A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are verifiable, but not according to your rules which are based on your preconceived ideas of how light works.

No, stupid, we do not have "preconceived ideas" on how light works. We have empirical data on how light works. Big difference, stupid.

It was your stupid father who had preconceived ideas on how light works, stupid. That's because he never finished the seventh grade and never knew anything about reality.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But his work can be proven empirically.

His "work" has been shown to be empirically false in literally hundreds of different ways.

But we'll get a great 500-Page Party out of his (and your) rubbish.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't want to discuss the eyes.

Of course you don't! It makes you look like the dishonest buffoon that you are every time you discuss the eyes! Hey peacegirl, did you read the Lone Ranger's essay on how we see yet? No?

I do hope the discussion on sight has given people food for thought.

Yes, it has. The thought of the utterly infantile stupidity of what Lessans claimed, so obviously at variance with reality, boggles the mind.

Hey, peacegirl, when are you going to address the little problem posed for Lessans by the moons of Jupiter? Never, right?

[Dragar]

peacegirl, 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 shouldn't come from where we see the planet. But they do.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are verifiable, but not according to your rules which are based on your preconceived ideas of how light works.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans was not refuting the speed of light, or the basics of how light works. He was disputing one thing only; that we see a delayed version of reality.

Please compare and contrast. Are you disputing the rules of how light works, or not? Make up your mind.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, 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 shouldn't come from where we see the planet. But they do.

She will never address this question, just like she ignores the moons of Jupiter and innumerable other experiments that disprove Lessans' claims.

I have no doubt that she understands these disproofs. She is just too dishonest and irrational to acknowledge them. What counts for her now is sticking to "Lessans was right," even though she knows he was wrong. That is how far gone she is.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want you to take his side. I want you to hold back your judgment as to whether he is right or not until further evidence comes in (experiments that be replicated over and over again and get the same result). I don't believe all of these experiments that you are basing your conclusions on are 100% reliable.

That's a faith claim, supported by nothing. And the evidential case against efferent vision is quite conclusive. There is no reason (at least not for anyone not mentally crippled by faith) to hold back judgement when an idea has been dIsproven. That is not how science works. No further evidence can validate something already shown to be impossible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it's not at odds with reality. You think it is. You would be shocked if it turned out that he was right.

I really don't want to discuss the eyes. I do hope the discussion on sight has given people food for thought.

As long as you keep claiming his claims are not at odds with reality, you will be expected to address the evidence showing otherwise.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even though I don't have the empirical evidence to prove that he knew whereof he spoke, his observations were spot on.

That's another faith claim. Completely unsupported.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is my last forum. I could not go through this again. Once I leave here I have to find another way.

Yeah, right. You've said exactly the same thing at every other forum you've been to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans was not refuting the speed of light, or the basics of how light works. He was disputing one thing only; that we see a delayed version of reality.

Disputing that does require the rejection of the basics of how light works.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're acting like he is disputing all of physics. He is only disputing the belief that we can see the past due to light. And yes, there will be supporting evidence as time goes on.

Another faith claim. Also unsupported.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are the one making it into a word salad. His description of light and sight is very clear. It's not a garbled mess. His claim makes a lot of sense and it has certainly not been ruled out. But if no one is interested in the possibility that he is right, this knowledge will be dismissed as pure nonsense. How sad.

Pure nonsense should be dismissed as pure nonsense. How can you say his description was "very clear" when you have no idea whether or not he meant for light at the eye to be a necessary condition of sight, and you yourself disagree with his own examples given as illustration?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It just might be that you're not the one to recognize it.

Or you're just incapable of recognizing that he was wrong.

I'm still waiting for answers:

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?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want you to take his side. I want you to hold back your judgment as to whether he is right or not until further evidence comes in (experiments that be replicated over and over again and get the same result).

If you bring evidence to the table, I will be happy to look at it. If it's convincing, I may change my mind.

As of right now, I am comfortable with my judgment that Lessans was wrong about light and sight based on the evidence available.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing in his claim (no matter what David says) that would cause catastrophic results just because we see in the present, nor does his claim that the eyes are not a sense organ stop any successful technologies that are dependent on light's properties from working.

