A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by davidm

The photons just happened to get caught up in a black hole which is why they were late in arriving? This is how you read what LadyShea wrote?

Was what I wrote really unclear? Seriously I don't even know how one could read that into it.

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, We can see the stars, moon, and planets in the night sky, because they are bright enough and close enough to see. Why can't we see them in the daytime, they are still there and still bright enough and close enough?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

On their way? It's like you believe that Hubble was waiting for the photons to arrive as they went on their merry way through space and time, but just happened to get caught up in a black hole which is why they were late in arriving? Holy cow!!!! You say you don't believe in the thinking of religious fundies, but you actually believe that this thinking is rational; much more rational than the fundies you criticize? I know I'm going to cause controversy, and that is not my intention unless it gets us somewhere. Right now we are stuck in a quagmire of assertions on both sides. I am only referring to my assertions which have nothing to do with Lessans' claims.

Compare this to "You are saying I am related to a monkey, and you say that my explanation of "God created all species" is crazy? Holy cow!!!"

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Speaking of 'fundies', my daughter just bought a book on Dinosaur's for my 6 year old (in a few days) grandson. I looked at the title "The Great Dinosaur Mistrey, And the Bible" and a red flag went up. I looked at the cover, which showed several Dinosaurs, and Elephant, a bird, and some kind of horned Antelope, and a person, and more red flags went up. I looked at the title page and a note on the inside front cover that mentioned the "Institute for Creation Reasearch" even more 'red flags', and I knew I would need to read this book with my grandson and correct all the errors and tell him the truth. We have already told him that Dinosaurs and people never lived together so I have a head start in explaining that the book has it wrong, he should understand that it is just a make believe story, and not real.

Mebbe have a bit of a chat with the daughter as well mate... don't let the Stoopid get to another generation!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I've been trying to find an analogy you might understand and I think I have it.

Let's say you take a long garden hose 100 feet from the tap, so you are 100 feet away. I am at the tap and turn it on. Does the water come out your end immediately when the "source" emits it, or does it take a few seconds to get to the end of the hose?

Now, when I turn the tap off, does the water immediately stop coming out the end of the hose, or does the water that was already emitted from the now dormant source, that was already in the hose- keep coming out at your end for a few seconds?

Now extend that hose to 200 feet, 500 feet, a mile, 10 miles, 100 miles, etc. Would the time delay between turning the tap on and water coming out the other end, and the tap being turned off and the water ceasing to flow out the other end increase with distance? Might it not stretch from a few seconds at 100 feet to several minutes at a mile?

Is the water that comes out from your end from a few seconds or a few minutes in the past, when it was emitted from the tap? When the "source" is turned off, does the water already traveling through the hose cease to exist, or does it come out the end of the hose even though the source stopped emitting a few seconds or several minutes ago?

You can even collect (detect) some of the water in a jar after the tap is turned off, JUST AS cameras and telescopes can collect/detect light from a source no longer in existence

Now, if we knew the exact speed that the water traveled, and the distance it traveled, and the time we collected it, could we not figure out how old the water in our jar is, by calculating the time it was emitted?

All we have been saying, this whole time, is that light is exactly the same as the water in this analogy. It leaves the source and travels at a known speed, and keeps traveling regardless if the source is still emitting or not.

I do like that analogy. It's similar to a fire that emits ash. The ash spreads out over miles even when the fire goes out. But if the eyes are efferent, that would mean that in order for a photograph to turn out, the lens must focus on the actual subject or light source that is reflecting or emitting that light. The light may continue traveling at a finite speed, and we may be able to see the image of the subject or light source (e.g., the light from a laser pen that can be seen 50 yards across a field), but the subject or light source is always present (you might not be able to see the laser pen at a distance but you know someone is using it) or around the corner if a mirror is being used.

