A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Using an example closer to Earth, it seems to me that if we didn't need the object, just the light being reflected or emitted, we would continue to see images of things that are no longer in existence. I know what you will say? Light travels too fast. As the distance gets greater in terms of planets and galaxies, it would become more apparent that it's the light that we're interpreting. I'm not satisfied with that answer. The fact that the object must be within our field of view (I'm talking about objects on Earth) indicates to me that it's not the light that is bringing anything.

Vision works the same whether an object in on Earth, in the solar system or out in the Universe. The examples of time waiting for light to arrive from a distant object proves afferent vision, and what works for distant objects works the same for terrestrial objects. We see an object after the light has had time to get here. Lessans was wrong.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

apparently photons do not take up a particular amount of space, and as to how many can occupy a small space, I don't know that there is an upper limit, except the limit of how many are available.

You have just provided an answer to a rather famous question. If angels are photons then the answer to the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is, however many are available.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Have you been at the sauce again?

If you could see an atom if light shined on it, it wouldn't be out of visual range, now would it? What the hell!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

And if you shine a really bright light on it, you see it, no matter how big the distance is.

No you don't. Now who is violating optics?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Pretty much. Though we can show that this is what is happening with one of those really old devices for calculating lightspeed:

Fizeau–Foucault apparatus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That device should not work if sight is efferent. And yet it does.

Not true. There is nothing in this experiment that discredits efferent vision.

As the distance gets greater in terms of planets and galaxies, it would become more apparent that it's the light that we're interpreting.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yup.

I'm not satisfied with that answer. The fact that the object must be within our field of view (I'm talking about objects on Earth) indicates to me that it's not the light that is bringing anything.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Why?

Because once the object is out of visual range, light will no longer produce an image...and it should. Remember, according to the afferent model it doesn't matter if the object is present or not.

It's a condition of sight ONLY. If something is too small to be seen, you can have all the light in the world shining on that object but if it's out of our optical range, it won't permit us to see it even though light is traveling from that object right toward our eyes because there will be no resolution.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What does "resolution" even mean in efferent terms? Also, apparently you are wrong.

It means that to the degree the wavelength/frequency (or the nonabsorbed photons) is striking the retina, is the degree to which we will get a certain amount of resolution, which will then allow us to see the object.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

There is no "out of range". We can see galaxies that are (or were) billions of light years away.

Imagine putting the nickel on the moon, on a big big sheet of black velvet. Then put a really really powerful spotlight next to it and shine it on the nickel. If the light source is powerful enough, you can see the nickel.

Yes, we would see it if we had a powerful spotlight and a powerful enough telescope that could magnify the nickel. That in no way nullifies the efferent model of sight.

[Spacemonkey]

This post in every way nullifies the efferent non-model of sight.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If it is anything less than 8 minutes then the light cannot have gotten to the retina by traveling from the object at light speed. So how do your photons at the retina get from the object to the retina in whatever sub-8-min time you think it takes?

I already explained why your candle example does not work, and you have not explained how distance is not a factor. The only way for the distance to not be a factor is if you have some alternative, other than light speed travel, for how your photons get from the object to the retina. Do you have that? We could resolve this easily if you would just answer my questions.

[Vivisectus]

Not true. There is nothing in this experiment that discredits efferent vision.

Then explain the results of using that device?

Because once the object is out of visual range, light will no longer produce an image...and it should. Remember, according to the afferent model it doesn't matter if the object is present or not.

If enough light arrives we do see it, no matter what the range. Which is what we see in reality. I still do not understand what you think the problem is?

It means that to the degree the wavelength/frequency (or the nonabsorbed photons) is striking the retina, is the degree to which we will get a certain amount of resolution, which will then allow us to see the object.

Deary dear, you are so confused! First off, you use the word "resolution" when trying to describe resolution, making the whole thing circular. Then you make resolution dependent on detecting light with the retina, turning your description in an afferent one.

Complete nonsense.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Vivisectus;1254822]

Not true. There is nothing in this experiment that discredits efferent vision.

Then explain the results of using that device?

Because once the object is out of visual range, light will no longer produce an image...and it should. Remember, according to the afferent model it doesn't matter if the object is present or not.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If enough light arrives we do see it, no matter what the range. Which is what we see in reality. I still do not understand what you think the problem is?

We see light if it arrives, just like we would see daylight as it arrives, but we do not see an object if it falls out of our visual range, no matter how much light is present.

It means that to the degree the wavelength/frequency (or the nonabsorbed photons) is striking the retina, is the degree to which we will get a certain amount of resolution, which will then allow us to see the object.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Deary dear, you are so confused! First off, you use the word "resolution" when trying to describe resolution, making the whole thing circular. Then you make resolution dependent on detecting light with the retina, turning your description in an afferent one.

Complete nonsense.

No, it is not complete nonsense unless you want to make it sound like nonsense for your own purposes. Is this better?

Optical resolution describes the ability of an imaging system to resolve detail in the object that is being imaged.

An imaging system may have many individual components including a lens and recording and display components. Each of these contributes to the optical resolution of the system, as will the environment in which the imaging is done.

Optical resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You have just provided an answer to a rather famous question. If angels are photons then the answer to the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is, however many are available.

