A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong, because the photons being reflected are in a constant stream, so when the lights go out, the black out would be seen immediately because those photons have been cut off. A camera would also be unable to take a picture because there are no lightwaves. No light, no sight.

The question was when the lights were turned back ON, not when they went off. And its not reflected light, light is being emitted by the city lights. You are dodging the question again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would leave a thread that wasn't wasting my time in a nano-second. So why aren't you doing this? I don't get you David.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So, you are only willing to participate in threads that do waste your time. That explains a great deal.

No, I don't. I keep thinking that maybe people will take me seriously, but I don't see that happening.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no contradiction. We have to begin with the premise that we see efferently. If that's true, then it follows that what we see is large enough, bright enough, or close enough to allow sight to occur, which are the requirements for real time vision. If those requirements are met, then a camera would be able to take a picture of the same object or image. The only difference is that in a camera, the development of a picture would be directly the result of lightwaves hitting the film and causing a chemical reaction, whereas we would be seeing the actual object or image efferently, which means that the light would not be sending us the image, as it does in a camera; instead, we would be seeing the object or image directly due to light's presence.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I am pretty sure that both you and Lessans have stated that light does not contain or carry any images. Are you changing your story, again?

I thought I clarified that. There aren't lightwaves, but those lightwaves are not converting into electr-chemical signals, therefore we are not getting the image from the light itself.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I think I can resolve the whole seeing in real time vs special relativity imbroglio. I propose that, under the theory of efferent vision, when the brain looks out through the eyes it imagines that it sees something.

It is all in our imagination.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

this has nothing to do with conditioning in the way it was defined. The Garcia effect was explaining an aversion to a foodstuff that caused fear where before that same food was pleasurable. Fear will motivate anyone to avoid that which is feared. You cannot call this true conditioning. All this boils down to is an avoidance response which has nothing to do with what Lessans was referring to.

So again Lessans is redefining words to suit his fiction. What they refered to in the article is the accepted definition of 'conditioning' not the made up version of your fathers, that definition was nonsense. All the senses are subject to conditioning and that includes the sense of sight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't care what you think doc,

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes you do, you are obsessed with this forum and anyone who posts here, you are compelled to obstruct any understanding of what your father wrote because that would reveal the truth that his writing was nonsense, a joke aimed at the academics that he was so jealous of for their acheviment that he couldn't begin to reach or understand. Lessans was just a disenchanted, dissapointed, imbittered old man who saw his life as wasted, and needed to lash out at those he couldn't match or understand. Why would he dwell on his lack of education, except for the resentment of not being able to continue, and achieve the place he thought he diserved. He was just a hustler and con-artist who thought he could out-smart his intellectual betters with linguistic nonsense, except that his intellectual betters could see through the confused words and see that there was no underlying meaning. Go ahead, show me that you don't care, don't reply to this post.

I do care, that's why I'm responding. Nothing you said here is true doc. Nothing at all. He was not a jealous man; he was frustrated that his intellectual betters, as you call them, would not give him a chance to explain himself. Do you think that was fair? Everything else you described is total nonsense. You are reading him completely wrong. He was not a hustler, not even when he could have easily taken people's money in billiards, but he didn't. Why would he want to do that anywhere else if he didn't want to do it in his own backyard? He was not that type of person. So don't use your dumb analysis as to who he was to judge him. I can tell you're getting desperate because you can't win, and you believe this thread is a trick to sucker people. Well, it isn't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So again Lessans is redefining words to suit his fiction. What they refered to in the article is the accepted definition of 'conditioning' not the made up version of your fathers, that definition was nonsense. All the senses are subject to conditioning and that includes the sense of sight.

Obviously, you didn't apply the same conditioning to the other senses, which cannot occur. I'm not changing the definition; you are.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can tell you're getting desperate because you can't win, and you believe this thread is a trick to sucker people. Well, it isn't.

Hey, idiot, how is that when the sun is turned on we see the reflected light of the moon immediately, but not the refelcted light of our neighbor for eight and a half minutes?

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;955324]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't care what you think doc,

I do care, that's why I'm responding.

he was frustrated that his intellectual betters, as you call them, would not give him a chance to explain himself. Do you think that was fair?

I can tell you're getting desperate because you can't win,
QUOTE]


Flip - flop - flip - flop - flip - flop. Funny how you keep changing your story.

I would say it was fair, when Lessans intellectual betters were offended when he attacked them saying "My 7th grade education is better than your Ph.D", just like you are offended when people challenge what you claim to know.

I'm not desperate, only amused, and I've already won, read this thread again, with an open mind this time. You don't understand because you made up your mind before you started. Read the thread the way it was intended to be read, as a search for knowledge, (the truth).