[LadyShea]

Cameras and telescopes, like the Hubble, only detect photons, they do not require the "object" or "source" to be focused on or seen in all cases. Just like you can collect water that was in the hose in a jar even if the "source" is turned off.

Have you ever looked at a white, non reflective surface (like a piece of paper) and have it appear the color of the shirt you are wearing or the color of the opposite wall? What do you think causes that? Did you know it's possible to photograph that light phenomena (a white piece of paper having a red cast, for example) without the shirt/wall being focused on or in the cameras view?

For that matter, please explain how efferent vision explains color at all.

Color is only a property of light reflection/absorption, not a property of the object itself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

But Lessans had no peers, no-one was as smart as he was, as well read, as well educated (self-educated which is much better), and he understood the definitions much better because he made them up himself. He was an expert in all fields, because he had specific peculuar opinions on everything due to his astute observations of something? And if you don't believe me, just read the book and he will tell you so himself.

For some reason you just don't like the fact that Lessans might have discovered something. I really don't know what you have against him. He never said no one was as smart as he was, or was not as well read. Other people used their credentials against him. Why do you continually insinuate that he said and did certain things that are outright lies? I might have to put you back on ignore because it aggravates me to no end that you don't know what you're talking about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, We can see the stars, moon, and planets in the night sky, because they are bright enough and close enough to see. Why can't we see them in the daytime, they are still there and still bright enough and close enough?

Because the daylight obscures our vision of the night sky. As soon as day turns to night, they become visible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Cameras and telescopes, like the Hubble, only detect photons, they do not require the "object" or "source" to be focused on or seen in all cases. Just like you can collect water that was in the hose in a jar even if the "source" is turned off.

Have you ever looked at a white, non reflective surface (like a piece of paper) and have it appear the color of the shirt you are wearing or the color of the opposite wall? What do you think causes that? Did you know it's possible to photograph that light phenomena (a white piece of paper having a red cast, for example) without the shirt/wall being focused on or in the cameras view?

I just said that light can be seen on a backdrop. In this case the shirt is reflecting a certain color (in this case red) and it is showing up on a piece of paper as a red cast (the paper being the backdrop).

Originally Posted by LadyShea

For that matter, please explain how efferent vision explains color at all.

Color is only a property of light reflection/absorption, not a property of the object itself.

Efferent vision doesn't change how color is seen. Colors can be seen as the brain uses the eyes (i.e., the cones and rods) to see the spectrum of visible light.

[LadyShea]

I just said that light can be seen on a backdrop. In this case the shirt is reflecting a certain color (in this case red) and it is showing up on a piece of paper as a red cast (the paper being the backdrop).

So it is possible to not only see, but photograph light only (color) without the source object being focused on or in the camera's view.

Colors can be seen as the brain uses the eyes (i.e., the cones and rods) to see the spectrum of visible light.

So you now you admit we can and do see light itself?

[Vivisectus]

So far we have some interesting new developments:

If we stimulate the retina via a micro-chip, which in turn is guided by a camera, the person we do this to experiences vague shapes, contrast, and shadows which correspond with what is there in reality, but this is not sight. Babies also apparently can detect faces well enough to mimic expressions at a certain distance. This is also not sight. Dogs can recognize objects and human faces on photographs which they have not seen before, and this is also not sight.

You have to admit that the struggle to hang on to the idea of sight as a direct, efferent process if starting to show some serious cracks.

I cannot help but be struck by the simple and elegant solution to this whole sight debacle: admit that while Lessans was absolutely correct in saying that what we see in our heads is very far removed from the data that our eyes actually provide to the brain, his conclusion of "the eye is not a sense organ and sight is not afferent" was mistaken.

There is a LOT of very good evidence around that shows us that what we think we see, IE the model that our brains present us with, is a far cry from the raw data that the eyes present to the brain. A lot of work is done on the raw data by the brain, and the resulting model is what we call "sight".

