A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I think that there are two likely answers as to why she can't answer the question.

1. Efferent vision provides no answer to the question.

2. She doesn't understand the question.

These two answers are not mutually exclusive.

Well, yes. But she could also admit she can't explain mirrors. Instead she's flapping all over the place, posting nonsense responses.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

sure you have. You said for a long time that reflected light wasn't in a pattern and didn't travel

I used the term "image", which people said was a strawman so I changed the word to "pattern of light", or the information being brought by light, which meant the same thing. I always maintained that light travels but due to the direction we see, there is no time involved because we're not interpreting the light. I also said there is no gap between the object and the light that is at our eyes in this account. That's what people are having a problem with.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I also said there is no gap between the object and the light that is at our eyes in this account.

Then there is no gap between our eyes and anything we look at, i.e. when you look at the Sun, the surface of the Sun is actually in contact with our eyeballs. Are you trying to be an idiot?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...because we're not interpreting the light.

So why does the pattern being different matter if we aren't interpreting that pattern? If it's only providing a 'bridge', it shouldn't matter what pattern the light is in.

You can't answer this. You've evaded every time. But you must, because that's how you've attempted to explain mirrors showing reflections, but walls not doing so. Unfortunately your borrowed explanation from the sensible explanation of vision doesn't work when you say the pattern is not 'interpreted'.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So why does the pattern being different matter if we aren't interpreting that pattern? If it's only providing a 'bridge', it shouldn't matter what pattern the light is in.

You can't answer this. You've evaded every time. But you must, because that's how you've attempted to explain mirrors showing reflections, but walls not doing so. Unfortunately your borrowed explanation from the sensible explanation of vision doesn't work when you say the pattern is not 'interpreted'.

Dragar, you are accusing me of something I have not said. My borrowed explanation? Do we not get answers from others, and if we do is that reduced to a non-answer?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, I give up. You are accusing me of something I have not said. My borrowed explanation? Do we not get answers from others, and if we do is that reduced to a non-answer? This is totally ridiculous and an effort on your part to make me look ridiculous. Your effort does nothing to prove Lessans wrong. Deal with it.

So you can't explain mirrors, then?

Edit: Let me expand. You say: "Do we not get answers from others, and if we do is that reduced to a non-answer?" And indeed, it's perfectly reasonable. Except in this case, you've borrowed an explanation that only makes sense in the context of normal, well understood vision. Mirrors work because the pattern is preserved on reflection, and so the light falls on our retina in just the same pattern as it would from the scene the mirror has reflected.

This makes no sense in your explanation. The pattern is irrelevant, because we do not 'interpret' it. So you cannot use this explanation, as you deny all the things that allow any explanatory power. What good is it if the pattern is preserved, when the pattern is (according to you!) utterly irrelevant to what we perceive?

And that is why you can't explain mirrors. You perhaps know that, which is why you can provide no answer, only angry rants and deflection.

As an aside, there is no effort at all spent on my part to make you look ridiculous. I promise.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So you can't explain mirrors, then?

Edit: Let me expand. You say: "Do we not get answers from others, and if we do is that reduced to a non-answer?" And indeed, it's perfectly reasonable. Except in this case, you've borrowed an explanation that only makes sense in the context of normal, well understood vision. Mirrors work because the pattern is preserved on reflection, and so the light falls on our retina in just the same pattern as it would from the scene the mirror has reflected.

This makes no sense in your explanation. The pattern is irrelevant, because we do not 'interpret' it. So you cannot use this explanation, as you deny all the things that allow any explanatory power. What good is it if the pattern is preserved, when the pattern is (according to you!) utterly irrelevant to what we perceive?

I never said the pattern was irrelevant to what we perceive.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said the pattern was irrelevant to what we perceive.

You have repeatedly claimed that the human eye does not send signals to the brain, based on the light striking the retina, to be interpreted as images by the brain. That is the same as saying that the pattern of light striking the retina is irrelevant to vision. Or are you now saying that the pattern of light striking the retina is the source of the images received in the brain? Either the pattern of light is the source of the image, or it is irrelevant to vision. You claim that the brain, looking through the eyes, sees the object directly, and the light at the object only illuminates the object so that the brain can see it.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said the pattern was irrelevant to what we perceive.

