A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as saying "if" efferent vision is true, I want people to have some leeway. To say that I know it's true will get me in trouble and I'll be called a "fundamentalist."

You will still be compared to fundamentalists because that is how you act, your circumlocution notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Cameras detect light only, but the light is present as a mirror image of the object or light source.

I thought your claim was that light could not transmit an image. How then can the light be "present as a mirror image of the object"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And what I'm saying is that if efferent vision is true, there is another explanation than incoming light forming on the lens and being interpreted by the brain. That explanation shows that cameras and eyes should not see different things; they should see the exact same thing which they do.

The problem with this is that you have never actually provided such an explanation. Any such explanation would have to include a description of the mechanism that enables a camera, or an eye, to form an image. You have never provided a description of such a mechanism. Until you do so you really ought to quit claiming that such an explanation exists.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong. The camera would show red if the red was coming from the light source. If it switched to blue, the camera would show blue just as the eyes would see blue. You keep thinking there is this time delay, and that's because your mind is blocked. You can't envision what I'm trying to get across so you keep going back to what you're accustomed to believing is true.

I am sure that I have made this point before, but let me make it again. The claim that light must be present does not necessarily imply that the light has to be present at the point of observation. If efferent vision is true, it is sufficient that light be present at the point of origin and that the object be; big enough, close enough and bright enough to be seen. That being the case, when the light emitting object changes color that change will be observed instantly, if efferent vision is true. What is missing from this "explanation" is a description of the mechanism which allows such an observation to take place. But that's alright, peacegirl has already admitted that she doesn't know how this happens. She only knows that it does happen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're trying to make this bigger than it is. It is not 4 hypotheticals, okay? It is one. And he was correct about the observer on Rigel, so don't include that, thank you very much.

Whether or not he was correct about the observer on Rigel (he was not) is beside the point. The Rigel example is still an hypothetical for the simple reason that, to the best of our knowledge, there neither is, nor ever was, any such observer on Rigel. See, that right there makes it hypothetical.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was hemming and hawing about taking this excerpt out for some time, but now I am convinced because of the misunderstanding it has caused. But, and I will say it again until you finally get it, this has no bearing on whether his claim is true.

If it has no bearing, why did you include it? You have stated that it was merely an afterthought on Lessans' part (although how you can know that is unclear) and that it did not appear in all of his books (whatever that means) yet you still chose to include it. I can only assume that you chose to include the example because you thought that it was persuasive. You have now, after umpteen discussions, discovered that it was not persuasive. That, in fact, it tended to undermine rather than buttress his argument. Therefore, you have decided to edit it out of your next revision. By that logic, you ought to edit out every argument, observation, analogy and example that has proven to be less than persuasive. If you do that you could save an awful lot of the publishing cost, because you could then put the whole thing on the cover of a matchbook.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As for the Hubble Deep Field experiment, I still don't see where this has anything to do with Lessans' claim that we can only see the present.

I was not addressing the past/present issue when I provided the link to the Hubble Deep Field site. I was addressing your claim that a camera could not take a picture of an object if that object was not in the camera's field of view. When the astronomers pointed the Hubble telescope in that direction they were, to the best of their knowledge, aiming the telescope at a vacant point in space. Explain to me, if you will, how the Hubble telescope was able to take pictures of objects in space that were not visible to the astronomers who were using the telescope.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The spectrum of visible light which forms a rainbow.

I thought you said before that we cannot see light.

[But]

Originally Posted by Dragar

To be fair, no atom bombs means no suns either. Obler's Paradox wouldn't be an issue, but the sun could only be a few thousand years old.

It's Olbers' paradox. The man's name is/was Olbers.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

[

Wrong. The camera would show red if the red was coming from the light source. If it switched to blue, the camera would show blue just as the eyes would see blue. You keep thinking there is this time delay, and that's because your mind is blocked. You can't envision what I'm trying to get across so you keep going back to what you're accustomed to believing is true.

