A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that the only way to refute this is to prove Lessans right. If I can't do that, your precious moons of Jupiter won. Golly gee.

You miss the point, as usual.

The moons of Jupiter experiment prove that he is wrong.

Every other experiment agrees with the moons of Jupiter experiment.

So Lessans is wrong.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by davidm

You miss the point, as usual.

The moons of Jupiter experiment prove that he is wrong.

Every other experiment agrees with the moons of Jupiter experiment.

So Lessans is wrong.

Astronomical observations such as these prove that we do not see in real time. Therefore, Lessans was wrong.


If you cannot or will not admit that Lessans was wrong in the face of evidence that proves he was wrong, then you are lying when you claim that you're interested in the truth.

It's as simple as that.


So either address the fact that astronomical observations (as confirmed by on-the-spot data relayed by space probes) prove that we don't see in real time or admit that you were never interested in the truth at all; only in peddling Lessans' claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Your "homegrown experiment" won't demonstrate anything that we don't already know. That this is so -- and why -- has been explained to you in detail. As is entirely typical of you, you've ignored the explanations.

That's because you're lying, you liar. I'm not being rude; I'm providing an accurate assessment of your behavior.


There's a reason that you run from the "Jupiter's moons" experiment -- an experiment that you could easily do for yourself -- like it was a cobra with a really bad temper. That's because it conclusively demonstrates that Lessans was wrong and that we don't see in real time.

And there's nothing "theoretical" about it.

We've sent space probes to each of the outer planets. Those probes were able to provide precise positional information on each of the outer planets and their moons, and then relayed it to Earth. In every single instance, their on-site measurements demonstrated that where we see a distant planet or moon is not where it is when we look at it. And in every single instance the difference between where we see the planet/moon and where it actually is corresponds exactly to the delay in sight that is imposed by the finite speed of light.

This proves to any reasonable standard of "proof" that we cannot and do not see in "real time."


Now kindly address this fact from which you're so desperately trying to run -- a fact which utterly demolishes Lessans' claims regarding vision. If you cannot or will not do so, you're tacitly admitting that you're a coward and/or a liar.

I understand the dilemma but I still say there could be another explanation. I know I'm not a coward or a liar and I don't have to prove anything to you. I will continue down the path of trying to prove that efferent vision is not just a figment of the imagination, nor is it something I can't let go of because of an emotional attachment. Therefore, at the moment we're going to have to agree to disagree. You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A reflection does not have to travel. The Sun's light passes over the object and allows the image to be seen. Remember we're talking about efferent vision, not afferent. That's where you're having a problem. Maybe if you think about this long enough, it will eventually sink in. I had my whole life to think about it, and I also wasn't entrenched with other ideas that could have caused a conflict like the one you're having.

The conflict is entirely yours. You agreed that a reflection consists of light. Light has to travel. Therefore a reflection has to travel too.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the image on the retina is what allows the brain to see, through the eyes, as a window. It doesn't stop at the retina, as in film. We don't develop photographs; we see the world in real time through the eyes.

You are still avoiding the point. If cameras function as you think they do, then the real-time information is right there at the film, such that no 'looking out' is required. That means the same information is there for the retina too, so there is no need for the brain to look out past the retina when it could simply observe the same real-time information you think will be there to interact with a camera's film.

[The Lone Ranger]

Anyone who claims to be interested in the truth but refuses to address data that flatly disprove their claims is lying (consciously or not) when they claim they're actually interested in finding out the truth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Astronomical observations such as these prove that we do not see in real time. Therefore, Lessans was wrong.


If you cannot or will not admit that Lessans was wrong in the face of evidence that proves he was wrong, then you are lying when you claim that you're interested in the truth.

It's as simple as that.


So either address the fact that astronomical observations (as confirmed by on-the-spot data relayed by space probes) prove that we don't see in real time or admit that you were never interested in the truth at all; only in peddling Lessans' claims.

And I can say the same thing about you. You have a complete lack of interest in any experiment that might offer evidence to the contrary. Why do you just close your ears to anything that might shed light on what is true, whether it be the moons of Jupiter experiment or something else?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Anyone who claims to be interested in the truth but refuses to address data that flatly disprove their claims is lying (consciously or not) when they claim they're actually interested in finding out the truth.

The same thing could be said about you. If the shoe fits, wear it.

[The Lone Ranger]

You liar. As many people have explained to you the experiments have been done.