And I keep asking you: why not? We don't 'interpret' the pattern. So why does it matter that the pattern from a wall and a mirror are different? The difference has, according to you, no bearing on what we see.

This is the sole question I have been asking for several pages now. You never answer it; you evade and weasel or change the subject, because you can't answer it. The best you can do is make something up. You didn't even try to explain above, you just posted the bare minimum weasel you could muster.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

And I keep asking you: why not? We don't 'interpret' the pattern. So why does it matter that the pattern from a wall and a mirror are different? The difference has, according to you, no bearing on what we see.

This is the sole question I have been asking for several pages now. You never answer it; you evade and weasel or change the subject, because you can't answer it. The best you can do is make something up. You didn't even try to explain above, you just posted the bare minimum weasel you could muster.

Dragar, I have always maintained that optics works as described; that light (which provides a pattern) is the bridge to the outside world. The nonabsorbed photons strike our retina which allow us to see differences in matter. We cannot see beyond what the pattern of light provides us. That's absurd.

[Spacemonkey]

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.

Bump.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, I have always maintained that optics works as described; that light (which provides a pattern) is the bridge to the outside world.

This is nonsense. Light isn't a bridge; nothing walks on it. If you're speaking in metaphor, stop it and explain what's actually going on. I don't think you can, because you don't know what this nonsense means either.

The nonabsorbed photons strike our retina which allow us to see differences in matter.

How? By interpreting the pattern of light landing on retina, or by something else? ("It's a bridge!" is not an explanation, any more than "It's magic!" is.) If it's something else, you need to explain why the pattern being different makes a difference to what we see. If we're not 'interpreting' that pattern, there's no reason it should.

You've still failed to answer the question. All you've done is repeat your assertion again that the pattern matters to what we see, but not explained why.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

This is nonsense. Light isn't a bridge; nothing walks on it. If you're speaking in metaphor, stop it and explain what's actually going on. I don't think you can, because you don't know what this nonsense means either.

You know this is a metaphor. I've used the word conduit also. Everything that is explained in optics stays the same in this account. What confuses people is that they don't understand how we can see an object without light traveling to Earth first. I explained that there is no gap when the object (not just the light) is within our field of view. It doesn't matter how far away an object is, if it meets the requirements of efferent vision (size and luminosity), we will be able to see the object.

The nonabsorbed photons strike our retina which allow us to see differences in matter.

Originally Posted by Dragar

How? By interpreting the pattern of light landing on retina, or by something else? ("It's a bridge!" is not an explanation, any more than "It's magic!" is.) If it's something else, you need to explain why the pattern being different makes a difference to what we see. If we're not 'interpreting' that pattern, there's no reason it should.

We see an object and our brains interpret what it is we're seeing. We may see an object and not know what it is, so the brain can't identify it. The brain still does the interpretation but it doesn't decode the light and turn the image into normal sight.

Originally Posted by Dragar

You've still failed to answer the question. All you've done is repeat your assertion again that the pattern matters to what we see, but not explained why.

Absorbed and nonabsorbed photons. The nonabsorbed photons form the pattern that strike our retina which allow us to see the outside world.

[ceptimus]

If the eyes don't have any afferent nerve endings then it shouldn't make any difference what pattern the light makes on the retina.

Of course, without such nerves it shouldn't matter whether or not ANY light is present at the retina, but we can leave that mystery for another day.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know this is a metaphor.

Then explain it without a metaphor.

Absorbed and nonabsorbed photons. The nonabsorbed photons form the pattern that strike our retina which allow us to see the outside world.

Again, the same is true when light is reflected from walls as from mirrors. So why does the difference in how light is reflected matter? You keep avoiding answering this question, and instead just repeat yourself. I know that you say photons landing on the retina allow us to see. I want to know why the particular arrangement - the physical pattern of light landing on the retina - makes a difference, if that physical arrangement is not 'interpreted'.

