A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

That's not what "field of vision" means.

So explain it, or tell me what phrase I can use to mean "outside of my visual field."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

That is correct Lessans never did an experiment, he only made unsupported claims. Lessans did describe a hypothetical test, but never followed through to see if he was correct, he only asserted that he was correct. Others have done testing on dogs to determine the level of visual acuity and have determined that some dogs can recognize their master, or another familiar person, from a photograph. Lessans was wrong.

You are wrong. If they could, they would have the language to do it. I haven't seen a dog that has this capability.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So explain it, or tell me what phrase I can use to mean "outside of my visual field."

Just read the Wikipedia links.

What you are trying to say doesn't make any sense, because there is no such thing as "too far away to be seen" or "too small to be seen".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Just read the Wikipedia links.

What you are trying to say doesn't make any sense, because there is no such thing as "too far away to be seen" or "too small to be seen".

Then why do we say, "I couldn't see him; he was too far away. As he came closer, he came into view."

[peacegirl]

This is an interesting lecture and is consistent with Lessans' claim that man's will is not free.

Gregg D. Caruso: Origination, Moral Responsibility, Punishment, and Life-Hopes - YouTube

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why do we say, "I couldn't see him; he was too far away. As he came closer, he came into view."

Assume that's the case. Then wait until it's night and do the thing with the spotlight. What's going to happen?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it doesn't prove anything. Light travels at a finite speed so it makes sense that light would be picked up by the Hubble telescope. This in no way proves that light is reflected by objects and the information is transmitted through space/time such that thousands of years from now we could theoretically (if we were on another planet) see Columbus first discovering America or any other past event. This is hogwash.

It proves that what Dragar posted is correct, if we point a telescope at the same spot long enough we can collect enough light to get an image. Light being emitted by the stars and traveling the distance between us and the stars, it is the only way for light to get here. BTW, we would only need to be 424 light years away to see Columbus making his voyage of discovery, not thousands of light years away. Shall we add history to the list of subjects that you know nothing about. The only difficulty is that we do not have an FTL drive so we can't get ahead of the light we are reflecting right now.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

She has read a book, many of them actually. The problem is that they were all written her father.

Even the cookbooks and sex manuals?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it doesn't. She knows the routine. She smells the food. You think that's proof of anything?

So what. This has nothing to do with vision.

There is no routine, I feed her at different times each day, and the food container is in the house and not airtight, so she can smell it all the time. But she can see when I get her food dispenser and that is the visual clue that tells her that I am going to feed her.

According to Lessans, words have everything to do with vision. Don't you even know what is written in the book?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If an object is too dim, we won't see it and if we increase the illumination we will see it, but only if it's capable of being seen by its size and distance relative to the observer.

Size is not relevant when an object is only seen as a point of light. Distance is only relevant as it relates to the brightness of the object. You simply don't understand vision and optics at all and yet you have the audacity to criticize it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are wrong. If they could, they would have the language to do it. I haven't seen a dog that has this capability.

Dogs have the ability to learn and understand words of a language. I have heard of police dogs that were trained in German and the officer had to learn those commands in German to tell the dog what to do. Dogs can learn and understand a language but dogs do not have the ability to speak a language. The only reason that you have not seen a dog that can understand language is because you refuse to see the evidence when presented. Willful ignorance in favor of your father's nonsense, you refuse to see anything that might contradict your father. Lessans was wrong.

[Spacemonkey]

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film or retina 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 or retina when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film/retina by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where am I not following?

I pointed out that your statement "all of the light in the world would show no image at all" is completely wrong. Your response was infantile deception.

You're not fooling anyone. You're just making stuff up as it suits you at this point.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So explain it, or tell me what phrase I can use to mean "outside of my visual field."

The way you are using the phrase it means "line of sight" which would be a better phrase to use. The phrase you are using does not relate to the distance from the viewer, "visual range" would be a better term. "Visual Field" relates more to an object that is in line of sight with the eye, not something that is very far away.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It actually is what happens in reality. Shine a luminous light on yourself as you move outside of my field of vision. I should be able to see you, but I can't.

If an object is out of your line of sight then you will not be able to see it, no-one, nor is science, disputing this. If an object is too far away and too dim to see, and you shine more light on it, you will again be able to see it, that is what science is saying. Your claim that, according to afferent vision, we should be able see an object that is not visible, is nonsense, afferent vision does not say that you can see something that you cannot see. Your arguments are nonsense.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I pointed out that your statement "all of the light in the world would show no image at all" is completely wrong. Your response was infantile deception.

You're not fooling anyone. You're just making stuff up as it suits you at this point.

Peacegirl has been making stuff up for 4 years to support her fathers book.

[ChuckF]

Tonight I went to pick up the dog from day care where he spends most weekdays playing. As usual, they brought him out from the play area and he saw me standing at the other end of the hallway and, as always, he was fucking balls-out* thrilled to see me, since it had been like nine hours since I dropped him off. And therefore relativity, I guess, because that is how science works.

But, Dragar, The Lone Ranger, etc. - sorry if this is too much science for you dummies.

*Not literally - he has no balls.

[Stephen Maturin]

I guess I'm gonna hafta start beating our dogs when they recognize people by sight alone. Clearly, they're only doing that because they resent Seymour Lessans, and there's nothing quite so insufferable as a resentful dog.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Shine a luminous light on yourself as you move outside of my field of vision.

As opposed to a non-luminous light?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

As opposed to a non-luminous light?

It's efferent vision, something else is going on.

[peacegirl]

The laughter at my expense is making it too difficult for me to discuss this topic any further.

[Vivisectus]

Has the thread been ruined again already? But I did not even have a chance to remind you that a dog not responding to a picture on skype somehow was evidence they could not see faces, so sight was efferent and instant.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The laughter at my expense is making it too difficult for me to discuss this topic any further.

Yes, it is often difficult to discuss something that you do not understand.

"Those who don't get the joke, often become the Butt of the joke."

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Has the thread been ruined again already? But I did not even have a chance to remind you that a dog not responding to a picture on skype somehow was evidence they could not see faces, so sight was efferent and instant.

I'm sorry if I have ruined the thread again today.

It is evidence that something else is going on.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The laughter at my expense is making it too difficult for me to discuss this topic any further.

lol bullshit