Heck, I've done many of them myself.

You can be a truly loathsome person sometimes, you know that?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It takes photons coming from the Sun to produce daylight, and we need daylight in order to see objects in the material world.

Have you ever taken a photograph of an object at night using a flash? If you have, please explain how you think that works.

Keep in mind the fact that the only available light in such a situation is the light from the flash. That light strikes the object that you are taking a picture of and is then reflected off that object. The camera captures some of that reflected light and this light forms an image on the film. There is no other light in play here. No light from the sun and no daylight, yet the camera manages to record an image of an object in the material world.

If you think that something else is going on here, please explain what you think actually happens when you take a picture in the dark using a flash.

Forget the camera for a moment. Have you ever shined a flashlight on an object in a dark room? Were you able to see that object? How do you think that works?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The brain, looking through the eyes, sees the actual object using light as a condition, while a camera uses the instant reflection of that light to form a picture.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the lightwaves that are reflected are instantly there.

Please define "instant reflection".

Keep in mind that 'reflect' is just another way of saying 'bounce'. Anytime something bounces off of something else the thing that is bouncing is in motion. You can demonstrate this yourself by bouncing a ball off of a wall. Saying that something is in motion is just another way of saying that it is traveling through space. Anything that is in motion/traveling through space is traveling a some rate of speed. The rate at which light travels is a known quantity. We call it the speed of light. So, when light bounces off an object (i.e. is reflected) it is traveling at the speed of light (or slower if it is not in a vacuum). That being the case, it takes some amount of time for that reflected light to travel from the object it has bounced off of to the device that receives it.

So, please define "instant reflection" and describe what is being reflected and how it can be reflected instantly.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand the dilemma but I still say there could be another explanation. I know I'm not a coward or a liar and I don't have to prove anything to you. I will continue down the path of trying to prove that efferent vision is not just a figment of the imagination, nor is it something I can't let go of because of an emotional attachment. Therefore, at the moment we're going to have to agree to disagree. You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want.

Sorry, no, this is not a matter of competing beliefs. It is a matter of fact. The facts are decided against what Lessans said. So your belief doesn't amount to a pile of crap.

In my opinion this is why everyone should simply ignore you. You have just admitted that no facts will sway you, and everything, even proof, comes down to belief for you. According to you, the Jupiter thing is just a "belief," as good any other. But it isn't. It's a fact and the fact proves that Lessans is wrong.

And that you are nuts.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I can say the same thing about you. You have a complete lack of interest in any experiment that might offer evidence to the contrary. Why do you just close your ears to anything that might shed light on what is true, whether it be the moons of Jupiter experiment or something else?

Oh, really? Which experiment might offer evidence to the contrary? Show it to us! Describe it for us! There is no such experiment. Every experiment ever done confirms delayed-time seeing, and that we see by light! Every one of them! If you have an experiment that shows differently, then trot it out! Otherwise, stfu!

And no, Lessans saying so does NOT constitute an experiment or evidence of any kind.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The same thing could be said about you. If the shoe fits, wear it.

You can SAY whatever you want, just like the buffoon Lessans could say whatever he wanted to say, but it doesn't make it true. The only liar here is you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The same thing could be said about you. If the shoe fits, wear it.

There is nothing that disproves afferent vision, and everything that disproves efferent vision. There is everything that proves afferent vision, and nothing that proves efferent vision. Afferent is a proven scientific theory, Efferent vision is an unproven fiction.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The same thing could be said about you. If the shoe fits, wear it.

This is another example of your dishonesty, by the way.

Do you truly believe something so idiotic as that I or any other working scientist worth his salt would refuse to acknowledge actual evidence that disproved some of the most basic and well-tested of all scientific theories? Man, if such evidence existed, I'd practically kill for the chance to publish it.

Not only would I be guaranteed a Nobel Prize, but I could easily retire on the proceeds from the book deals and speaking engagements, and live the rest of my life in luxury.

So could you, if only you'd actually pony up some of this evidence that you keep insisting exists -- but for some reason refuse to produce.

[ceptimus]

There is great excitement in the science community, at the moment, about an experiment carried out between CERN and Italy where it seems that particles called neutrinos appear to be travelling faster than the speed of light.

Note that the results don't show them to be going MUCH faster than light - in fact they only seem to exceed the speed of light by a ratio of about 2.5 x 10-5. That's comparable with athletes running a hundred metre race and the winning margin being only about 2mm!

