A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He wrote that. Don't make me have to go searching through his books to find it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, he didn't. Lessans never claimed that light has to be present at the eyes for vision to be possible. That is YOUR claim.

He said nothing other than light strikes the optic nerve. I consider that enough information to go on.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The logical implications are very clear. If efferent vision is true, then cameras work similarly. Although they don't have a brain, they work very much the same as the lens of the eye and the retina. You have to look at it from this perspective, which you're not doing. It would mean the camera's lens focuses on the object from which the mirror image is instantly seen due to light. Yes, the red photon was ahead of the blue, but that is not what is being captured by the lens.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So the lens isn't capturing the light travelling from the object to the camera? Then what is it doing?

It is capturing the light, but it's not traveling to the camera.

Originally Posted by Speacemonkey

And you still aren't answering the questions I asked! Why is that, Peacegirl? Why can't you tell me what properties of what (and where) are interacting with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting photographic image?

What is it that causally interacts with the film to determine the colot of the (allegedly real-time) photgraphic image?

Where is whatever it is that so interacts with the film?

What properties of this determine the color of the resulting image?

For me, it is the specific wavelengths of the light present at the camera. You agreed, then disagreed, and now refuse to answer the question. I'm still waiting on answers to these very simple questions, Peacegirl. I don't think you're being honest with either us or yourself when you claim to be trying to understand the evidence against Lessans.

I did not disagree. It is light's reflection that gives color to an object due to the various wavelengths, and that is what is being captured on film as the camera focuses on the object. What is it you don't understand?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think this because that's how efferent vision works. If we see in real time (which I believe we do), then that changes the function of light in regard to what we see and how we see it.

He wants to know why you believe we see in real time, what is the supportive reasoning behind your belief. Is it only because Lessans said so?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think this because that's how efferent vision works. If we see in real time (which I believe we do), then that changes the function of light in regard to what we see and how we see it.

I'm still waiting, Peacegirl...

Let's start again. At time T1 a camera is aimed towards a distant object which has only at this very moment changed color from red to blue. What is it which at this very moment is interacting with the film to determine the color of the image which will result?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not disagree. It is light's reflection that gives color to an object due to the various wavelengths, and that is what is being captured on film as the camera focuses on the object. What is it you don't understand?

You do disagree with me, which is why I need you to answer the questions:

What is it that causally interacts with the film to determine the color of the (allegedly real-time) photgraphic image?

Where is whatever it is that so interacts with the film?

What properties of this determine the color of the resulting image?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He said nothing other than light strikes the optic nerve. I consider that enough information to go on.

Which you know is both wrong and not what I am asking you about. Lessans never claimed light at the eye was a necessary condition of vision. That is your claim, not Lessans'. Why can't you admit this?

[davidm]

peacegirl, how are the observations of the moons of Jupiter consistent with real-time seeing? We are waiting.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not a strange argument. Although one is a sound wave and the other is a light wave, they are believed to work in the same way.

Obviously.

The object (or image), light waves, and the brain interact in a way that produces vision.

That's true, but that doesn't let us know in which direction we see.

Soundwaves and our ears and brain interact in a way that produces hearing.

If our ears didn't have the structure they do, which makes them function as soundwave detectors, we wouldn't be able to hear.

I agree.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

peacegirl, how are the observations of the moons of Jupiter consistent with real-time seeing? We are waiting.

I'm not talking to you until you calm down and stop name calling.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Which you know is both wrong and not what I am asking you about. Lessans never claimed light at the eye was a necessary condition of vision. That is your claim, not Lessans'. Why can't you admit this?

Because it has nothing to do with efferent vision per se. If light has to be present at the eye, that still doesn't mean the brain interprets the signals coming from the light. It just means that we wouldn't see the object or image until the light arrived. I'm asking people to forget that excerpt because it's not essential.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not talking to you until you calm down and stop name calling.

Can't answer the question. Duly noted.

Because there is no answer. The moons of Jupiter example by itself proves that Lessans' claims were all false, and you can't abide that.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it has nothing to do with efferent vision per se. If light has to be present at the eye, that still doesn't mean the brain interprets the signals coming from the light. It just means that we wouldn't see the object or image until the light arrived. I'm asking people to forget that excerpt because it's not essential.

Whether or not light has to be present at the eye has everything to do with efferent vision. It means your version of it is completely different from that of Lessans. It can't be the properties of the light reaching the eye or camera that determines the image for Lessans, because he didn't think the light even had to be there. You think light at the eye is a necessary condition of sight. Lessans did not. Why can't you admit that this is your claim and not his?

And those questions I'm waiting on aren't going to answer themselves.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You do disagree with me, which is why I need you to answer the questions:

What is it that causally interacts with the film to determine the color of the (allegedly real-time) photgraphic image?

Where is whatever it is that so interacts with the film?

What properties of this determine the color of the resulting image?

The photons causally mix with the chemicals in the film to produce color of the photographic image.

The wavelengths of light are instantly interacting with the film.

