A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You need to remember that the light coming from one's visual field are instant mirror images on the film/retina. That's really all you need to know in order to understand why we see in real time, assuming efferent vision is true (which I am thoroughly convinced it is).

Let me translate:




Fixed it for you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If I hadn't read further through the thread, I wouldn't have known you had reverted to speaking here of (P)reflection rather than (N)reflection. (The latter just is light bouncing off objects, which you later admit happens but try to distinguish from 'reflection'.) And none of your above post explains what you were trying to do with your 'image point' diversion.

There is a distinction between light from the Sun bouncing off of objects and non-absorbed light being reflected from objects. Objects do not reflect non-absorbed light. The ability of objects to absorb light allows us to see them, but that does not mean the wavelengths that are not absorbed are being reflected.

The image point in a mirror image is identifiable, but first I need to explain why the photons on the retina/film is a mirror image. Our eyes do not receive images in delayed time which is the present scientific explanation.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not it at all. I always understood efferent vision in terms of the brain, but I never explained this in terms of light. My effort to explain how efferent vision works may be rough around the edges at this point, but eventually it will be a clear working model which can then be empirically tested, although we might never be able to explain the exact mechanism that allows the brain to look, through the eyes, at the external world.

Despite your first comment above, everything you say completely agrees with what I just said. You don't have a model yet, and are trying to develop one.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have a model and I know he was right. It's just very hard to explain when people are coming from an afferent position. For example, LadyShea said that if an object absorbs non-blue wavelengths, then the light that is reflected cannot be the full visible spectrum. That right there is incorrect if efferent is valid, because in the efferent model, objects do not reflect the non-absorbing light. Do you even understand what that means?

Yes, I do. It means that the non-absorbed light does not get (P)reflected onto the instantaneously present image at the film or retina. The '(P)' is necessary here because this is not what 'reflection' normally means, and by the normal meaning (bouncing off a surface) the comment above from LadyShea which you are rejecting is true by definition (given the account of white sunlight which you have accepted).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do know how efferent vision works. In this account, the brain is looking out, through the eyes. As a result we are getting an instant image whether it's on the retina/film, or on a backboard of a pinhole camera. It doesn't matter because the light that allows us to see is not being reflected off of the object. We are seeing the object due to light's presence.

None of this is either a model or an explanation. It is itself what an actual model would have to explain.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I appreciate that, but I think I have the explanation. I just didn't give a correct analogy. There is only one model that can work. There can't be more than one possibility that adds up to anything valid. It's not that difficult to explain if you refrain from throwing questions at me that are coming from an afferent position. The minute you talk about non-absorbing light reaching, traveling, forming on the film, we're not coming from the same premise.

My questions have not involved these things, and do not come from the afferent position.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The image point in a mirror image is identifiable, but first I need to explain why the retina/film is a mirror image of the external world. Our eyes do not receive images in delayed time which is the present scientific explanation.

Oh, but FIRST she needs to explain "why the retina/film is a mirror image of the external world." Oh, DO explain, perfesser! We are all ears!

Oh, perfesser? Can you also explain why every astronomical observation ever made (not just the moons of Jupiter) disproves real-time seeing? Is it all ... erm ... a coincidence?

[The Lone Ranger]

Here's another fun fact.

The visual cortex of the brain is in the occipital lobe, at the very back of the brain. Somewhat ironically, the part of the brain that allows us to see is as far from the eyes as is possible. So it's not just that by Lessans' claims the brain somehow magically "looks out" through the eyes despite the fact that there are lots of opaque things between the brain and the eyes, but most of the brain lies between the eyes and the brain regions that actually interpret the visual impulses.

And no, these brain regions don't convey impulses to the visual cortex, as is easily demonstrated with brain scans.


That's a really neat trick the brain accomplishes -- somehow, it "looks out" through half a foot or more of opaque material, including solid bone.

[davidm]

Must be another coincidence, eh, peacegirl?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then explain how I am reflecting light off a hand mirror (an object under any definition) onto the ceiling right this very second.

The wavelength is on the ceiling instantly; it is not reflected in the sense of travel time. This is the distinction I'm trying to make so that you can understand why the eyes and film work the same way even 93 million miles away.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, objects only absorb light; they don't reflect it. There is no property in the object that is capable of reflecting light. Light travels and bounces off of objects but that's not the same thing. This is where science did not get it right.

This is not an empirical point which is capable of being wrong. It is a pure matter of definition. Bouncing off objects is what "reflect" means, so if you are going to speak otherwise then you must use (P)reflection and distinguish it from (N)reflection. Otherwise you confuse everone including yourself by using an established word to mean something other than its established meaning.

And if light does bounce off objects and continue travelling, then what happens when some of that light later happens to travel to and arrive at the film? What prevents it from competing with the instantly present real-time image (also consisting of photons) to interact with the film?

[davidm]

I love her declaiming thus: "This is where science did not get it right."

So precious.

You tell 'em, peacegirl! You and Daddy Dumbkins.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your questions are very confusing. Instead, why don't you tell me where the photons are in a mirror image? You need to remember that the light coming from one's visual field are instant mirror images on the film/retina. That's really all you need to know in order to understand why we see in real time, assuming efferent vision is true (which I am thoroughly convinced it is).