I'm glad I could help with that question.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How could you shine a bright light on something that you didn't see because it was out of range?

If you could see an atom if light shined on it, it wouldn't be out of visual range, now would it? What the hell!

Peacegirl you are using resolution in a very inappropriate way, resolution relates to focus and that does not depend on how many photons are present to be focused. You seem to be using it to mean that enough light is striking the retina for the object to be seen, that is not what it means.

Also you are using the terms "optical range" and "visual range", interchanging the terms and assigning 2 different meanings. In some cases you are indication that the object is out of the line of sight, in the other you are saying the object is too far away to be seen. If the object is out of the line of sight, and has just moved out of the line of sight, it will only be visible if there are still photons traveling from the object to the eye, once that time of travel has elapsed, the object will no longer be visible. That is what optics and afferent vision state. If the object is very far away but still in the line of sight, shining more light on it will increase the number of photons reflected to the eye and when enough photons are reflected, visibility will be restored.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No you don't. Now who is violating optics?

Peacegirl, if you think this violates optics then it only indicates that you do not understand optics, vision or light.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, we would see it if we had a powerful spotlight and a powerful enough telescope that could magnify the nickel.

Peacegirl, you have contradicted yourself again.

And by referencing light traveling to the eye as the source of vision, you are endorsing the afferent model of vision.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, we would see it if we had a powerful spotlight and a powerful enough telescope that could magnify the nickel. That in no way nullifies the efferent model of sight.

No, you don't need the telescope, that was my point.

When you look at an atom that is illuminated and suspended in a vacuum, it looks just like a star, a point-like light source. You just need enough light and you can see those things as well as your nickel, there is no "too small to be seen" or "too far away to be seen".

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

No, you don't need the telescope, that was my point.

When you look at an atom that is illuminated and suspended in a vacuum, it looks just like a star, a point-like light source. You just need enough light and you can see those things as well as your nickel, there is no "too small to be seen" or "too far away to be seen".

In this thread there have been many references to photons but there are 2 that I am thinking of now. One was to the number of photons that could trigger vision by striking the retina, and it was a very small number, perhaps even one. The other was the number of photons striking a small area, about a one inch square, from the sun and that was a very large number, a 10 with a rather large exponent. If there is a large number of photons striking a small ares on the Earth 93 million miles distant from the Sun, there must have been many orders of magnitude more leaving the surface of the Sun. Numbers that large are incomprehensible to human beings, like the number of possible stars in the universe.

[Vivisectus]

If you could see an atom if light shined on it, it wouldn't be out of visual range, now would it? What the hell!

You are a strange, strange little woman PG.

Peacegirl, we are going to have to start a Lessanese Dictionary. Please provide me with the following Lessanese definitions. Please note we don't need the regular definitions, but what it would mean in the framework of the "efferent account"

- Field of View
- Focus
- Visual Range
- Resolution
- Photon

Help me out here people, I am sure I am missing a bunch

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are a strange, strange little woman PG.

Help me out here people, I am sure I am missing a bunch.

What do you mean little? I've seen a photo of her.

You're not the only one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

No, you don't need the telescope, that was my point.

When you look at an atom that is illuminated and suspended in a vacuum, it looks just like a star, a point-like light source. You just need enough light and you can see those things as well as your nickel, there is no "too small to be seen" or "too far away to be seen".

Oh really? So we don't need a telescope to see details of Mars? You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just a parrot. YES, we need light to see. No one ever denied that. You are so lost.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No you don't. Now who is violating optics?

Yes, you can see it. We can calculate exactly how bright the light has to be to see the nickel on Mars, for example.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? So we don't need a telescope to see details of Mars? You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just a parrot. YES, we need light to see. No one ever denied that. You are so lost.

Now you are confusing brightness with resolution, But never said we could read the date on the coin at a great distance, however with enough light on the coin we can see the point of light. The brighter the light the farther away we can see the point of light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

No, you don't need the telescope, that was my point.

When you look at an atom that is illuminated and suspended in a vacuum, it looks just like a star, a point-like light source. You just need enough light and you can see those things as well as your nickel, there is no "too small to be seen" or "too far away to be seen".

You can see these things because they are within your field of view. Some things can be seen with the naked eye; others need magnification. Stop trying to make this more than it is in order to make me look wrong so you can look right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Yes, you can see it. We can calculate exactly how bright the light has to be to see the nickel on Mars, for example.

Did Lessans ever argue the point that we need light to see? Why are you bringing this up as if it's some kind of valid refutation?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did Lessans ever argue the point that we need light to see? Why are you bringing this up as if it's some kind of valid refutation?

Peacegirl, you brought it up, stop blaming others for your mistakes. No-one needs to make you look wrong, you are doing that very nicely yourself. And you have no valid reply so you try to say it is irrelevant.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop trying to make this more than it is in order to make me look wrong so you can look right.

No-one needs to make you look wrong, you're doing that yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, you brought it up, stop blaming others for your mistakes. No-one needs to make you look wrong, you are doing that very nicely yourself. And you have no valid reply so you try to say it is irrelevant.

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm asking a damn question. So, according to you (Mr. know it all), I can't even ask questions now?