In that case, the wavelength of the stream of photons needs to change the moment the lightsource begins emitting a different color light, and they need to instantly disappear when the lightsource is switched off. But we know photons do not work that way: as radar proves, photons are not dependent on their emitter for their continued existence. if they were, radar would not work.

Lessans idea is thus shown to be impossible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You will still be compared to fundamentalists because that is how you act, your circumlocution notwithstanding.

I have tried to be as direct as possible, although I realize I'm not offering you the kind of detailed explanation that you are looking for.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Cameras detect light only, but the light is present as a mirror image of the object or light source.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I thought your claim was that light could not transmit an image. How then can the light be "present as a mirror image of the object"?

If light is a mirror image, it is not transmitting anything. It is there the second the lens of a camera photographs something, or the lens of the eye sees that same view.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And what I'm saying is that if efferent vision is true, there is another explanation than incoming light forming on the lens and being interpreted by the brain. That explanation shows that cameras and eyes should not see different things; they should see the exact same thing which they do.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The problem with this is that you have never actually provided such an explanation. Any such explanation would have to include a description of the mechanism that enables a camera, or an eye, to form an image. You have never provided a description of such a mechanism. Until you do so you really ought to quit claiming that such an explanation exists.

I'm sure there is a mechanism that explains efferent vision. I just don't have it quite yet, but that doesn't negate that it exists [in theory].

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Thus the thought experiment stands: the emitter is 10 light minutes away. It starts to emit a stream of photons in the wavelength we see as red. Then it switches to emitting photons in the blue wavelength after 5 minutes. Then it switches off.

If efferent sight were true, the naked eye would see red the moment it was switched on. The camera would see nothing. Then after 5 minutes, the naked eye would see it switch to blue. The camera would still see nothing. Then after 10 minutes, the eye would see the light switch off. the camera would record red for 5 minutes, and then blue for 5 minutes, before seeing the light switch off 10 minutes after the fact.

These differences are never seen in reality. Thus efferent sight is not correct.

Wrong. The camera would show red if the red was coming from the light source. If it switched to blue, the camera would show blue just as the eyes would see blue. You keep thinking there is this time delay, and that's because your mind is blocked. You can't envision what I'm trying to get across so you keep going back to what you're accustomed to believing is true.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am sure that I have made this point before, but let me make it again. The claim that light must be present does not necessarily imply that the light has to be present at the point of observation. If efferent vision is true, it is sufficient that light be present at the point of origin and that the object be; big enough, close enough and bright enough to be seen. That being the case, when the light emitting object changes color that change will be observed instantly, if efferent vision is true. What is missing from this "explanation" is a description of the mechanism which allows such an observation to take place. But that's alright, peacegirl has already admitted that she doesn't know how this happens. She only knows that it does happen.

As I just said, not knowing the exact mechanism as to the pathway in the brain that allows us to see in real time does not mean that this observation is wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seriously, he made claims about light and time that were false, peacegirl. He used three hypotheticals to try to illustrate what he thought was a discovery about sight...not one, three (the Sun being turned on, the Sun exploding, observer on Rigel, and the nonsense about molecules of light could be considered a 4th).

You're trying to make this bigger than it is. It is not 4 hypotheticals, okay? It is one. And he was correct about the observer on Rigel, so don't include that, thank you very much.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Whether or not he was correct about the observer on Rigel (he was not) is beside the point. The Rigel example is still an hypothetical for the simple reason that, to the best of our knowledge, there neither is, nor ever was, any such observer on Rigel. See, that right there makes it hypothetical.

Call it hypothetical if you want, but LadyShea was clumping all of these together to make it look like Lessans was full of hot air. There is nothing wrong with a hypothetical if it is clarifying a concept. That's what he was doing with the example of Rigel. The other example is not necessary and is confusing people instead of making his concept clearer, which is why I want to remove it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have been trying to defend this for almost a decade, and now, finally, you are going to remove it from the book? Why is it not important today, but has been for the last 8 or so years?

