A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Vivisectus]

LadyShea, you are totally failing to understand the mechanism behind efferent vision.

You yourself do not know the mechanism. You do not how it works.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Either refute my point or admit you are wrong. These are your only honest and honourable options. Let's see how honest you really are?

Peacegirl has been honest. ..... You are getting the honest delusions of a crazy person.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you are totally failing to understand the mechanism behind efferent vision. If you're looking at something that is the opposite side of the same object, can you at least agree that the image you're seeing (although the other side) is one and the same? Can anyone understand what I'm saying?

What you are saying does not explain the process/mechanism I am asking you to explain. It doesn't even really offer any explanation of any physical process. You are simply positing some unexplained thing with an "opposite side" of some kind.

You are not offering a mechanism or explanation, only an assertion. If you could lay out the process (step by step of how each thing happens) I might understand where you are coming from. However, so far you are talking about magic mirror images in our eyeballs

Using Lessans own example

1. The Sun is turned on at noon. Photons from the Sun will take 8.5 minutes to reach Earth. There are no photons on Earth at this time
2. You stated you can take a photograph of the Sun at noon with a film camera on Earth. Film cameras require photons to be located on the surface of the film to be absorbed.
3. HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

A mirror image does not explain this dual location phenomena unless the mirror image is a physically existing location in and of itself, made up of atoms which absorb the photons (which posits some kind of parallel universe) . So, what exactly is this mirror image you keep talking about, and where, in space, is it physically located?

[naturalist.atheist]

You have to take peacegirl literally. When she says the brain looks out through the eyes, that is exactly what she means. So the eyes don't see, the brain does. The direction of vision is outward, thus efferent. And it is through the eyes, so eyes are windows to let vision out. This is the mental landscape of peacegirl. Every thing you bring up gets smashed into this model derived from a simple sentence that Lesssans read someplace but was not intended to be taken literally.

Imagine how screwed up someone would have to be to spend decades of their life on that Emily Latella moment.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Peacegirl has been honest. ..... You are getting the honest delusions of a crazy person.

No, an honest answer would be "I believe that it DOES work that way, but I have no way of proving it and cannot explain how it works, nor do I know why all these things that have been mentioned contradict it."

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course you would say that coming from your position, but have you ever considered for one second that my data is correct, that this is not an assertion, and that this does not violate cause and effect? Of course you haven't because it conflicts with your [mistaken] model of how life works.

1. You have no data, which your not knowing what data is was part of my point.

2. It is an assertion, by definition, because you have not offered any data or evidence supporting it. Again, your not knowing the difference between an assertion and an explanation was my point

3. I said processes (aka mechanisms) are a series of causes and effects. You have not laid out a series of causes and effects (like describing the mechanisms by which a combustion engine works would result in listing a series of causes and effects. The valve opens and gas moves into the chamber which is then ignited by a spark, which then causes a heat energy expansion that moves the piston etc.). You have not offered a mechanism or process. Again, your not understanding my simple words proves the point I was making with the post.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, an honest answer would be "I believe that it DOES work that way, but I have no way of proving it and cannot explain how it works, nor do I know why all these things that have been mentioned contradict it."

A crazy person thinks they have an explanation but when they provide it they think it is a brilliant explanation however it is gibberish.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What you are saying does not explain the process/mechanism I am asking you to explain. It doesn't even really offer any explanation of any physical process. You are simply positing some unexplained thing with an "opposite side" of some kind.

You are not offering a mechanism or explanation, only an assertion. If you could lay out the process (step by step of how each thing happens) I might understand where you are coming from. However, so far you are talking about magic mirror images in our eyeballs

Using Lessans own example

1. The Sun is turned on at noon. Photons from the Sun will take 8.5 minutes to reach Earth. There are no photons on Earth at this time
2. You stated you can take a photograph of the Sun at noon with a film camera on Earth. Film cameras require photons to be located on the surface of the film to be absorbed.
3. HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

A mirror image does not explain this dual location phenomena unless the mirror image is a physically existing location in and of itself, made up of atoms which absorb the photons (which posits some kind of parallel universe) . So, what exactly is this mirror image you keep talking about, and where, in space, is it physically located?

No Ladyshea, there is no parallel universe. How can there be a dual location when the object is on one side of the imaginary coin, and the light is on the other which is present at the film the instant the lens is focused on the object?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

1. You have no data, which your not knowing what data is was part of my point.

2. It is an assertion, by definition, because you have not offered any data or evidence supporting it. Again, your not knowing the difference between an assertion and an explanation was my point

3. I said processes (aka mechanisms) are a series of causes and effects. You have not laid out a series of causes and effects (like describing the mechanisms by which a combustion engine works would result in listing a series of causes and effects. The valve opens and gas moves into the chamber which is then ignited by a spark, which then causes a heat energy expansion that moves the piston etc.). You have not offered a mechanism or process. Again, your not understanding my simple words proves the point I was making with the post.