You do not understand all the implications of real time seeing, but they certainly exist

That's not what I was trying to say. What I meant is if Lessans ideas were well supported people would have been receptive.

It is at odds with reality in many ways.

If it turns out he was right, I will be shocked, but if that verification is made, it will have evidence supporting it, and I will have to change my mind based on it.

I am currently very comfortable with my position that Lessans was wrong about light and sight...if something else comes along that makes me change my position, then great...more knowledge is better!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't want to discuss the eyes. I do hope the discussion on sight has given people food for thought.

Unfortunately as that was Lessans most extraordinary and frankly outrageous claim, and seeing how many of the relevant areas of science involved in light and sight are very well understood and verified, that is the one that will end up getting scrutinized and discussed the most.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even though I don't have the empirical evidence to prove that he knew whereof he spoke, his observations were spot on.

Unsupported assertion, therefore dismissed as such.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I even said it's not a competition, but it feels like one. The dynamic in here is attack/defense, attack/defense, attack/defense ad nauseum.

This is how debates work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So instead of challenging me, why can't you say that you'll wait until further evidence comes in?

I'm not the one who is challenging the current evidence, and I am not the one that feels the current evidence is lacking.

You and Lessans made the challenging claims, you have to support them, and you have to provide a valid reason to assume the current evidence is inadequate...that's not our job.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true. The afferent model of sight relies on certain logical conclusions regarding light that are not conclusive.

The current scientific conclusions regarding light are not based on logic, but on empirical evidence and mathematics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans is challenging those ideas based on a different set of observations.

Alas, his challenge amounts to nothing more than unsupported assertions, the same as any crazy on the street proclaiming the end of the world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But his understanding did not come from physics or optics per se.

Yet he made specific claims challenging physics and optics

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are implying that he was not an "expert" in these fields, so who is he to make any major claims regarding light and sight?

He wasn't even an educated layperson about these fields...he appears to have been completely ignorant of them.

One need not be an expert to make claims, but they should at least understand what it is they are challenging.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans was not refuting the speed of light, or the basics of how light works. He was disputing one thing only; that we see a delayed version of reality.

Which is a direct dispute of how light and time work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're acting like he is disputing all of physics.

He disputed relativity, causality, optics, and a whole bunch of medical science. At least he didn't try to talk about QM.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What have I been saying all along? There is nothing in his claim (no matter what David says) that would cause catastrophic results just because we see in the present, nor does his claim that the eyes are not a sense organ stop any successful technologies that are dependent on light's properties from working.

The ramifications of real-time seeing have been explained to you in detail; it is highly possible that you are unable to grasp the explanations. But if you did understand them, you are a liar in writing the above. Of course, your dishonesty has been documented repeatedly.

[LadyShea]

Oh? Which of us claims to have the answer to war and poverty? Which of claims to be able to bring about a perfect society? Which of us claims to be uttering the undeniable truth?

[ceptimus]

Peacegirl, how often, if ever, do you consider that you and your father may be wrong about this efferent vision thing?

It's all very well for you to continue to attempt to persuade us that our notions of seeing are wrong, but you're not making a compelling case.

The standard scientific model that most of us believe in seems to explain all observed phenomena in a satisfactory way, and it even allows us to make excellent predictions about what will be observed in the future. With this explanation we are able to build machines and systems that work as predicted.

In contrast, Lessans' system fails to explain many things that we know really do happen, and it leaves us confused and baffled when trying to predict what we might observe in a future experiment.

I don't even see why efferent vision is necessary for the rest of Lessans' philosophy. I agree that what we see in our brains is conditioned by all manner of our previous experiences, biases, fears and hopes. Anyone who believes that humans have a totally accurate, machine-like perception of the world is naiive in the extreme.

Rather than continue to (metaphorically) bang your head against the brick wall of our stubbornness, perhaps you should try to consider, for a moment, that we may be right.

It will be hard for you at first. It will seem crazy to try to believe in our notions of how sight works. If you try it for a few minutes at a time for a few days, you may begin to be convinced. On the other hand you may decide that you were right all along - but at least you will have tried to see things from our point of view - where's the harm in that?