Most scientists think that the particles are not really going faster than light, and that some kind of mistake has been made with the measurements. But they are all very interested to try and identify the mistakes (if such they are), and there are also attempts being made to replicate the experiment in the USA and Japan. However, the equipment required is so complex that it will take a few years before the results of the replication experiments are available.

So if peacegirl, or anyone, can suggest ANY experiment, and especially a simple one that demonstrates faster-than-light seeing, we can be sure that the science community would be very interested in attempting to replicate that experiment.

But what is peacegirl's suggested experiment? As far as I can tell she's talking about photographing an object with a camera, and then moving the object further away until the camera is no longer able to photograph it.

The experiment is certainly easy to carry out, and has already been done many times, but what is it supposed to show? Does anyone understand what peacegirl hopes to demonstrate with this 'experiment'? I'm at a loss.

[Angakuk]

I think that what she hopes to show is that it is not the light coming from the object that is being captured by the camera and converted into an image. Her argument is that if it was the light coming from the object then, since the photons continue to travel in a straight line, the distance between the camera and the object should not represent an obstacle to taking a picture of an object. Since the camera should still be able to capture those photons. If, however, distance does represent an obstacle then it must not be the case that a camera's ability to take a picture depends upon capturing light coming from an object. Her whole notion of real time seeing relies on there being some mechanism at work other than that of capturing light coming from an object. What that mechanism might be she doesn't, and apparently can't, say.

[Escapegoat]

Five hundred seventeen pages? I proclaim peacegirl the most successful troll I have yet encountered!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The conflict is entirely yours. You agreed that a reflection consists of light. Light has to travel. Therefore a reflection has to travel too.

A reflection consists of light only because our eyes see that which it reflects. That's what Lessans meant when he said light is a condition of sight. The light itself does not change wavelengths apart from the object it is reflecting, as if it carries that wavelength along with it. I hope you understand that I know it doesn't carry anything literally.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the image on the retina is what allows the brain to see, through the eyes, as a window. It doesn't stop at the retina, as in film. We don't develop photographs; we see the world in real time through the eyes.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are still avoiding the point. If cameras function as you think they do, then the real-time information is right there at the film, such that no 'looking out' is required. That means the same information is there for the retina too, so there is no need for the brain to look out past the retina when it could simply observe the same real-time information you think will be there to interact with a camera's film.

The same information is there, granted, but we cannot use this information in any real way, although it's been proven that we can see patterns coming from the optic nerve. It's probably like seeing a negative of a picture. A negative doesn't allow us to get a true picture of reality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Escapegoat

Five hundred seventeen pages? I proclaim peacegirl the most successful troll I have yet encountered!

Haha, you know why I'm successful? Because I'm not a troll. A real troll couldn't last this long.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I think that what she hopes to show is that it is not the light coming from the object that is being captured by the camera and converted into an image. Her argument is that if it was the light coming from the object then, since the photons continue to travel in a straight line, the distance between the camera and the object should not represent an obstacle to taking a picture of an object. Since the camera should still be able to capture those photons. If, however, distance does represent an obstacle then it must not be the case that a camera's ability to take a picture depends upon capturing light coming from an object. Her whole notion of real time seeing relies on there being some mechanism at work other than that of capturing light coming from an object. What that mechanism might be she doesn't, and apparently can't, say.

How can distance represent an obstacle if afferent vision is true? The reasoning doesn't even make sense that because light travels so fast the reflection off of the object bypasses the lens or causes the picture to be overexposed. How is that possible if it reflects a picture within the visual field that is closer to the lens? The mechanism at work is the same mechanism that science believes is occurring... with one main difference. The object that is reflecting the light is doing just that. The object is doing; not the light. The light is doing what it's properties do, which is to reflect off of objects, but the light does not change in any way as it passes over those objects.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A reflection consists of light only because our eyes see that which it reflects. That's what Lessans meant when he said light is a condition of sight. The light itself does not change wavelengths apart from the object it is reflecting, as if it carries that wavelength along with it. I hope you understand that I know it doesn't carry anything literally.

Light doesn't reflect anything, remember? Objects reflect light. You already agreed to this. The afferent model doesn't say that the wavelengths change, or that the light carries an object's wavelength along with it. We already corrected you on that. You are perpetuating a strawman version of afferent vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The same information is there, granted, but we cannot use this information in any real way, although it's been proven that we can see patterns coming from the optic nerve. It's probably like seeing a negative of a picture. A negative doesn't allow us to get a true picture of reality.