Listen, these were Lessans observations. I have been explaining the mechanism. You are not yet understanding that when an object is in one's field of vision (according to the efferent vision model) the (P) light does not have to travel millions of miles in order for a mirror image to show up on the retina/film. This is not about touching an illusion as in a mirror. The brain, looking through the eyes, as a window IS the mechanism at work even if you don't understand how it works quite yet.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Ladyshea, there is no parallel universe. How can there be a dual location when the object is on one side of the imaginary coin, and the light is on the other which is present at the film the instant the lens is focused on the object?

There are two physical locations. This is undeniable. The Sun is one location. The surface of the camera film is another location. One photon, present at two locations at NOON. How does the photon become present at the film (existing at one location) when it is also present at the Sun (another location) at the same time?

What is this "imaginary coin", what is it made of, and where does it exist in physical space? How does it allow instantaneous physical location duplication of a single photon? How does it bridge the physical location gap between the photon and camera film which are two different locations?

You are just adding yet another mechanism in need of explanation, not explaining any mechanism.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not about touching an illusion as in a mirror. The brain, looking through the eyes, as a window IS the mechanism at work even if you don't understand how it works quite yet.

Camera film doesn't have a brain. It has silver halide molecules that absorb photons. Explain the mechanism for that

Lessans observations did not discuss camera film.

[LadyShea]

Using Lessans own example

1. The Sun is turned on at noon. Photons from the Sun will take 8.5 minutes to reach Earth. There are no photons on Earth at this time
2. You stated you can take a photograph of the Sun at noon with a film camera on Earth. Film cameras require photons to be located on the surface of the film to be absorbed.
3. HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

[Vivisectus]

Ooo I know this one! Lenses are magic!

[LadyShea]

Lenses are apparently teleportation devices

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will say it again: Unless you understand why the brain, looking through the eyes, ALLOWS THIS PHENOMENON, we are at odds. I CANNOT KEEP THIS CONVERSATION GOING WHEN ALL I GET ARE AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AS A RESULT OF YOUR FAILURE TO GRASP THE MECHANISM OF EFFERENT VISION WHICH I'VE BEEN TRYING TO EXPLAIN THIS WHOLE TIME.

Uh-oh, she's in tantrum mode again!

Let me make the following suggestion to her interlocutors. We know that she is dishonest. We also know that real-time seeing is false. Having a discussion about the mechanism lying behind a false contention -- real-time seeing -- with a dishonest person, is a fool's errand.

In my opinion, the proper tack is simply to rub her nose, over and over, in the fact that NASA corrects for delayed time seeing, which fact conclusively proves that real-time seeing is false. All one need do is bring up this single point over and over, and everything else is superfluous. She can't explain it. She has no explanation. Because the real explanation, that we see in delayed time and that her father was wrong, is something she cannot accept.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, I don't think you understand yet what I'm trying to get across. Photons are constantly being emitted, that is a fact, but the only way we get the (P) photons on film/retina is when the lens of the film or retina is focused on the object. It's as simple as that. If we happen to be looking at something that is parallel to the object, those photons that are made up of the visible spectrum. The only time we actually get a mirror image of the object is when we're looking directly at it and there is enough light surrounding the object for us to see it. There is no teleporting of photons.

Unless you want me to revert to discussing your delusional mental state, I suggest you answer the above questions instead of dishonestly weaselling and avoiding them. These questions aren't asking you about how (P)reflected photons get to the film/retina. They are asking only about what happens to the blue-wavelength photons within travelling sunlight when that sunlight strikes a blue object. Answer the questions please.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Good. Not that I agree that this is correct, but I do agree that this is what you should be saying. The photons comprising the mirror image at the film at any given time must be newly existing photons which come into existence there. That avoids teleporting or stationary photons.

Um, can you tell me why you are here giving me the location of something which you've just told me above does not exist?

If you could also answer the questions in post #6452 (without positing stationary photons) that would be good.

Peacegirl, can you explain why you contradicted yourself here? If the light at the film (when the photograph is taken) didn't exist just before the photograph was taken, then it could not have been at the object just before the photograph was taken. Non-existent things do not have locations.

So are you saying that the light at the film did exist just prior to taking the photograph and was at the object? Or that it did not exist just prior to taking the object and therefore had no location then at all?

Do you know why you contradict yourself like this, even on the simplest of matters? These were not complicated questions. They were of the very simple form: Did x exist at t? If so, then where was x at t? You appear to have completely failed to comprehend the "If so..." part.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not true that optics has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with it because light is working exactly as it would work in the afferent model. That's why the farther something gets, the smaller it gets due to the dispersion of light. The only difference is that we're seeing the object on the retina or film instantly due to the object having to be present, but optics works the same way as it always has.