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, you didn't apply the same conditioning to the other senses, which cannot occur. I'm not changing the definition; you are.

Conditioning is the same for all the senses only the details are different, the basic process holds true for all. It appears that conditioning is another subject you know nothing about, except for Lessans fiction.

[Vivisectus]

That doesn't prove anything. Just because it wasn't visible doesn't mean the light wasn't already here from that star. The star might have been too dim to see it until it exploded.

It rather does - since we can see it and photograph it at the same time. This means that the light of the event itself must have reached us. If it was too dim for efferent vision, and then lit up, the camera would have to wait one year per lightyear of distance, as has been made blindingly obvious again and again. Efferent sight remains disproven.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There has been no time for light from the supernova to travel from lightyears away to the earth, and yet here it is at the same time we can see it for the first time.

Another simple way to show that efferent, instant sight is disproven

It's not disproven Vivisectus. First of all, if sight is truly efferent, you can't estimate the distance according to afferent vision. How far away it actually is has to be based on the premise that the supernova is the real thing, not a delayed image of the real thing.

We can, and have, measured the distance many other ways as well. We know how far away they are. For instance, we can detect the nutrino wave coming in after the light reaches us. Also, amazingly enough, we can detect the actual light itself, which must have - surpise! - travelled for a year per lightyear of distance.

Again, it conclusively disproves efferent sight.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;955302]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But naturally, all this will hold absolutely no water with you as it contradicts what you father wrote. Despite truckloads of empirical evidence you will simply move the goalposts as you did before - last time, you said that you did not accept the evidence of the supernova because "it was not close enough to earth".

I haven't changed the goalposts and you should know that if you were reading these posts. If the supernova wasn't close enough, or bright enough, we couldn't see it, period. But that's besides the point. If the lightwaves from that star had traversed the distance to earth long ago, we would see the supernova instantly. A camera would be able to take a picture of the explosion instantly as well. There is no contradiction between seeing in real time, and a camera taking a picture in real time.

You did move the goalposts - you were shown evidence from outer space and said that you wanted evidence from closer to earth.

The lightwaves from the explosion would have to travel. The dim lightwaves that are not visible with the naked eye would remain the same to the camera for one year per lightyear of distance, while to the naked eye it would be a visible supernova for all this time. And this, we know, does not happen. Empirical evidence that efferent sight is not true.

But there was a problem with that test. How can the travel time be measured when it can't even get back to the observer by the time the shutter closes?

There was not - all you need to do is measure when you can and cannot see the light as the wheel creates different shutter speeds. Study the test and you will see that this is so. The speed measured by this experiment was very close to the ones later confirmed by more sophisticated machines where a beam of light is shot at a light-sensor with a super-accurate timer attached. Thus his experiment was confirmed, and efferent sight - which would have yielded a different result - disproven.

Nothing can change my mind because nothing has actually proven him wrong. I would admit if he was wrong, but I won't admit he was wrong just because you want him to be wrong Vivisectus. That's not fair play.

I have demonstrated quite clearly that he was wrong. I have shown you empirical evidence from far away and from close by, I have demonstrated that it brings about paradoxes, and I have shown that the idea itself is flawed and incomplete. All you have done is wriggle and come up with very lame and easily refuted excuses.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do care, that's why I'm responding.

he was frustrated that his intellectual betters, as you call them, would not give him a chance to explain himself. Do you think that was fair?

I can tell you're getting desperate because you can't win,
QUOTE]


Flip - flop - flip - flop - flip - flop. Funny how you keep changing your story.

I would say it was fair, when Lessans intellectual betters were offended when he attacked them saying "My 7th grade education is better than your Ph.D", just like you are offended when people challenge what you claim to know.

I'm not desperate, only amused, and I've already won, read this thread again, with an open mind this time. You don't understand because you made up your mind before you started. Read the thread the way it was intended to be read, as a search for knowledge, (the truth).

Doc, this is getting old. Either you have something to actually discuss, or we are finished. I don't need to hear your constant attack on Lessans' credibility.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Conditioning is the same for all the senses only the details are different, the basic process holds true for all. It appears that conditioning is another subject you know nothing about, except for Lessans fiction.

Done.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have demonstrated quite clearly that he was wrong. I have shown you empirical evidence from far away and from close by, I have demonstrated that it brings about paradoxes, and I have shown that the idea itself is flawed and incomplete. All you have done is wriggle and come up with very lame and easily refuted excuses.

Wow, I could have read the first page, and this last page, and skipped everything else in between, and nothing has changed, obstrufication and willful ignorance by Peacegirl, flying in the face of reason and truth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I also asked her why synesthesia can, and often does, involve vision if vision it is not a "sense".