I was hemming and hawing about taking this excerpt out for some time, but now I am convinced because of the misunderstanding it has caused. But, and I will say it again until you finally get it, this has no bearing on whether his claim is true.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If it has no bearing, why did you include it? You have stated that it was merely an afterthought on Lessans' part (although how you can know that is unclear) and that it did not appear in all of his books (whatever that means) yet you still chose to include it. I can only assume that you chose to include the example because you thought that it was persuasive. You have now, after umpteen discussions, discovered that it was not persuasive. That, in fact, it tended to undermine rather than buttress his argument. Therefore, you have decided to edit it out of your next revision. By that logic, you ought to edit out every argument, observation, analogy and example that has proven to be less than persuasive. If you do that you could save an awful lot of the publishing cost, because you could then put the whole thing on the cover of a matchbook.

I included it because I thought it would make things clearer. I didn't know it would cause the kind of reaction it got. I included it because I was compiling all of his books, and this was part of his writings. I included his letters to the President as well (which I might take out) because I wanted his life story to be included in the book, just in case the letters were lost. Now it's going to cost me to have it redone. At least I'll be able to change "Satin" to "Satan" that people made such a big deal out of.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As for the Hubble Deep Field experiment, I still don't see where this has anything to do with Lessans' claim that we can only see the present.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I was not addressing the past/present issue when I provided the link to the Hubble Deep Field site. I was addressing your claim that a camera could not take a picture of an object if that object was not in the camera's field of view. When the astronomers pointed the Hubble telescope in that direction they were, to the best of their knowledge, aiming the telescope at a vacant point in space. Explain to me, if you will, how the Hubble telescope was able to take pictures of objects in space that were not visible to the astronomers who were using the telescope.

I agree that photons were being picked up by the telescope. There is no other explanation if the space was vacant and suddenly light appeared. And it's probably true that these relics (if you will) of an earlier time are indicative of how old the universe is. I am not arguing with that. That being said, I still don't believe that we can get a full image of a past event without the event being present.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

In the case of the rainbow, since there is no object then what exactly are you viewing "efferently"?

The spectrum of visible light which forms a rainbow.

Originally Posted by But

I thought you said before that we cannot see light.

I said that there has to be something in the atmosphere that is interacting with that light for the image to be seen. In the case of rainbows, raindrops are interacting with the sun's rays. I also believe pure light can be picked up by a telescope, but I don't believe that what we're seeing represents a past event in its entirety. It would be like finding a fossil of an earlier time. That fossil is a leftover relic, and although it gives clues, it is not complete.

[LadyShea]

In post 11830 you misattributed many of Angukuks points to Vivisectus. Simply change the name where it says quote=

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now it's going to cost me to have it redone. At least I'll be able to change "Satin" to "Satan" that people made such a big deal out of.

Why not do it yourself and save money? Seriously, your paying for this simple editing work is dumb. You have the time to post here, you have the time to change some spelling and delete some passages.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You're becoming too angry to communicate with, LadyShea! I mean, come on! It's not as though she self-righteously insisted that "it would be unethical to alter someone else's work" or that she "never would taint his writing by adding or subtracting what he has painstakingly worked on for 30 years." Jeez!

Have you conveniently forgotten that I would never change the original concept. There's a difference between changing a word to better describe a concept, or giving an example that clarifies a concept. Jeezzzz!!!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What might be a good thing, that we don't close threads or that you apparently are unable to move on of your own accord?

Which part of what I said makes it so you "can move on in peace"? What is preventing you from doing so any time you want?

I feel that people are still somewhat interested whether it's to make Lessans look nuts, or to actually test his [theories]. Or maybe just for entertainment. The bottom line is I am still responding to posts. If all the posts turn out to be a gang up on me, that will be time enough to go. It's very difficult to hear insults being hurled at me from every direction. I never anticipated this kind of reaction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Crumb

Just leave and it will be over.

That's like telling an anorexic that all they have to do is eat more.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Notwithstanding, all charlatans aside, people are often alarmed (and/or spiteful and/or resentful and/or hurtful) when something disturbs their world view.

Very very true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you really that mentally ill that you can't leave of your own accord?