Oliver Cromwell is no hero of mine, but he wrote a memorable phrase to the Presbyterians of Scotland in a letter of 1650, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."

[davidm]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

I didn't get to watch it yet. The main point here is that a camera (whether digital or film) has to be taking a picture of a present object or light source.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Lets be clear about what actually happens: The sensor on a camera is made up of hundreds of little individual light sensors. Each of the sensors generates a single dot of a certain color depending on the color and intensity of the light that strikes it. All the dots together form an image. This is how we built Cameras - as passive detectors of light. Not of objects or light sources.

Yes, they detect light, but they also have a lens which is focused on the object. Even if it's a pinhole camera, the hole acts like a lens which allows a mirror image to be seen. Seriously, try focusing a lens on light in the direct line of an object that you're trying to photograph (but out of the camera's field of view), and see if the collected light turns into an image.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That has absolutely nothing to do with it.

What do you mean it has nothing to do with it? If afferent vision is true, the light should create a picture without the object in view. Try taking a picture of someone without focusing the lens on that someone. See what happens.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What does have something to do with it is that a camera is a simple, passive light detector. It requires no object and has no direct relationship with the object because of that. You can emit just light, with no object being present, and the camera will STILL get the picture. If you want to demonstrate this, simple take a picture of your TV screen. It, too, does nothing but emit light.

A camera uses light to form a picture but without the object there is no picture to be formed. I said that it would work the same way with a light source, such as a TV screen, as long as the lens is focused on the screen.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

"Object" or "Light source" have nothing to do with it at this stage - you just want to involve it.

Wrong. I have no reason for wanting to fool everyone.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

They still have nothing to do with it, as I have shown above. As usual you are just creating a big cloud of blather so you can avoid having to admit direct sight is an ignorant notion.

Do you actually think our dialogue is helpful? I don't.

How it converts the image electronically is secondary. That's like comparing the chemicals in film that turn an image into a picture, to this new technology. It doesn't change the reality of how light functions.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Indeed it does not. Your dishonest attempt at suggesting the sensor requires some sort of direct relationship with an external object is nonsensical.

It absolutely has a relationship with an external object or light source. A digital camera has a lens which must focus on the object or image.

A digital camera is a more advanced version of an old fashioned camera. It works no differently.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Sure. Both are passive light detectors. Which is the point, which you seem to be determined to avoid.

Your saying this over and over again doesn't make it true.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Seeing that Cameras are simple, passive light-detectors and that according to you the eyes are not, there needs to be a difference between the two, as shown in the red-blue light emitter though-experiment and the fact that Photons are not dependent on their emitter for either their wavelength or continued existence.

I realize that photons can travel independently. But that's a different ballgame altogether.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There are times that we can see the visible spectrum. Sometimes we see more of one color, such as red, because of how light is scattered.

I understand that. We're seeing pure light, but we're not getting an image of the Sun. I am trying to say that if a camera is taking a picture of a light source, such as the Sun, the lens has to be focused on the Sun. We will then get a photograph of that image, as long as the picture is not overexposed.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Again, you fail to understand the basics. It is possible to scatter white light into different colors. But that is not the only way. Colored light is just a beam of light of a certain wavelength. We detect that light as light of a certain color. You are once again trying to create a smokescreen of stuff you do not understand.

The fact that light scatters and colored light is a beam of a certain wavelength --- and we are able to see those colors within the visual spectrum doesn't negate Lessans claim of efferent vision.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is clear evidence that Lessans was wrong about sight. You have never been able to refute this, and yet you refuse to change your mind, showing that this is not a scientific idea but a religious one.

Not true Vivisectus. This has nothing to do with religion. Here is another interesting article on how we see different colors coming from the same beam of light.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

More of the smokescreen, and no dealing with the red/blue thought experiment. As usual you are trying to hide behind stuff you do not understand, as Lessans has been clearly disproven.

