A revolution in thought

[Rickoshay75]

Peacegirl: if there is new evidence that does not support a certain theory (which has been accepted as fact), then science needs to make modifications.

Definitely, but it will never happen. Too many papers and books would have to be changed, reputations would suffer, credibility would be questioned, and existing units (if any) would cost too much money to modify

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree. They understand a lot, but there is more to be learned. To say that they have it all figured out could be an obstacle to exploring new ideas.

Hmmm, Has Peacegirl found a 'soulmate' who will believe what she has to say? Two lonely voices crying in the wilderness.

[Rickoshay75]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Perhaps you should do what Peacegirl refuses to do, check into the scientific research that has been done, through experimentation, and the examination of the human body.

Ok. Can you recommend a book that explains it all?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

if there is new evidence that does not support a certain theory (which has been accepted as fact), then science needs to make modifications.

There is no new evidence, only a lot of fantasy and unsupported assertions.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

Ok. Can you recommend a book that explains it all?

No, If you're really interested you can find it, online or in a library, if you expect to be spoon fed you're no better than Peacegirl.

BTW there is a lot that has been posted on this forum, take your time there's a lot to read.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light from the sun is at the camera if it's daylight because the stream of photons are everywhere. It doesn't go from the object to the camera. If it's not daylight, then the light must be surrounding the object, not the camera, for a picture to be taken or for us to see the object with our eyes.

So if the light arrived directly from the sun, rather than arriving via the object (our newly-blue ball) being photographed, then why is that light of blue wavelength only, rather than a combination of all wavelengths like regular sunlight?

[Stephen Maturin]

Huzzah! A sock puppet show! I love sock puppet shows!

[Rickoshay75]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Hmmm, Has Peacegirl found a 'soulmate' who will believe what she has to say? Two lonely voices crying in the wilderness.

>>

Truth is truth and fact is fact, no matter who utters or writes it.

[Rickoshay75]

Originally Posted by thedoc

There is no new evidence, only a lot of fantasy and unsupported assertions.

I agree, but that doesn't mean people will stop believing it, expanding it, exploiting it.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yep, that would have been a great evolutionary adaptation; oh, Lone Ranger, why didn't natural selection produce such an animal?

.................................................. .................................................. ..

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

Truth is truth and fact is fact, no matter who utters or writes it.

I agree as long as the truth is true, and the facts are factual, but fiction and fantasy don't count and must be dismissed.

Challenge; find any truth or fact in anything that Peacegirl or Lessans has written.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

.................................................. .................................................. ..

Oh, WOW, two guys in a funny costume.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

An image is what we see when certain wavelengths are absorbed and others remain.

No, what are we seeing? What is that image on the back of the pinhole camera? We don't need to see it for it to be there. So what is it?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do the rods and cones do?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They allow us to see color and to see in low light.

How do they do that?

Pick 3 major functions and explain how they work within the efferent vision model

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since you agree that light travels and can be reflected or absorbed, what happens to the photons that hit or eyes or our cameras?
Why do the moons of Jupiter appear to be one place when we observe them, though that is not their known, actual location?

You are mushing this altogether. I stated that light travels but it does not reflect the image. Do you not get this? What's the problem?

We never said "light reflects the image" either, that phrase has no meaning, and we've never used it, so that's either you misrepresenting our view or not understanding our view.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop using the moons of Jupiter until further evidence comes in, or you are protecting your worldview based on a [possible] mistake more than wanting to know the truth.

I'm asking you to explain the Moons of Jupiter observation under efferent vision.

There is no mistake in the observations, you can observe it for yourself!!!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This constant attack on me is getting very old. If you don't want to work with me to see if Lessans could have been right, then let's give it up. I'm not here to beg for your approval.

I am trying to work with you. You haven't presented a working model even!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am trying to work with you. You haven't presented a working model even!

Yes, she has! "Voila, we see!" I'm now using it as my sig, or whatever you call those words up where the avatar is/should be.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, she has! "Voila, we see!" I'm now using it as my sig, or whatever you call those words up where the avatar is/should be.

That to my mind is the stupidist part of this whole efferent vision nonsense. "Looking out" is just a synonym for vision itself, so it cannot be posited as a component part of any explanation of that very same process. "Looking" is just another word for "seeing", so explaining "seeing" in terms of "looking out" doesn't explain anything, and only posits again the very same process it is meant to explain.

Of course this has also been pointed out to Lessans' disciple multiple times in every forum she's been to.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That to my mind is the stupidist part of this whole efferent vision nonsense. "Looking out" is just a synonym for vision itself, so it cannot be posited as a component part of any explanation of that very same process. "Looking" is just another word for "seeing", so explaining "seeing" in terms of "looking out" doesn't explain anything, and only posits again the very same process it is meant to explain.

Of course this has also been pointed out to Lessans' disciple multiple times in every forum she's been to.