So the act of seeing is not just detecting. That is just a part of it. It is in fact modelling - putting the data together in a model that correctly predicts what is probably out there in reality. This modelling is something we have an innate talent for, and are hardwired to learn how to do.

This all fits in very elegantly with what Lessans is trying to express: the fact that while we tend to mistake the model for reality, it is merely a representation of what we have learned to expect to be out there, based on the input we receive.

This is perfectly suitable for his ideas about beauty, the power of conditioning, and the fact that he felt that what we see if often what we have been taught to see, not necessarily what is there.

If we replace "the eye is not a sense organ" and in stead say "Vision is not a simple passive process of detecting. It is an active process: we project that which the brain expects to find on top of what our eyes detect" then all of his ideas remain intact, and all of the conflicts with science disappear. To the contrary: modern science very much supports this notion, and every day we are learning more about how this works.

Remember: the final conclusion was that we project that which we have been conditioned to see. His beef was with the eyes as simple light-detectors, representing an absolute reality. As it turns out, science seems to be coming up with more and more results that are easily compatible with that.

But his explanation that the eyes somehow create a direct relationship with an external reality was mistaken. it is not the eyes that are physically efferent. It is just that one can say that sight, as a process, can be said to work in an efferent way, insofar that it is a process where our brains do indeed project certain things that it expects to find out there.

All this requires is that we amend and update a few parts of this book. We will have to abandon the idea that sight is instant. So what? It is not at all important to the main scheme of the book. Why does all of it have to be 100% correct?

[The Lone Ranger]

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how light can be striking the optic nerve, given that the opaque chorion is in the way. ...

[LadyShea]

So the act of seeing is not just detecting. That is just a part of it. It is in fact modeling - putting the data together in a model that correctly predicts what is probably out there in reality. This modeling is something we have an innate talent for, and are hardwired to learn how to do.

This is very much exampled in SCUBA diving and underwater photography. We don't really realize just how distorted color is underwater until we compare ambient light underwater photographs with what we saw.

Our brain seems to auto-correct to some extent and gives us an image of what we should be seeing, while the camera records the light dispassionately and objectively.

[The Lone Ranger]

Exactly so. The brain does a lot of "color-correction" to account for different color balances in the ambient light. For another example, try taking a photograph in a room where the only light comes from flourescent bulbs. It's amazing how different the colors look in the photograph, compared to how you perceive them when you're in the room. (Assuming your camera doesn't color-correct the photos itself, and neither does the printer.)

Alternately, note what happens when you go from an entirely enclosed room with artificial lights to the outdoors. Most incandescent lights are heavily red-biased in the light they emit. Most fluorescent lights tend to be green-biased. So if you go from a room in which the only light is artificial to the outdoors, there will likely be a few seconds in which the colors look "wrong" while your brain adjusts for the different color balance in the light you're now seeing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are trying to say here. What is an "image of that photograph"? It sounds like a photo of a photo?

And if a "photograph is not taken from detecting light alone", then other than a lens forming an image, what else is involved?

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

We see an image because the photons are being reflected back to us.

When a smooth flat pane of glass is coated with a shining metal like mercury or silver, then the mirror is formed.
The light follows the laws of reflection in that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of refection. Thus an image is formed, which can be seen by the observer.

This reflected light comes from an object or light source. If there is no light source or object, there can be no image in the mirror. That's why it's difficult to accept that we would be seeing Columbus discovering America when the event is no longer there.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

Okay, do you know the difference between light, an image and a photograph? Certainly light is involved in all three but it is not just light.

Peacegirl, have you ever played with lenses? Have you ever formed an image with a pinhole?

Forming images is rather old, it dates back at least 2,300 years.

This is exactly what I was saying. The image of the partially eclipsed sun showed up because the light from the sun (the light source) was being projected through the holes in a sieve. If the light source was not there, there would be no projected image.

Oh, you may not be aware that when they call it a "pinhole" camera all that mean is that there is a piece of metal foil or something else opaque with a tiny pin hole in it. This allows an image to form.