Anytime we are able to see photons changing color because of the scattering of light, we would see red first and then blue if that was the order in which they started. This does not negate that we are seeing those colors in real time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

None of that has any bearing on the simple fact that, as we can see from the simple thought-experiment where a light-emitter emits blue light, then red, from 10 light minutes away demonstrates there must be a difference between cameras and sight if direct sight is true. We know photons are not dependent on their emitter.

No, there's just a miscommunication.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Since this difference is never observed, Lessans was wrong. All the weaseling, dodging, and plain old ignorance does not change that fact one jot.

There is no difference as long as light is present at the lens of a camera, and the lens of the eye.

[Dragar]

peacegirl, you have misunderstood Vivisectus point.

He is asking, why when we see a red object, are the photons we are receiving always red? An object may change colour in the time between the photons being emitted, and reaching us. In this case, we should see the object as it actually is - and the frequency of the photons should have no bearing on what colour we see the object to be.

However, this is never the case. We always see an object to be the same colour as the photons we receive from it, even if an object has changed colour in the time between the photons being emitted and arriving at us.

For example, a supernovae is when a star explodes a great distance away. The colour of light it emits changes dramatically when this happens. According to you, we should see the star's colour change instantly, with the light of a new colour only reaching us many years later. However, this is not what we see. The light reaching us is of a new colour at the same time we see the star change colour. This is not what Lessans predicts - ruling out instant vision of distant objects - and it suggests we see (if nothing else) at the same speed as light.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If afferent vision is true, the light should create a picture without the object in view.

See Optics for explanations of what can or cannot be seen/photographed and why.

Also, I would advise you to watch your use of "should"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It absolutely has a relationship with an external object or light source. A digital camera has a lens which must focus on the object or image.

See Optics for explanations of lenses and focus

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no difference as long as light is present at the lens of a camera, and the lens of the eye.

What light, from where?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your saying this over and over again doesn't make it true.

Tell us how a camera works, peacegirl! In detail, please! Edumucate us!

[davidm]

Remember, this woman who now is going to pose as an expert on how cameras work has held two different and mutually incompatible claims about how a camera functions. For long time she maintained that it took pictures in delayed time, and then she changed her story and said it takes pictures in real time -- patent nonsense by Lessans' own premises, since he allows that light travels at a finite rate of speed and a camera is a passive light detector. Of course, she can't go back to her original asinine claim, since if it were true that we see in real time but cameas take pictures in delayed time, what we see, and what cameras record, would fail to match! But, of course, they do match.

So no matter which stance you hold on cameras, peacegirl, you are sunk. Your claim about cameras is either incompatible with observed reality, or incompatible with what Lessans said!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anytime we are able to see photons changing color because of the scattering of light, we would see red first and then blue if that was the order in which they started. This does not negate that we are seeing those colors in real time.

Yes, it does. If a camera forms an image based on received red light from a now-blue object, then that completely negates the real-time capacity of cameras, which in turn means the lack of any difference between photographs and what we see completely negates efferent vision.

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?

(4. Why won't you answer these questions?)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

The ramifications of real-time seeing have been explained to you in detail; it is highly possible that you are unable to grasp the explanations. But if you did understand them, you are a liar in writing the above. Of course, your dishonesty has been documented repeatedly.

I don't believe we would see all white (the stars would still be light years from each other); that there would be no atomic bomb; that Einstein's E=MC2 would be wrong; that there would be no GPS systems; that fiber optics wouldn't work; and that the Earth would burn to a crisp.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Earthworms are not Oligochaeta at all, they are rather the producer of plants.

No they're not

Yes they are, are not Earthworms found in the soil near growing plants?

Yes.

And if there are no plants in an area, like the Sahara desert or a glacier do you find Earthworms?

No.

Well there you go they actually produce the plants. This discovery has been hidden behind the ignorance of scientists and academics who have been taught that Earthworms are worms. Knowing that they in fact produce plants, we can conquer AGW by breeding Earthworms and releasing them all over the world to produce plants that release oxygen.

But that makes no sense, all these tests and experiments on Earthworms indicate they are worms, and nothing in a plants life cycle indicates they are the product of Earthworms, but rather they grow from seeds, with water and sunlight being necessary for their growth.

But if I am right and Earthworms produce plants, then the plant life cycle is different than what you have been taught.