The particular pattern of light falling on the retina is irrelevant here. Unless, in fact, we are 'interpreting' that pattern.

[LadyShea]

What confuses people is that they don't understand how we can see an object without light traveling to Earth first. I explained that there is no gap when the object (not just the light) is within our field of view. It doesn't matter how far away an object is, if it meets the requirements of efferent vision (size and luminosity), we will be able to see the object.

This would be true if you stuck with Lessans who only said we see the object. You went further though by claiming that light is striking the retina when we see (Lessans never said this).

You aren't merely talking about seeing, you are talking about light. You keep talking about light being somewhere (at the retina or film) with no explanation for how it got there or mechanism of how it's used or why it needs to be there at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

If the eyes don't have any afferent nerve endings then it shouldn't make any difference what pattern the light makes on the retina.

Of course, without such nerves it shouldn't matter whether or not ANY light is present at the retina, but we can leave that mystery for another day.

Ceptimus, you are jumping the gun by concluding that because there are afferent nerves, this proves that the brain does what has been theorized for centuries. We know there is a connection between the eyes, the optic nerve, and the brain. No one is denying this, but to conclude that because light strikes the retina and the optic nerve transmits those impulses to awaken the brain PROVES that the brain is decoding an image from these impulses. Is it possible that science could have gotten it wrong? YES because there is nothing here that proves conclusively what the brain is doing. Lessans gives a plausible alternate way of looking at this, but no one cares to listen. All they want to do is laugh, which I suppose should be expected anytime someone comes along that disputes what scientists have declared is absolute fact and therefore sacrosanct.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This would be true if you stuck with Lessans who only said we see the object. You went further though by claiming that light is striking the retina when we see (Lessans never said this).

You are trying to make him look foolish LadyShea. Actually he did say the following:

The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’ is defined as
any of certain agencies by or through which an individual receives
impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five senses.
Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and
transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc. But this is a
wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic
nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You aren't merely talking about seeing, you are talking about light. You keep talking about light being somewhere (at the retina or film) with no explanation for how it got there or mechanism of how it's used or why it needs to be there at all.

I told you that if we see opposite of what is believed, we are not waiting for light to arrive because light is already at the retina if the conditions are present that allows this to occur. You refuse to think in these terms, which makes this whole discussion a waste.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Then explain it without a metaphor.

Again, the same is true when light is reflected from walls as from mirrors. So why does the difference in how light is reflected matter? You keep avoiding answering this question, and instead just repeat yourself. I know that you say photons landing on the retina allow us to see. I want to know why the particular arrangement - the physical pattern of light landing on the retina - makes a difference, if that physical arrangement is not 'interpreted'.

I told you that there is nothing contradictory to say that we see the real world due to light's presence versus we interpret what we see in the brain.

Originally Posted by Dragar

The particular pattern of light falling on the retina is irrelevant here. Unless, in fact, we are 'interpreting' that pattern.

The pattern of light is absolutely necessary, no one is disputing this; but to say that we interpret the light in delayed time is a theory only. There would be no difference in what we see as a result of these two opposing accounts. Light at the retina is a necessary condition in either account, for without it we can see nothing.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that there is nothing contradictory to say that we see the real world due to light's presence

But you've moved on from mere 'presence'. Now not only must the light be present, the particular pattern of light that lands on our retinas changes what we see. I can explain that: our brain interprets the retina's neural responses to the the light falling on it in different locations. You can't, because the particular pattern of light should be irrelevant to you. Any old pattern will do, since we don't 'interpret' it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The necessity of light is not being disputed, but to say that we necessarily are interpreting the light is a theory only. Are you saying that we would see something different when we interpret the light in delayed time than if we saw the actual object in real time?

For goodness sake! Why aren't you responding to anything I actually write? I'm not talking about any of that! Read my question:

A wall and a mirror both reflect light into our eyes, yet we can see a reflection in a mirror but not a wall. By way of explanation, you have said (or rather, quoted wikipedia, ignorant of the contradictions between its account and yours) a mirror reflects the light in a particular pattern (i.e. the light falls on our retinas in a particular physical arrangement, preserving the pattern 'as if' it had come directly from the reflected scene) while a wall reflects it in a different pattern (and so it falls on our retinas in a different physical arrangement).