The pinhole in a pinhole camera acts as a lens.

HowStuffWorks "How does a pinhole camera work?"

A pinhole camera works on a simple principle. Imagine you are inside a large, dark, room-sized box containing a pinhole. Imagine that outside the room is a friend with a flashlight, and he is shining the flashlight at different angles through the pinhole. When you look at the wall opposite the pinhole, what you will see is a small dot created by the flashlight's beam shining through the pinhole. The small dot will move as your friend moves his flashlight. The smaller the pinhole (within limits), the smaller and sharper the point of light that the flashlight creates.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

A photograph is a way of recording an image. Prior to photo emulsions they would simply put tracing paper over the projected image and trace out the image to make a record. You could say that these tracings were a kind of photograph.



When I was a kid when I heard of such things I immediately went and made a pinhole camera. It's not very hard to do and it is instructive if you actually want to know more about light, images and photographs. Because if you are gonna insist that you have some new information about images then at a minimum you should have some experience in forming them.

Paint Can Camera

Very nice pictures. Thanks! I'm doing my best, at the very least, to show that efferent vision isn't scientifically impossible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Yes, that's what I've heard about JFKjr.

When I say "form an image" I am not talking about vision. I am talking about the optics of an image. Vision is simply how animals and humans process the image. The image exists even if no one processes it. There are places in America where they have camera obscura setup that overlook a city or a mountain top view of a beautiful valley where the image falls on a wall. It is there whether anyone is there to view it or not because it is an optical phenomena, not a perceptual phenomena.

If you take the eyeball from a dead animal or person, and look carefully into it, you can see that it still forms an image. But there is nothing there to process it into a vision. Processing an image into vision is a neural process. The words "efferent" or "afferent" simply refer to which direction the neuron pulses are moving.

You and Lessans have invented your own language that frankly nobody else knows or understands. It is unreasonable to expect 7 billion people to learn the language of two. You best start using the language as commonly used if you want to make any progress and make yourself and Lessans understood.

I think the definition of efferent vision that Lessans uses is understood, even though the exact mechanism has not been mapped out. I am trying very hard to find a central point where everyone is on the same page, but people resent that he doesn't use the term the way it is defined. How can he when he is referring to a new concept (or one that was disregarded long ago)? It would have to be added to the definitions that are already in use.

Efferent is an anatomical term with the following meanings:
Conveying away from a center, for example the efferent arterioles conveying blood away from the Bowman's capsule in the kidney. Opposite to afferent.
Something that so conducts, see efferent nerve fiber
Efferent lymph vessel

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Exactly so. The brain does a lot of "color-correction" to account for different color balances in the ambient light. For another example, try taking a photograph in a room where the only light comes from flourescent bulbs. It's amazing how different the colors look in the photograph, compared to how you perceive them when you're in the room. (Assuming your camera doesn't color-correct the photos itself, and neither does the printer.)

Alternately, note what happens when you go from an entirely enclosed room with artificial lights to the outdoors. Most incandescent lights are heavily red-biased in the light they emit. Most fluorescent lights tend to be green-biased. So if you go from a room in which the only light is artificial to the outdoors, there will likely be a few seconds in which the colors look "wrong" while your brain adjusts for the different color balance in the light you're now seeing.

Very interesting! I'm learning a lot in here as well as sharing what I know.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Very nice pictures. Thanks! I'm doing my best, at the very least, to show that efferent vision isn't scientifically impossible.

And failing grotesquely.

Of course, as you now know from carefully reading The Lone Ranger's essay, it is an observed fact that the visual system is afferent and not efferent.

Oh, wait! That's right! You didn't read his essay!

Hey peacegirl, if God turns on the sun at noon, why would people on earth see it immediately, but not see their neighbors for eight and a half minutes? Is the source light different from the reflected light?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Mebbe have a bit of a chat with the daughter as well mate... don't let the Stoopid get to another generation!