Well, this is why when pressed on this, she comes out with inanities like, "Voila, we see!" It's just an admission on her part that she hasn't got a fucking clue what she is yammering about, and of course neither did Lessans.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They allow us to see color and to see in low light.

How? What is it that the rods and cones are doing that allows us to see?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not retracting anything. We need light to see, regardless of where it comes from.

You previously claimed that we needed daylight, produced by light from the Sun, in order to see objects in the material world. You are now saying that daylight, produced by light from the Sun, is not necessary in order to see objects in the material world. That is what is known as a retraction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, because the photons are being reflected but not the image.

No one here ever claimed that anything other than the photons were being reflected. Given that there are photons that are being reflected by an object, where do they go and what do they do when they get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But light is not bouncing off the object and carrying the wavelength of the object with it.
Light strikes the object and certain wavelengths are absorbed allowing the object to be seen in the process.

What happens to the light that is not absorbed? Does it go somewhere? If so, where does it go and what does it do when it gets there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is acting as a medium because it is allowing the eyes to see the object. The image is not in the light as it travels to the eye. After all this time, no one gets what I'm saying even a little bit?

How does the light allow us to see the object? What is the light doing that allows us to see the object?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The photons that allow us to see the object are at the retina the minute we open our eyes.

Where did those photons come from and how did they get to our eyes? Having arrived at our eyes, what exactly is it that they are doing that allows us to see the object?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

Peacegirl: if there is new evidence that does not support a certain theory (which has been accepted as fact), then science needs to make modifications.

Definitely, but it will never happen. Too many papers and books would have to be changed, reputations would suffer, credibility would be questioned, and existing units (if any) would cost too much money to modify

I would hope that in the name of "truth", scientists would put aside their reputations. Ego is a serious problem if it gets in the way of progress. There really isn't any one person's reputation that would be ruined since the idea that the eyes are a sense organ started way back in Aristotle's time. Therefore this would be an easy logistical error to make.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

You know, sometime along the duration of this long, torturous thread, I read Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole by Stephen Law. I swear, that book was practically written with peacegirl in mind.

"It's only a theory" - Seriously? Just like evolution is "only a theory"?

I could turn it around and say you are so suckered into everything that science theorizes, that you can't allow yourself to see the unintentional error that science has made. I can't get through the block that prevents you from taking this knowledge seriously.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

By who? By you?



The woman who thinks photons give off photons?

You're just looking for a red herring to distract people. It doesn't surprise me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

The Doc: Just because scientists don't know everything does not mean that what they do know is wrong. What is known is tested and reliable knowledge anything else is built on existing knowledge refining it and making it more accurate. It's very seldom that what is known is changed in a significant way, we just learn in more detail and accuracy.

Frankly I don't see how they can know how the human body functions as a system. Everything is inside, behind a wall of flesh and bones, and all the new detectors are a poor substitute for what we can detect with our eyes.

It isn't as though they can trace all the paths of the nerve systems like the wires in a house.

Thank you! We can't know everything about the human body. We can only get clues as to what is happening. We have to become more like Socrates by admitting that we really don't know.

[ceptimus]

It's bullshit to suggest that scientists aren't interested in results that challenge their accepted theories; those are the results that interest them the most! Just look at all the fuss about the CERN results right now that provisionally suggest that some particles travel a tiny bit faster than light.

And scientists are always very willing to admit when they don't understand something properly; an example at the moment is high-temperature superconductors. Superconductivity at very low temperature is fairly well understood, but researchers keep finding new materials that continue to be superconducting at higher and higher temperatures - to the point where some materials are superconductors at temperatures not much lower than inside your freezer. Scientists can't really explain this fully. There is a probable Nobel Prize awaiting the scientist who makes a breakthrough in superconductivity theory, and there will be multi-billion dollar industries built on the back of room temperature superconductors, if and when they are made.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

It's bullshit that scientists aren't interested in results that challenge their accepted theories;

But it's an idea that supports Peacegirl's line that scientists are unwilling to consider efferent vision. She refuses to look at or acknowledge that scientists have ever considered and tested this concept, therefore the stubborn insistence that more testing is needed, in spite of the fact that vision has been well tested already, and found to be afferent.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

It's bullshit to suggest that scientists aren't interested in results that challenge their accepted theories; those are the results that interest them the most! Just look at all the fuss about the CERN results right now that provisionally suggest that some particles travel a tiny bit faster than light.

And scientists are always very willing to admit when they don't understand something properly; an example at the moment is high-temperature superconductors. Superconductivity at very low temperature is fairly well understood, but researchers keep finding new materials that continue to be superconducting at higher and higher temperatures - to the point where some materials are superconductors at temperatures not much lower than inside your freezer. Scientists can't really explain this fully. There is a probable Nobel Prize awaiting the scientist who makes a breakthrough in superconductivity theory, and there will be multi-billion dollar industries built on the back of room temperature superconductors, if and when they are made.

Or the Nobel Prize awarded to Perlmutter for overturning the accepted model of cosmology.