No, that's not all I need to know. I also need to know if the light composing this instant mirror image is previously existing stationary light or newly existing light continuously coming into existence at the film. These options present two different models, and you have yet to indicate which one you are trying to present us with.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For example, LadyShea said that if an object absorbs non-blue wavelengths, then the light that is reflected cannot be the full visible spectrum. That right there is incorrect if efferent is valid, because in the efferent model, objects do not reflect the non-absorbing light*.

The minute you talk about non-absorbing light* reaching, traveling, forming on the film, we're not coming from the same premise.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But these things aren't based on the afferent vision premise or position, they are based on the known physics of light and matter.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course these things are based on the afferent vision model which is why it is believed we see the past, even if it's a nano-second delay. Efferent vision can be explained in terms of physics, but different from what is believed to be true, otherwise, there would be no disputation.

Nope. Nothing I have been talking about with regard to the properties of light and the properties of matter and the rules governing their interactions requires or is dependent on vision being an afferent process.

I am only talking about light physics, photochemistry, the reality of physical locations, and the mechanics of physical interactions.

These things work according to physical models and laws regardless of whether vision is an efferent or afferent process.

If efferent vision requires the properties of light and the properties of matter and the rules governing their interactions to be changed, then you will have to include explanations of those new properties and rules in any proposed model.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have to explain efferent vision in a way that it is compatible with light physics, and photochemistry, and the reality of physical locations, and the mechanics of physical interactions, or you have to change the physics models in each instance there is a contradiction

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The physical model I am describing matches what occurs in a mirror image. This is where Lessans parts ways with the present scientific explanation. Mirror images are instant reflections (they are not traveling) based on the same reasoning that allows us to see in real time.

Your explanation of mirror images does not include an explanation for the process or mechanism allowing a photon physically located at the Sun to also, simultaneously be physically located on Earth at a piece of camera film.

So it doesn't account for or explain the light physics, photochemistry, the reality of physical locations, or the mechanics of physical interactions involved in photography.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The wavelength is on the ceiling instantly; it is not reflected in the sense of travel time. This is the distinction I'm trying to make so that you can understand why the eyes and film work the same way even 93 million miles away.

How did it get to be on the ceiling if it was absorbed by, rather than reflected from, the mirror?

Is a mirror an object?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Here's another fun fact.

The visual cortex of the brain is in the occipital lobe, at the very back of the brain. Somewhat ironically, the part of the brain that allows us to see is as far from the eyes as is possible. So it's not just that by Lessans' claims the brain somehow magically "looks out" through the eyes despite the fact that there are lots of opaque things between the brain and the eyes, but most of the brain lies between the eyes and the brain regions that actually interpret the visual impulses.

And no, these brain regions don't convey impulses to the visual cortex, as is easily demonstrated with brain scans.

I understand that, but there may be some circuitry that we're unaware of that allows the visual part of the brain to achieve this. This is premature TLR. First, the efferent sight must be a plausible model. Then empirical testing can be done. Logistically, it would see impossible because of the distance of the visual cortex and the eyes. How would we expect to understand how this could work when this model is new to scientists?

The visual system accomplishes a number of complex tasks, including the reception of light and the formation of monocular representations; the construction of a binocular perception from a pair of two dimensional projections; the identification and categorization of visual objects; assessing distances to and between objects; and guiding body movements in relation to visual objects.

Visual system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's a really neat trick the brain accomplishes -- somehow, it "looks out" through nearly a foot of opaque material, including solid bone.

Maybe that's not the circuitry it uses. Don't pooh pooh efferent vision just because it's not obvious how the brain works. Remember, Lessans came to his conclusions through the back door, so-to-speak. You, as a biologist, want to dissect the brain to see how it could work, but the mechanism is not going to be easily revealed because the brain is very complicated. Lessans also claimed the ciliary muscle is not what is causing the lack of focus ability in infants. So there are aspects of vision, the brain, and light that have to be looked at from the efferent position once it is considered a competitive model of sight. If the empirical tests confirm that this model is reliable, we will then begin to study the brain with this new understanding in mind.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is not an empirical point which is capable of being wrong. It is a pure matter of definition. Bouncing off objects is what "reflect" means, so if you are going to speak otherwise then you must use (P)reflection and distinguish it from (N)reflection. Otherwise you confuse everone including yourself by using an established word to mean something other than its established meaning.

And if light does bounce off objects and continue travelling, then what happens when some of that light later happens to travel to and arrive at the film? What prevents it from competing with the instantly present real-time image (also consisting of photons) to interact with the film?

PFM.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that, but there may be some circuitry that we're unaware of that allows the visual part of the brain to achieve this.

I really don't know...

First honest thing you said in nearly a thousand pages of this drivel.

... but this is premature TLR.

No it's not. The eye has been studied for centuries. So has light.

First, the efferent model of sight must be a plausible model.

It's not. It fails at every single test.

Then empirical testing can be done.

The testing has been done. The moons of Jupiter, with their time delay, have been observed for hundreds of years.