This really doesn't have an effect on efferent vision because the scrambled sensory pathways are located in the brain.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Done.

Promise.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doc, this is getting old. Either you have something to actually discuss, or we are finished.
.

I have tried several times, and you just dodge the question, by answering something else, or ignore it. Just in case you can't remember here it is again, and the question is about when the lights are turned on.

thedocRe: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
They would see it immediately, but the delay that you're trying to use to disprove Lessans wouldn't even be a factor in this example. How long would it take the light to get to the moon once the lights were turned on? Now I'm sure you will find a way to disprove what I just said. I'm waiting.


It takes 1.3 seconds for light to travel from the earth to the moon, why would that not be a factor? The astronauts would see it imediately but the camera would wait for the light?

Wrong, because the photons being reflected are in a constant stream, so when the lights go out, the black out would be seen immediately because those photons have been cut off. A camera would also be unable to take a picture because there are no lightwaves. No light, no sight.

The question was when the lights were turned back ON, not when they went off. And its not reflected light, light is being emitted by the city lights. You are dodging the question again.


I guess now it's my turn to wait?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We use words to represent people, places, things, emotions, concepts, ideas, and relationships. Words only have the meaning that has been assigned to them by humans. Language is a living thing, and definitions can be added to, and changed over time, but they still have widely accepted meanings at any given point in time. If this was not the case we would be unable to communicate.

If someone spoke to you in a language you don't understand, those words would still have meaning assigned to them in that language, correct? The concepts the words represent would have an English counterpart so you could still receive the meaning if translated, correct?

What is ridiculous about it?

It's ridiculous to think that words have meaning other than what is arbitrarily assigned to them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So again Lessans is redefining words to suit his fiction. What they refered to in the article is the accepted definition of 'conditioning' not the made up version of your fathers, that definition was nonsense. All the senses are subject to conditioning and that includes the sense of sight.

Wrong. You're talking about a negative association, not conditioning.

[peacegirl]

That doesn't prove anything. Just because it wasn't visible doesn't mean the light wasn't already here from that star. The star might have been too dim to see it until it exploded.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It rather does - since we can see it and photograph it at the same time. This means that the light of the event itself must have reached us. If it was too dim for efferent vision, and then lit up, the camera would have to wait one year per lightyear of distance, as has been made blindingly obvious again and again. Efferent sight remains disproven.

No way, because the photons are in a constant stream, so why would the camera have to wait one year for it to take a picture of the supernova? It doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There has been no time for light from the supernova to travel from lightyears away to the earth, and yet here it is at the same time we can see it for the first time.

Another simple way to show that efferent, instant sight is disproven

A supernova comes from an explosion, which means that light has been emitted from that star for many lightyears. So it's no surprise that we could see a supernova immediately and also take a picture of it.

It's not disproven Vivisectus. First of all, if sight is truly efferent, you can't estimate the distance according to afferent vision. How far away it actually is has to be based on the premise that the supernova is the real thing, not a delayed image of the real thing.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We can, and have, measured the distance many other ways as well. We know how far away they are. For instance, we can detect the nutrino wave coming in after the light reaches us. Also, amazingly enough, we can detect the actual light itself, which must have - surpise! - travelled for a year per lightyear of distance.

Again, it conclusively disproves efferent sight.

I have no problem with these measurements of nutrino waves. And I also have no problem with how fast light travels in a year. But I do have a problem with the fact that you believe this conclusively disproves efferent vision.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have demonstrated quite clearly that he was wrong. I have shown you empirical evidence from far away and from close by, I have demonstrated that it brings about paradoxes, and I have shown that the idea itself is flawed and incomplete. All you have done is wriggle and come up with very lame and easily refuted excuses.

<peacegirl mode>




</peacegirl mode>

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But naturally, all this will hold absolutely no water with you as it contradicts what you father wrote. Despite truckloads of empirical evidence you will simply move the goalposts as you did before - last time, you said that you did not accept the evidence of the supernova because "it was not close enough to earth".

I haven't changed the goalposts and you should know that if you were reading these posts. If the supernova wasn't close enough, or bright enough, we couldn't see it, period. But that's besides the point. If the lightwaves from that star had traversed the distance to earth long ago, we would see the supernova instantly. A camera would be able to take a picture of the explosion instantly as well. There is no contradiction between seeing in real time, and a camera taking a picture in real time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You did move the goalposts - you were shown evidence from outer space and said that you wanted evidence from closer to earth.