Since (according to you) we do not 'interpret' that pattern, why does it make a difference to what we see when we look at a mirror versus when we look at a wall?

Can't you just answer that?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ceptimus, you are jumping the gun by concluding that because there are afferent nerves, this proves that the brain does what has been theorized for centuries. We know there is a connection between the eyes, the optic nerve, and the brain. No one is denying this, but to conclude that because light strikes the retina and the optic nerve transmits those impulses to awaken the brain PROVES that the brain is decoding an image from these impulses. Is it possible that science could have gotten it wrong? YES because there is nothing here that proves conclusively what the brain is doing. Lessans gives a plausible alternate way of looking at this, but no one cares to listen. All they want to do is laugh, which I suppose should be expected anytime someone comes along that disputes what scientists have declared is absolute fact and therefore sacrosanct.

Actually the presence of afferent nerves in the retina does prove that vision is afferent. The nerves would not be there if they were not being used in vision and vision is one sense that has been examined and studied for many years. There are some vestigial organs in the body that are given that label because medical science hasn't completely figured out what they do, and many of these organs don't seem to be necessary for survival as people survive without them, so there is little urgency to study them. The eyes are not one of these, vision is a major sense for survival, so that sense has been examined and tested extensively to find out how it functions, and what role the various parts play in that function. The fact that Lessans had no idea of the true function of vision allowed him to make up his fiction out of ignorance.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The pattern of light is absolutely necessary, no one is disputing this; but to say that we interpret the light in delayed time is a theory only. There would be no difference in what we see as a result of these two opposing accounts. Light at the retina is a necessary condition in either account, for without it we can see nothing.

But it is known that there would be a difference between what we see in delayed vision and what we would see if we saw things instantly. The sightings of the Moons of Jupiter prove this. Astronomers precisely know the time when the Moons actually move behind the planet and can measure the difference in the observed time of disappearance. That time exactly matches the known time for light to travel from the Moon of Jupiter to the Earth at the time of the observation. Lessans was wrong, we don't see things instantly, but on Earth if just seems to be instantaneous because light travels so fast that the delay is very short, unnoticeable without special equipment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

But you've moved on from mere 'presence'. Now not only must the light be present, the particular pattern of light that lands on our retinas changes what we see. I can explain that: our brain interprets the retina's neural responses to the the light falling on it in different locations. You can't, because the particular pattern of light should be irrelevant to you. Any old pattern will do, since we don't 'interpret' it.

Noooo Dragar, you are trying to accuse him of something he never claimed. He never intended to convey the idea that the pattern of light was unnecessary. The fact that light is a necessary condition of sight indicates that any old pattern will NOT do since the pattern of light is the connection through which objects are seen.

Originally Posted by Dragar

You know this is a metaphor.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Then explain it without a metaphor.

Instead of bridge or conduit, use the term pattern. They're all synonymous in this context.

Absorbed and nonabsorbed photons. The nonabsorbed photons form the pattern that strike our retina which allow us to see the outside world.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Again, the same is true when light is reflected from walls as from mirrors. So why does the difference in how light is reflected matter?

I never said otherwise. The difference in how light is reflected matter because it is through that particular pattern of light that we are able to see whatever we are seeing. Obviously, this has to do with the properties of the object the light is striking. I don't see what the difference is because light is landing on the retina in both accounts.

Originally Posted by Dragar

You keep avoiding answering this question, and instead just repeat yourself. I know that you say photons landing on the retina allow us to see. I want to know why the particular arrangement - the physical pattern of light landing on the retina - makes a difference, if that physical arrangement is not 'interpreted'.

The pattern of light is the only arrangement through which we can see. Obviously, the pattern IS the connection.

Originally Posted by Dragar

The particular pattern of light falling on the retina is irrelevant here. Unless, in fact, we are 'interpreting' that pattern.

We are seeing the object through the pattern. We are not interpreting the light in the brain (if Lessans is right), although we are interpreting the meaning of what we see through the brain.