She didn't really look at it except to see that it was about Dinosaurs, I already pointed out the problems and she agreed completely. She just wasn't paying close attention to it. My grandson already understands that people and Dinosaurs didn't live at the same time, but the actual time scale may be a bit much for him, probably for most people really, can you conceptualize 1 million years, let alone 65 million years. At least he has the basic idea already.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

She didn't really look at it except to see that it was about Dinosaurs, I already pointed out the problems and she agreed completely. She just wasn't paying close attention to it. My grandson already understands that people and Dinosaurs didn't live at the same time, but the actual time scale may be a bit much for him, probably for most people really, can you conceptualize 1 million years, let alone 65 million years. At least he has the basic idea already.

LOL the dangers of american bookstores! Where you can be ambushed by fundies when looking for a book with cool dino piccies!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the daylight obscures our vision of the night sky. As soon as day turns to night, they become visible.

How would daylight obscure our vision if the objects are bright enough, and close enough, and still in our line of sight. Daylight is just an effect of light on the atmosphere, and the objects are still there and unobstructed, with efferent vision aren't we looking directly at the object? The light is only a condition of sight, and not a cause of sight, so the daylight should have no effect on our viewing the stars and planets.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For some reason you just don't like the fact that Lessans might have discovered something. I really don't know what you have against him.

I might have to put you back on ignore

What I don't like is that Lessans created this elaborate fiction and now you are trying to foist it on everyone as some kind of wonderful truth. Lessans didn't discover anything, he created a fantasy.

I don't have anything against Lessans for his joke, but I don't like the way you are presenting it as reality.


Will that be 'pretend ignore' as usual?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Exactly so. The brain does a lot of "color-correction" to account for different color balances in the ambient light.

Along with this, here is a little exersize you can try if you dare. Quick one question quiz.
What color is the trunk of a tree, lets say a nice Oak tree, but answer without going out and actually looking at one.
Be honest.

Hint, kids always use a brown crayon.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So it is possible to not only see, but photograph light only (color) without the source object being focused on or in the camera's view.

If I see the moon's image through a pinhole camera, I would be able to photograph that image, but the moon would have to be in view. What do you think would happen if the moon was out of view? You are saying that the light would still be traveling at a finite speed and therefore a picture of the moon would still be possible. That is why you are claiming that an event from the past (such as Columbus discovering America) could be seen by someone on another planet if the light from that event happened to arrive there. This is completely theoretical; the evidence that scientists are drawing upon comes from logic, and logic can be wrong.

Colors can be seen as the brain uses the eyes (i.e., the cones and rods) to see the spectrum of visible light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you now you admit we can and do see light itself?

We can see light that has traveled from point A to point B. I already agreed with that. But we are seeing that light in real time. The belief is that no matter how far and wide light travels, we will always see an image of the past coming from those lightwaves. Once again, if the light source is no longer there, the brain will not be able to interpret the signals coming from the light as an image because that is not how we see and that is not how a camera takes a photograph (since the lens has to focus on the light source or object).

I am so tired of discussing this. Can we change the subject?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What I don't like is that Lessans created this elaborate fiction and now you are trying to foist it on everyone as some kind of wonderful truth. Lessans didn't discover anything, he created a fantasy.

First of all your belief that this book is fiction is totally unfounded. As a result of this belief, you are trying to disgrace him by disseminating an elaborate lie (everything you say about him is an out and out lie), and you justify it on the grounds that you are positive he is wrong therefore he deserves to be slandered.

Originally Posted by thedoc

I don't have anything against Lessans for his joke, but I don't like the way you are presenting it as reality.


Will that be 'pretend ignore' as usual?

Who are you to judge what is and what is not fantasy when you have no idea what this book is about? You think you do, which is why you have no respect at all. And believe me, you have been on ignore for months now. Please don't test me.