No way Vivisectus. I was talking about empirical studies regarding the brain, not light. I said this many times.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The lightwaves from the explosion would have to travel. The dim lightwaves that are not visible with the naked eye would remain the same to the camera for one year per lightyear of distance, while to the naked eye it would be a visible supernova for all this time. And this, we know, does not happen. Empirical evidence that efferent sight is not true.

You're just repeating the theory of afferent vision. You're not proving anything. A camera cannot take a picture of a distant star because there aren't enough photons available, but when there's an explosion the photons increase so the camera can take a picture. Therefore, when this occurs, a person's image of the supernova is the same image that a camera will develop.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We then presented the way we first measured the speed of light, here on earth, by means of a wheel and a mirror. If efferent sight were true, the light would only have to travel to the mirror in order to be seen. If afferent sight is true, it has to travel to the mirror and then back to the eye. The time measured corresponds with the travel time from the mirror and back to the eye - and this is later confirmed by later tests using only machines.

But there was a problem with that test. How can the travel time be measured when it can't even get back to the observer by the time the shutter closes?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There was not - all you need to do is measure when you can and cannot see the light as the wheel creates different shutter speeds. Study the test and you will see that this is so. The speed measured by this experiment was very close to the ones later confirmed by more sophisticated machines where a beam of light is shot at a light-sensor with a super-accurate timer attached. Thus his experiment was confirmed, and efferent sight - which would have yielded a different result - disproven.

I still can't see how a sophisticated machine is able to close the shutter fast enough before the light reaches the eye. If it takes 1.3 seconds for light to reach us from the moon, how is this possible? I am not weaseling, I just don't get it.

Nothing can change my mind because nothing has actually proven him wrong. I would admit if he was wrong, but I won't admit he was wrong just because you want him to be wrong Vivisectus. That's not fair play.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have demonstrated quite clearly that he was wrong. I have shown you empirical evidence from far away and from close by, I have demonstrated that it brings about paradoxes, and I have shown that the idea itself is flawed and incomplete. All you have done is wriggle and come up with very lame and easily refuted excuses.

You haven't demonstrated that he is wrong. Just because you think my responses are lame or incomplete doesn't mean he didn't know what he was talking about. The experiments don't add up. More testing has to be done, even though you think the testing has already been done.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No way Vivisectus. I was talking about empirical studies regarding the brain, not light. I said this many times.

You're just repeating the theory of afferent vision. You're not proving anything. A camera cannot take a picture of a distant star because there aren't enough photons available, but when there's an explosion the photons increase so the camera can take a picture. Therefore, when this occurs, a person's image of the supernova is the same image that a camera will develop.

I still can't see how a sophisticated machine is able to close the shutter fast enough before the light reaches the eye. If it takes 1.5 seconds for light to reach us from the moon, how is this possible? I am not weaseling, I just don't get it.

You haven't demonstrated that he is wrong. Just because you think my responses are lame or incomplete doesn't mean he didn't know what he was talking about. The experiments don't add up. More testing has to be done, even though you think the testing has already been done.

Am I clairvoyant, or what?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I have tried several times, and you just dodge the question, by answering something else, or ignore it. Just in case you can't remember here it is again, and the question is about when the lights are turned on.

thedocRe: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
They would see it immediately, but the delay that you're trying to use to disprove Lessans wouldn't even be a factor in this example. How long would it take the light to get to the moon once the lights were turned on? Now I'm sure you will find a way to disprove what I just said. I'm waiting.


It takes 1.3 seconds for light to travel from the earth to the moon, why would that not be a factor? The astronauts would see it imediately but the camera would wait for the light?

Wrong, because the photons being reflected are in a constant stream, so when the lights go out, the black out would be seen immediately because those photons have been cut off. A camera would also be unable to take a picture because there are no lightwaves. No light, no sight.

The question was when the lights were turned back ON, not when they went off. And its not reflected light, light is being emitted by the city lights. You are dodging the question again.


I guess now it's my turn to wait?

I'm guessing it would take the same amount of time for the emitted light to reach the moon, which is 1.3 seconds. Ding ding ding!!!! Am I right?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Am I clairvoyant, or what?

If you don't know me after 6000 posts, you never will.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I still can't see how a sophisticated machine is able to close the shutter fast enough before the light reaches the eye. If it takes 1.3 seconds for light to reach us from the moon, how is this possible? I am not weaseling, I just don't get it.

If you'd bother to make even a minimal effort to educate yourself, you would get it. As has been directly explained to you, and has been explained in the links that you've been given, we can and do make rotating-plate shutters that can be opened and closed tens or even hundreds of thousands of times per second -- easily fast-enough that the finite speed of light matters when looking through them, even when looking at relatively nearby objects.