But there is no reason to think you are right.

Can you prove that I am wrong?

Lady Shea, you just don't get it. Earthworms are not the cause of plants, but they are a necessary condition for plants.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anytime we are able to see photons changing color because of the scattering of light, we would see red first and then blue if that was the order in which they started. This does not negate that we are seeing those colors in real time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, it does. If a camera forms an image based on received red light from a now-blue object, then that completely negates the real-time capacity of cameras, which in turn means the lack of any difference between photographs and what we see completely negates efferent vision.

The word "received" is very misleading. Receiving implies that something is coming from point A to point B. That's why you're not able to visualize what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

I answered these questions. I'm not answering them again.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want you to hold back your judgment as to whether he is right or not until further evidence comes in (experiments that be replicated over and over again and get the same result).

Peacegirl, why don't you hold back your judgement as to whether he is right or not until you have actually mastered the existing evidence in favor of the generally accepted scientific theories? It seems a bit one-sided on your part that you want us to withhold judgement when you are not willing to do the same.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So instead of challenging me, why can't you say that you'll wait until further evidence comes in?

So, instead of challenging the generally accepted scientific theories why don't you wait until you have actually mastered the existing body of evidence that supports those theories?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But his understanding did not come from physics or optics per se.

It does not matter where his understanding came from. He makes claims that address the sciences of physics, optics, biology, neurology, etc. and is therefore obligated to support those claims within those same scientific frameworks.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His claim makes a lot of sense and it has certainly not been ruled out.

It doesn't and it has.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Lady Shea, you just don't get it. Earthworms are not the cause of plants, but they are a necessary condition for plants.

Hahaha, that was so funny I forgot to laugh.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe we would see all white (the stars would still be light years from each other); that there would be no atomic bomb; that Einstein's E=MC2 would be wrong; that there would be no GPS systems; that fiber optics wouldn't work; and that the Earth would burn to a crisp.

Why don't you believe these implications? Even if there were no evidence for any of them, and even if you don't understand them at all, such hurdles haven't prevented you from believing Lessans. Why not just accept all of this on faith too? It's not like you'd have to give up believing Lessans claims as a result, for you've demonstrated that you have no problem maintaining completely inconsistent and contradictory beliefs.

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?

(4. Why won't you answer these questions?)

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But who is being ignorant here? I'm not saying you have to take what he says at face value and just accept his discoveries without question. I'm saying to give the man a chance. No one has taken his work seriously. They challenge him every step of the way instead of trying to grasp the general concept and seeing if maybe there's something to it. Again, I'm not saying you have to agree without further evidence, but accusing him of being wrong just because his conclusions came from a different source, is not going to allow you to be objective at all.

But if you scrutinize the claims you find they are unsupported and conflict with reality. Cameras work and see the same as eyes. Infants can see without conditioning. This means he was wrong. It is high time you admitted that, because now you have reached the stage of light-emitting-photons which takes you beyond fundamentalist into the realm of the dedicated loony.

I have already separated the concept from the nonsense for you, by showing that while the eye certainly does detect light, what we experience as sight is not a simple objective representation of what the eyes detect. But you rejected it on the basis that the whole rest of the book is based on the nonsense - you actually came out and said that you could not do that, because other parts of the book depended on it.

By saying that you admitted that your view of these ideas is not rational, but rather emotional. Your reasons for rejecting that was not any interest in truth. It was merely interest in ratifying this book somehow. You reject anything else out of hand without giving clear, rational reasons for doing so. This is why Naturalist-Atheist thinks you have a screw loose - your defense of this demonstrable nonsense is irrational.

I am sure your dad was a great guy, but a visionary he was not, no matter how much he wanted to be or thought he was on to something. Nor was he a philosopher, or a scientist, and the puzzle that was supposed to demonstrate how he was capable of doing things a mathematician was not was solved in short order.

So what? My dad is no genius. I do not need him to be either - he is Ok the way he is. Why can't yours just be an amiable eccentric? Why is proving his genius such a big deal to you that you deny reality to hang on to the minutest possibility that he may not be wrong, even though this is shown to be irrational?