Of course I can leave of my own accord but I obviously am getting more satisfaction from being here than not being here. I guess I'm determined to prove that Lessans wasn't a crackpot.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I feel that people are still somewhat interested whether it's to make Lessans look nuts, or to actually test his [theories]. Or maybe just for entertainment.

People are interested in you, not Lessans. They want to see how much reason and rationality it takes to break through your spectacularly strong dogma armor.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The bottom line is I am still responding to posts. If all the posts turn out to be a gang up on me, that will be time enough to go.

Suit yourself

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's very difficult to hear insults being hurled at me from every direction. I never anticipated this kind of reaction.

You've gotten the exact same reaction for at least 8 years, peacegirl. How many times do you have to experience something before you're able to anticipate it for goodness' sake?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's like telling an anorexic that all they have to do is eat more.

What a strange analogy. You are comparing your posting at a forum to a deadly mental illness?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess I'm determined to prove that Lessans wasn't a crackpot.

You don't have the ability, sorry.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Takes all kinds

Religion would see it as an attempt at a replacement.

I think you're right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually, TLR is wrong in my opinion. Being of a scientific frame of mind, he dismissed the arrogance that comes with trying to reduce the whole of human interaction to a simple set of rules of the road based on reducing all acts to either ethically right or ethically wrong, when such a binary distinction is both impossible and insulting to the true range and possibility of human expression.

That is not what he was doing. He wasn't making a judgment for anyone as to what is "right" and "wrong." But the truth is that when we stop judging what is right or wrong for others, conscience is able to do its job of deciding for itself what's right and what's wrong. He even said that what is right and wrong depends on the individual's set of circumstances. Dog food is good to a person who is starving, yet bad to someone who is comparing that to a steak dinner.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

They COULD be more insulting. And they were. By reducing the sum total of potential human experience to the idiotic set of behaviors that are possible under the Lessianic scheme, and nothing more.

It's only insulting because you don't understand that we can only choose "good" (not hurting others) when there is no justification to do bad. As long as we have a justification, then these principles cannot work. This is not a scheme or a binary system with a set of rules to follow. In fact, there are no rules to follow in the new world. The only thing that will be carefully analyzed is what is and is not a hurt to another. This will allow you to decide what you want to do with that information. For example, we all know that running a red light and injuring someone is a hurt to the person who was injured. There's no confusion as to who would be at fault. We also know that people don't have to run red lights if they don't want to. What this principle does is prevent the desire to speed up instead of slow down when in a hurry, for if someone was to be seriously hurt as a result of your actions, you could not justify it. Therefore, the only avenue open to you is to prevent this kind of occurrence from happening. Please rethink your position because it's your misunderstanding, not the discovery, that is the problem.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Really? That's what you are going with? So if that's what he meant, this passage could read as follows and be perfectly meaningful and valid?

So, he meant the reworded passage then, and you think that makes sense?

What does "already here" and/or "already present" and/or "light's presence" mean in the context of a constant flow of new photons/new light energy? It makes zero sense in that context so just what exactly are you and Lessans trying to say when you use these phrases?

The fact that the photons/new light energy are in a constant flow is a mute point. I don't see the constant flow of light energy even though that's what is occurring; I see daylight when the sun is on my side of the earth, and it is this light that allows me to see objects and images in real time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In 2003 you seemed to understand how cameras work, what happened?

Cameras do decode light because that's what cameras do. Brains, on the other hand, don't decode light. They use light striking the retina, to see objective reality. Cameras are light detectors, as you accurately described. But if efferent vision is valid, then there is no time for the light to travel from the object to the lens which means that a camera is photographing the same exact event that the eyes see.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I told you the Hubble Deep Field images disproved Lessans claims, you said you would concede if it was explained to you in a way you couldn't refute.

The Hubble was pointed at what appeared to be empty sky in "real time", yet after 10 days of collecting the light coming from that direction we found that the sky was anything but empty. We had no idea if there were objects out there, and took a gamble that there were and so started collecting the light coming from that direction

I'm trying to make a distinction between photons that break away from a light source and travel at light speed to the lens of a telescope, and seeing the actual light source because it is large enough and bright enough to be seen with magnification. Obviously, I cannot refute what the telescope detected.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm ready to move on but I need people to stop posting.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, you don't need others to stop posting, you just need to stop posting.