Looking at the brain it would seem impossible, but I don't believe it is. I just don't think we know enough about the brain.

Yes, it would "seem impossible" because it "is impossible." Duh!

Don't pooh pooh efferent vision just because it's not obvious how the brain works. Remember, Lessans came in the back door so-to-speak.

Of the pool hall? They wouldn't even let him in the front door?

You, as a biologist, want to dissect to see how it could work, but this being premature. If Lessans is right it is also not the ciliary muscle that is causing the lack of focusing ability in infants. So there are aspects of vision, the brain, and light that have to be looked at from a different angle once efferent vision is considered a plausible competing model of sight.

It's not. It's not even a model at all! To be a model, you have to explain how we see.

"Voila, we see!" is not an explanation!

So sorry.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How did it get to be on the ceiling if it was absorbed by, rather than reflected from, the mirror?

Is a mirror an object?

A mirror reflects all of the wavelengths, which doesn't change anything LadyShea. A mirror is an object but it has certain properties that allows us to see a mirror image of what it is reflecting. But the light is not traveling from the mirror to the ceiling. It is an instant reflection of the objects in the room.

[LadyShea]

Instead, why don't you tell me where the photons are in a mirror image?

They've been reflected off the mirror and those that hit the retina or film have been absorbed and converted through physical processes to another form of energy, and those that did not hit retina or film were either absorbed by another object they encountered, or passed through or reflected off of some other object they encountered, or are still traveling.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

PFM.

You have to distinguish between objects that are in our visual field, and light that travels at a finite speed. These are two different phenomena, yet scientists have clumped them together. Optics absolutely supports efferent vision. There is never a photograph taken without an object being present. The farther away the object is, the smaller the mirror image will be on film, which is exactly in keeping with this model of sight.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A mirror reflects all of the wavelengths, which doesn't change anything LadyShea. A mirror is an object but it has certain properties that allows us to see a mirror image of what it is reflecting. But the light is not traveling from the mirror to the ceiling. It is an instant reflection of the objects in the room.

So some objects can reflect light? Then you need to change your statement from "objects only absorb light; they don't reflect it." to "some objects only absorb light; they don't reflect it", and then tell us which objects do what and what properties account for the difference.

And how is a spot of light on the ceiling from a light pointed at a mirror a reflection of the objects in the room? There are no objects in the image on the wall or ceiling, just a spot of light.

[peacegirl]

Instead, why don't you tell me where the photons are in a mirror image?

The photons are on the light sensitive material whether it's water, a mirror, or the film or retina.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They've been reflected off the mirror and those that hit the retina or film have been absorbed and converted through physical processes to another form of energy, and those that did not hit retina or film were either absorbed by another object they encountered, or passed through or reflected off of some other object they encountered, or are still traveling.

Objects absorb light. Retinas interact with light. Light does not hit the retina or film (which implies travel time); it's at the retina or film the instant the light sensitive surface of the mirror is angled toward the ceiling. The light that the mirror is reflecting is not traveling. This is why objects have to be in range for a mirror image of the room to show up instantly on the ceiling.

[LadyShea]

Objects absorb light.

Objects, except for mirrors, absorb light you mean.

[LadyShea]

Light does not hit the retina or film; it's at the retina or film already

How did it get there?

[LadyShea]

light sensitive surface
light sensitive material

Define these please, as the way you are using them suggests a different definition of light sensitive than the one I am familiar with

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So some objects can reflect light? Then you need to change your statement from "objects only absorb light; they don't reflect it." to "some objects only absorb light; they don't reflect it",

No objects reflect light; some objects do not absorb any of the Sun's wavelengths, but that does not mean that the object is reflecting that light (which implies that the light is separate from its source and can travel with that wavelength beyond the field of view, which is impossible. The same holds true if we're looking at an airplane. As long as it's within our field of vision, we get an instant mirror image on our retina. As soon as it is out of range, there is no more image on our retina. It doesn't matter how far something is, the same mirror image shows up on our retina, or film, as long as the object is large enough or bright enough to be seen. Even a tiny dot on film is in the camera's field of view, where the other dots are not because they have gotten too small for them to picked up.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And how is a spot of light on the ceiling from a light pointed at a mirror a reflection of the objects in the room? There are no objects in the image on the wall or ceiling, just a spot of light.

That only means that the angle of the mirror facing the ceiling is not at the right angle for the objects in the room to be seen. The angle of the mirror only shows reflected light because of how it's positioned (I hope you understand what I mean by reflected).

[LadyShea]

a mirror image of the room to show up instantly on the ceiling

What? How is a spot of light on the ceiling from a light pointed at a mirror a "mirror image of the room on the ceiling"? There are no objects in the image on the wall or ceiling, just a spot of light.

Try it. Surely you have a small mirror you can hold in your hand, even a compact? Take it in one hand, and a flashlight in the other. Turn on the flashlight and point it at the mirror. Find the reflected spot of light on the opposite wall or ceiling (the location is dependent on the angle of the flashlight and the angle of the mirror). You can even move the mirror slightly to change the angle and move the light spot around the room.