't tell you and you have some very specific requirements that are not realistic. The dog could well recognize it's master in the photo, but if it doesn't react in the way you demand, you will count it as a failure.

This is such fabrication. Dogs cannot recognize their masters from pictures. There's no way, and none of the tests prove it. They try to use empirical testing to confirm what they believe must be true if the pattern of light of their master is coming into their eyes. It's called confirmation bias and it's amazing how people are blocked from seeing anything other than what they want to see in order to make their theory fit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's simple...light can't do that.

Of course it can, if what we're seeing is the object. The function of light changes everything when we're not waiting for light to bring us the information through time. You still don't get it. All you do is think in terms of traveling light that hasn't gotten here yet. It's not even a factor in this account but you keep using it as if it automatically negates the claim, which it doesn't.

[LadyShea]

Dogs recognize pictures of their owners - NaturalNews.com

Natural News thinks you are wrong. Aren't they a source you rely on and trust?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it can, if what we're seeing is the object. The function of light changes everything when we're not waiting for light to bring us the information through time. You still don't get it. All you do is think in terms of traveling light that hasn't gotten here yet. It's not even a factor in this account but you keep using it as if it automatically negates the claim, which it doesn't.

Light can't be somewhere it hasn't traveled to regardless of objects and eyes and what is being seen by brains. Light's properties don't change because of gazes.

Lessans never said light was at the eye, he only said the brain looks through the eyes and sees things that are bright enough, big enough, and close enough..

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dogs cannot recognize their masters from pictures. There's no way, and none of the tests prove it. They try to use empirical testing to confirm what they believe must be true if the pattern of light of their master is coming into their eyes. It's called confirmation bias and it's amazing how people are blocked from seeing anything other than what they want to see in order to make their theory fit.

This is such an amazingly accurate description of you, Peacegirl. You must have been looking in a mirror when you wrote it. You'll grasp at any straw to support your fathers book.

FYI, the tests give better than average success for a dog being able to recognize it's master from a photo, and having the person stand behind glass doesn't count, as you will just say it was their movement that gave them away.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This is such an amazingly accurate description of you, Peacegirl. You must have been looking in a mirror when you wrote it. You'll grasp at any straw to support your fathers book.

FYI, the tests give better than average success for a dog being able to recognize it's master from a photo, and having the person stand behind glass doesn't count, as you will just say it was their movement that gave them away.

Gait or movement is not a still photo. Animals can recognize other animals by their shape and size. They can also recognize movement. My dog use to run to the television screen when she saw animals running in a group. She also recognized other dogs when we were out for a walk. Somehow she knew that these dogs were her own kind. Other dogs know creatures that are not their own kind and may chase after them, like squirrels, birds, and rabbits. This has been observed not just by me, but by animal experts. That being said, you cannot make a leap and say that dogs can recognize their masters from their features alone without other sensory cues. It has never been observed and it never will because nothing from their master's photo is allowing them to do this. That means that something doesn't add up if the eyes are a sense organ. To just ignore this observation is putting your head in the sand like all of you "scientist wannabes" are doing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dogs recognize pictures of their owners - NaturalNews.com

Natural News thinks you are wrong. Aren't they a source you rely on and trust?

No I don't trust everything a source tells me. Like I told Chuck, people can conclude far out things but also be correct about some things. This study is bullshit from beginning to end. That's the problem with empirical studies. They are not always accurate yet they use this as scientific proof and completely ignore observation. It's a sham if ever there was one. One last question: Why do they keep trying to prove that animals can recognize by sight when they don't do this for any other sense? Could it be that they are trying to prove this in some other way because they don't observe this in real life? Studies, like the ones you offered, can easily be faulty in their design but make it appear that the conclusions confirm their hypothesis (confirmation bias), with absolutely no truth to it at all. Don't you see this, or are you too blind?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light can't be somewhere it hasn't traveled to regardless of objects and eyes and what is being seen by brains. Light's properties don't change because of gazes.

Lessans never said light was at the eye, he only said the brain looks through the eyes and sees things that are bright enough, big enough, and close enough..

That's true, but if you analyze it carefully you will see that the light is at the eye without there being any violation of physics. There's no gap. He didn't have to spell it out. It was implied. I'm sure he thought people could take it from where he left off, but you can't seem to see beyond the fact that light travels, therefore he must be wrong.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is such fabrication. Dogs cannot recognize their masters from pictures. There's no way, and none of the tests prove it.

It's science, you just don't like the result.

They try to use empirical testing to confirm what they believe must be true if the pattern of light of their master is coming into their eyes. It's called confirmation bias and it's amazing how people are blocked from seeing anything other than what they want to see in order to make their theory fit.

You're just hand-waving and making stuff up. You can't even tell what the problem with these experiments is supposed to be.

[Dragar]

In this thread, I've learned that dogs can recognise their masters from pictures. Fascinating!