If all people do is attack Lessans, then I'll stop posting. But if people continue to have legitimate questions, I'll try to answer as best I can.

As for the Hubble Deep Field experiment, I still don't see where this has anything to do with Lessans' claim that we can only see the present.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It wasn't an experiment, it's an image of hundreds of galaxies, the furthest of which is 13.2 BILLION light years away. That means the photons the Hubble collected had been traveling for 13 billion years. Isn't that extraordinary? Do you understand how far away that is?

1 light year is 6 trillion miles.



The Deep Field is amazing and awe inspiring. What a place this Universe is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If photons are able to break off from a star and be seen, then that would mean that it is analogous to the examples you've given.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well, they don't break off, they are emitted, spit out in all directions. But yes, they are independent things, traveling along through space.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I still maintain that we will never be able to see an event from the past that reflects what happened hundreds of years ago, even if a telescope identified a few photons from that time period.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your failure to understand it doesn't mean it isn't happening, to use one of your arguments.

That's true.

It turns out, light from the star encodes a wealth of information about the physical state of its outer atmosphere. Light is produced in the inner regions of a star and works its way out to the "surface" -- which is really a part of the gaseous atmosphere called the photosphere. Photons produced in the photosphere have a good chance to escape outwards into space and, eventually, reach us. As photons fly through the outermost layers of the stellar atmosphere, however, they may be absorbed by atoms or ions in those outer layers. The absorption lines produced by these outermost layers of the star tell us a lot about the chemical compositition, temperature, and other features of the star.

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys301...pec_lines.html

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Cool isn't it? I read that one photon may take a thousand years to escape our sun. What's your point with this copypaste?

Very cool and awe inspiring.

My point is that we can use the information gleaned from these pictures, but these pictures are not an exact image of the light source from whence they came. That's all I'm saying.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to make a distinction between photons that break away from a light source and travel at light speed to the lens of a telescope, and seeing the actual light source because it is large enough and bright enough to be seen with magnification. Obviously, I cannot refute what the telescope detected.

There is no distinction to be made, peacegirl, you're having a problem because you still don't seem to understand the nature of light and the functionality of optics.

Lenses are lenses and light detectors are light detectors and they all work the same way.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My point is that we can use the information gleaned from these pictures, but these pictures are not an exact image of the light source from whence they came. That's all I'm saying.

I have asked before and probably won't get an answer this time either...but what do you think the "exact image" of a star should look like? What about the "exact image" of a galaxy?


Pinwheel Galaxy (Messier 101) by Hubble

[LadyShea]

Which of the multiple photos in this article are the "actual image" of the sun?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Cameras do decode light because that's what cameras do. Brains, on the other hand, don't decode light. They use light striking the retina, to see objective reality. Cameras are light detectors, as you accurately described. But if efferent vision is valid, then there is no time for the light to travel from the object to the lens which means that a camera is photographing the same exact event that the eyes see.

No, the reality is that the same thing is recorded.

However, because a camera has to wait for the light to arrive, there would be a difference if efferent sight were true. There isn't, so we know that both the camera and the eye experience the time delay.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Vivisectus;989289]

In that case, the wavelength of the stream of photons needs to change the moment the lightsource begins emitting a different color light, and they need to instantly disappear when the lightsource is switched off. But we know photons do not work that way: as radar proves, photons are not dependent on their emitter for their continued existence. if they were, radar would not work.

Lessans idea is thus shown to be impossible.

I understand your disagreement, and it seems that is how it works. It should therefore be possible to do a homegrown experiment where an object is placed a mile away, out of sight of the camera's lens. Also note that there are no atmospheric or physical obstructions to deflect or absorb the photons. The experimenter then takes a picture. Shouldn't the photons reflecting off of that object show up on the lens? If nothing shows up, why not, and why does the image of the object show up on the lens when the object is brought into the camera's field of view?