As I've told you numerous times (only to be ignored every time) you can't appeal to dispersion on your model, because only travelling light can disperse. And your (P)reflected light is not travelling.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want people to know that I cannot talk to someone this angry. He is filled with ad hominem attacks and he doesn't even see it. He is so filled with frustration, attacking me is his last resort. I see it so clearly, and I am refusing to answer anyone who is using these tactics. Please be aware of this so you won't be wondering as to why I'm not responding.

But you're not answering those people who are not using such tactics either. You respond to some posts, but your responses rarely if ever contain answers to what is asked. You're not actually answering anyone.

You are however doing an excellent job of throwing a tantrum like a little child whenever faced with hard conclusive proof that your father was wrong.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't care what you call it LadyShea, you are obviously biased, and therefore these observations by Lessans will never sit right with you since you are convinced that there is no way that we can see the Sun as it explodes in real time, which is the very thing that science can't handle. Do you see the catch 22 here, or don't you? I suggest letting somebody else take the floor.

I think it's much more likely that the bias lies with the person constantly resorting to faith claims concerning mysterious unknown factors in the face of conclusive evidence showing her father to have been wrong - which is the very thing that person cannot handle.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're missing the point. There is no such thing as evidence for which it is impossible to simply reject by saying "Hey, maybe there are some mysterious unknown factors which explain what's happening here". The evidence you are rejecting and ignoring is as strong as evidence ever gets. By rejecting it you are adopting a faith-based position immune to any and all evidence. If you think other-wise, then explain to me exactly how you could expect to be able to tell the difference between inconclusive evidence for which unknown factors are a legitimate possibility and conclusive evidence for which it would be irrational to posit them.

Bump.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The brain, looking through the eyes, as a window IS the mechanism at work even if you don't understand how it works quite yet.

Peacegirl, it should read, "The brain, looking OUT through the eyes..." Outherwise people will think it is delusional afferent vision.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The brain, looking through the eyes, as a window IS the mechanism at work even if you don't understand how it works quite yet.

Firstly that's an analogy, not a mechanism. Secondly, it's a flawed one. People can look out through windows because they have eyes which are distinct from those windows. The brain does not have any eyes separate from those which are functioning as the 'windows' on your view. So what the brain is allegedly doing is not analogous to looking out through a window at all. And yet this flawed analogy is the cornerstone of your entire account of efferent vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If you did you would see that it makes no sense. A mirror image is a term that only has meaning in conventional optics. It is meaningless in the framework of efferent sight, as a mirror image is what happens when light is reflected off a surface, creating the illusion that the objects behind the observer are behind the mirror.

Unless you can deliver a mechanism by which mirror images work in efferent sight (you already admitted you just do not know by the way) and can then show how this same mechanism is at work in regular efferent sight where no mirrors are involved at all, the term "Mirror Image" is a piece of meaningless waffle you regurgitate every now because you think it sounds good.

Why do you never actually stop to examine anything?

This has nothing to do with light. In your model, nothing travels, and the sun being switched on instantly has an effect on the eyes. This contradicts causality.

One of the reasons this book will always be laughed at is that Lessans was completely unaware of this, and nevertheless felt perfectly entitled to make broad, sweeping statements about it.

The facts remain the facts: in your model the sun causes an effect in the eyes without anything travelling between the two. That is the very definition of something that contradicts causality.

And I am genuinely surprised that you would be able to make it through any sort of formal education if you have this much difficulty understanding new concepts, even if they are carefully explained. Perhaps it is merely that you display wilful ignorance when it suits you, and that you are dishonest rather than stupid. But it has to be one or the other.

Once again you are simply unable to admit you are wrong, despite not being able to refute what I say. The fact remains that the book is not even internally consistent, let alone consistent with reality.

In order to hang on to your belief, you need to avoid this particular discussion, which very clearly shows that it is wrong. Since you cannot refute the fact that it IS wrong, you deal with it by claiming bias, even though you cannot show where my reasoning is flawed.

Bias does not work that way: Bias leads to an illogical statement. You can point to an illogical statement, and then say that a person made that mistake because of bias. You cannot simply dismiss a statement and claim it is biased: you must ALSO show why it is illogical or unrealistic. You can do neither.

The book is completely consistent with reality. I am refuting the fact that it IS wrong. It's not necessarily that you're biased but you just can't seem to grasp the reason why efferent vision causes this mirror image (I'm not just making something up), on the film/retina.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Firstly that's an analogy, not a mechanism. Secondly, it's a flawed one. People can look out through windows because they have eyes which are distinct from those windows. The brain does not have any eyes separate from those which are functioning as the 'windows' here. So what the brain is allegedly doing is not analogous to looking out through a window at all. And yet this flawed analogy is the cornerstone of your entire account of efferent vision.

The eyes are the windows of the brain Spacemonkey, which is what I'm trying to prove. Maybe you think it's a flawed analogy, but I don't. The eyes are analogous to the window and the brain is analogous to the person behind the window. Get it?