We perceive color when the different wavelengths composing white light are selectively interfered with by matter (absorbed, reflected, refracted, scattered, or diffracted.

How do we perceive color? | ColoRotate

I don't know what you're trying to get at.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Whether or not light has to be present at the eye has everything to do with efferent vision. It means your version of it is completely different from that of Lessans. It can't be the properties of the light reaching the eye or camera that determines the image for Lessans, because he didn't think the light even had to be there. You think light at the eye is a necessary condition of sight. Lessans did not. Why can't you admit that this is your claim and not his?

And those questions I'm waiting on aren't going to answer themselves.

That is not true. Lessans said that light is a condition of sight. That was his constant mantra. You are making his one hypothetical comment more important than it is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm still waiting, Peacegirl...

Let's start again. At time T1 a camera is aimed towards a distant object which has only at this very moment changed color from red to blue. What is it which at this very moment is interacting with the film to determine the color of the image which will result?

You're still not getting the difference between efferent and afferent. If a red photon was traveling before a blue photon, I would see the red because the photon is a light source in and of itself (like an ember that is separate from a fire) and is traveling at a finite speed. But this is not what I am discussing. Somehow you can't seem to visualize light being a mirror image of whatever the lens is focused on.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The photons causally mix with the chemicals in the film to produce color of the photographic image.

The wavelengths of light are instantly interacting with the film.

We perceive color when the different wavelengths composing white light are selectively interfered with by matter (absorbed, reflected, refracted, scattered, or diffracted.

How do we perceive color? | ColoRotate

I don't know what you're trying to get at.

Stop cutting and pasting from links, and answer the questions!

1. What is it that causally interacts with the film to determine the color of the (allegedly real-time) photgraphic image?

2. Where is whatever it is that so interacts with the film?

3. What properties of this determine the color of the resulting image?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still not getting the difference between efferent and afferent. If a red photon was traveling before a blue photon, I would see the red because the photon is a light source in and of itself (like an ember that is separate from a fire) and is traveling at a finite speed. But this is not what I am discussing. Somehow you can't seem to visualize light being a mirror image of whatever the lens is focused on.

You didn't answer the question! And NO, photons are not light sources.

What is it which at this very moment is interacting with the film to determine the color of the image which will result?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true. Lessans said that light is a condition of sight. That was his constant mantra. You are making his one hypothetical comment more important than it is.

Lessans NEVER claimed that light at the eye was a necessary condition of sight. YOU do. That makes it your claim and not his. What part of that do you not comprehend?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Somehow you can't seem to visualize light being a mirror image of whatever the lens is focused on.

Somehow you can't seem to have a clue what you're talking about.

Hey, peacegirl, about those moons of Jupiter ... we're waiting!

[LadyShea]

Believed to work the same way by whom? It's a strange argument because nobody thinks lightwaves and soundwaves have the same properties or behave the same way.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The object (or image), light waves, and the brain interact in a way that produces vision.

The object is only important because the properties of the object affect how light behaves. There is no interaction between the brain and the object.

[LadyShea]

Photons are light, they are not light sources nor are they remotely analogous to embers.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think this because that's how efferent vision works. If we see in real time (which I believe we do), then that changes the function of light in regard to what we see and how we see it.

No, I mean why do you think we cannot see using light alone? I know that you do think that, I want to know why? What is wrong with explaining vision just via light, without any of this extra business?

Also, why do we detect light from distant planets coming from the same position in the sky that we see them? If we see them in real time, then photons arriving in a constant stream will lag behind.

Imagine water coming out of a hosepipe being waved around at you - the water arrives at you coming from a direction where the hosepipe was, just like the light from Mars arrives at us coming from a position where Mars was. If we see faster than light ('real time'), we should see Mars' true location - but instead we see it at the same place the light is coming from. Why?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Dragar

No, I mean why do you think we cannot see using light alone? I know that you do think that, I want to know why?

Because Lessans said so! She has no other reason!

After all, as she has repeatedly explained, if Lessans had been wrong about anything, he would have said so; but because he did not say so, he was right about everything!

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why not? The brain is looking out, through the eyes, as a window, at the "actual object", but anything that changes the window itself would distort vision. If there was a crack in the window (i.e., a problem with the internal structure of the eye itself) it would also distort vision. This does not rule out efferent vision whatsoever.

If the "brain is looking out" does it shine a blue light on the object? Exactly how does the object become blue?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If light has to be present at the eye, that still doesn't mean the brain interprets the signals coming from the light. It just means that we wouldn't see the object or image until the light arrived.

If we can't see the object or image until the light arrives, then time, distance and speed are relevant to how we see. That is something that you have repeatedly denied is the case.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans said that light is a condition of sight. That was his constant mantra.

Yes, he did say that, and so have you. However, neither of you have ever explained what you think that means. You keep dropping the phrase into the conversation as if it explains something, but until you tell us what you think it means it has no explanatory value of its own.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

If the "brain is looking out" does it shine a blue light on the object? Exactly how does the object become blue?

What, you don't know anyone who has blue eyes?