So the human brain is incapable of doing what a simple photosensitive sheet of paper can do? If a totally inanimate piece of film can form an accurate real-time photographic image from nothing but the properties of the light striking it, then there's no reason whatsoever why the brain could not do the same.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

There is great excitement in the science community, at the moment, about an experiment carried out between CERN and Italy where it seems that particles called neutrinos appear to be travelling faster than the speed of light.

Note that the results don't show them to be going MUCH faster than light - in fact they only seem to exceed the speed of light by a ratio of about 2.5 x 10-5. That's comparable with athletes running a hundred metre race and the winning margin being only about 2mm!

Most scientists think that the particles are not really going faster than light, and that some kind of mistake has been made with the measurements. But they are all very interested to try and identify the mistakes (if such they are), and there are also attempts being made to replicate the experiment in the USA and Japan. However, the equipment required is so complex that it will take a few years before the results of the replication experiments are available.

So if peacegirl, or anyone, can suggest ANY experiment, and especially a simple one that demonstrates faster-than-light seeing, we can be sure that the science community would be very interested in attempting to replicate that experiment.

But what is peacegirl's suggested experiment? As far as I can tell she's talking about photographing an object with a camera, and then moving the object further away until the camera is no longer able to photograph it.

The experiment is certainly easy to carry out, and has already been done many times, but what is it supposed to show? Does anyone understand what peacegirl hopes to demonstrate with this 'experiment'? I'm at a loss.

Ceptimus, once again your response was perfect up until half way through. This is not about seeing faster than the speed of light. That sounds crazy to anyone reading this. It sounds like I'm a nutcase to even hint that this is what I'm suggesting, but that's not what I'm suggesting at all.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?
Light

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?
At the film.

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?
The wavelengths.

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?
No. The photons coming from the Sun were already at the camera.

5. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?
Of course not.

6. Can light travel faster than light?
No.

7. Is wavelength a property of light?
Yes.

8. Can light travel without any wavelength?
No.

9. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?
Objects reflect light.

10. What does a reflection consist of?
Light.

11. What does light consist of?
Photons.

Your answer to Q4 here is still problematic. So let me ask a new version:

4. At any given time, for the light which is then present at the film and interacting with it, was that light previously anywhere else, or was that same light always at the film, or did it just spontaneously come into existence there?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A reflection consists of light only because our eyes see that which it reflects. That's what Lessans meant when he said light is a condition of sight. The light itself does not change wavelengths apart from the object that is reflecting that light, as if it carries that wavelength along with it. I hope you understand that I know it doesn't carry anything literally.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Light doesn't reflect anything, remember? Objects reflect light. You already agreed to this.

I changed what I said to make it clearer. I mean to say objects reflect light, or light is reflected off of objects, which means the same thing.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The afferent model doesn't say that the wavelengths change, or that the light carries an object's wavelength along with it. We already corrected you on that. You are perpetuating a strawman version of afferent vision.

I thought that people are saying that the light changes its frequency and wavelength as it bounces off of objects and travels through space and time until it strikes the eye or camera. How else would afferent vision work if not for this attribute?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The same information is there, granted, but we cannot use this information in any real way, although it's been proven that we can see patterns coming from the optic nerve. It's probably like seeing a negative of a picture. A negative doesn't allow us to get a true picture of reality.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey"

So the human brain is incapable of doing what a simple photosensitive sheet of paper can do? If a totally inanimate piece of film can form an accurate real-time photographic image from nothing but the properties of the light striking it, then there's no reason whatsoever why the brain could not do the same.

Forming an accurate real-time photographic image on film is not the same thing as developing that film into a picture. By the same token, capturing light sensitive photons on the retina is not the same thing as using that information (by means of our cones and rods) to see what actually exists in real time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your answer to Q4 here is still problematic. So let me ask a new version:

4. At any given time, for the light which is then present at the film and interacting with it, was that light previously anywhere else, or was that same light always at the film, or did it just spontaneously come into existence there?

Yes, light is always being renewed from the Sun's constant energy. So when we happen to look in the direction of the object, the reflection is due to the photons that are passing over that object at that moment in time. I never said that light does not travel at a finite speed, so please don't intimate that this is what I've been saying.