The necessity of light is not being disputed, but to say that we necessarily are interpreting the light is a theory only. Are you saying that we would see something different when we interpret the light in delayed time than if we saw the actual object in real time?

Originally Posted by Dragar

For goodness sake! Why aren't you responding to anything I actually write? I'm not talking about any of that! Read my question:

A wall and a mirror both reflect light into our eyes, yet we can see a reflection in a mirror but not a wall. By way of explanation, you have said (or rather, quoted wikipedia, ignorant of the contradictions between its account and yours) a mirror reflects the light in a particular pattern (i.e. the light falls on our retinas in a particular physical arrangement, preserving the pattern 'as if' it had come directly from the reflected scene) while a wall reflects it in a different pattern (and so it falls on our retinas in a different physical arrangement).

Since (according to you) we do not 'interpret' that pattern, why does it make a difference to what we see when we look at a mirror versus when we look at a wall?

Can't you just answer that?

I'm trying to answer. The physical arrangement that creates a pattern is what allows us to either see a wall or see our reflection in a mirror. The fact that the pattern of light falling on our retina is an integral part of vision (which Lessans never disputed) but it doesn't prove what the brain and eyes are doing in terms of direction. Why do you think any of this contradicts efferent vision?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The pattern of light is the only arrangement through which we can see. Obviously, the pattern IS the connection.

And you're back to magic! This is a nonsense statement, peacegirl. Like this one:

"Instead of bridge or conduit, use the term pattern. They're all synonymous in this context."

No, they're not! A bridge is not a conduit, and a conduit is not a pattern. Do you even understand what the phrase 'pattern of light 'means? The light physically lands in different places on the retina. That's not a conduit, that's just light landing in different places. None of that explains how we see. You still can't explain it, and trying to equate real things with your nonsense phrases doesn't count.

You've also completely made this stuff up. You've added all this stuff about patterns of light being the same as your old conduits, because I've put you on the spot.

You're an incredible weasel.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The physical arrangement that creates a pattern is what allows us to either see a wall or see our reflection in a mirror.

Given that if we shine light in the right pattern, we see whatever we want, real or not, it seems that the pattern of light landing on the retina is the only thing that we need to see something - and that something doesn't even need to exist, as long as we shine light in the right arrangement. How do you think this computer screens work? Do you think there are physical letters moving around? No, we're just shining light in the right arrangement out of the screen. We can even remove the object - like a distant supernova - and still see it many years later when the light finally arrives.

Oops, Lessans is wrong again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The pattern of light is the only arrangement through which we can see. Obviously, the pattern IS the connection.

Originally Posted by Dragar

And you're back to magic! This is a nonsense statement, peacegirl. Like this one:

"Instead of bridge or conduit, use the term pattern. They're all synonymous in this context."

I know that.

Originally Posted by Dragar

That's not a conduit, that's just light landing in different places. None of that explains how we see. You still can't explain it, and trying to equate real things with your nonsense phrases doesn't count.

But it's the landing of photons on different places on our retina that serve as the connection. Who is disagreeing with this?

Originally Posted by Dragar

You've also completely made this stuff up. You've added all this stuff about patterns of light being the same as your old conduits, because I've put you on the spot.

You're an incredible weasel.

I'm a weasel just because I'm trying to offer people metaphors and ways to understand what I'm trying to say?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The physical arrangement that creates a pattern is what allows us to either see a wall or see our reflection in a mirror.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Given that if we shine light in the right pattern, we see whatever we want, real or not, it seems that the pattern of light landing on the retina is the only thing that we need to see something - and that something doesn't even need to exist, as long as we shine light in the right arrangement. How do you think this computer screens work? Do you think there are physical letters moving around? No, we're just shining light in the right arrangement out of the screen. We can even remove the object - like a distant supernova - and still see it many years later when the light finally arrives.

Oops, Lessans is wrong again.

Well that's where we differ. It's very true that light in a certain arrangement is landing on our retina, but the source of that arrangement is always present in some form. Take away the source and no image will show up on a computer screen, a mirror, or a camera. In other words, we need more than just the collection of light to see something.