A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to get into explaining the exact model at this point.

Oh, but you have! It's fucking brilliant!

"Voila! We see!"

I have explained enough about light and sight to show that efferent vision is not out of the question like so many in here believe.

"Voila! We see!"

[LadyShea]

Without a mechanism or detailed explanation to compare to what we observe in the lab, validity cannot be determined

[LadyShea]

Did you actually read the studies, rather than what one person thought about the studies, peacegirl?

The dogs developed antibodies but they recorded no adverse health effects resulting from these antibodies. What was that study supposed to prove?

haywardstudyonvaccines

As in two previous studies we conducted, we confirmed that vaccinated dogs when compared with non-vaccinated dogs have a higher concentration of antibodies in their serum directed against bovine proteins such as thyroglobulin and fibronectin. These antibodies are probably produced in response to contaminants from fetal calf serum commonly used to make canine vaccines. These anti-bovine antibodies probably then cross-react with a dog’s own thyroglobulin and fibronectin, resulting in detectable concentrations of autoantibodies in their serum. It would be difficult to design a study in pet dogs to prove this process of cross-reaction between bovine and canine proteins actually causes clinical signs of autoimmune disease in vaccinated dogs. There were too many differences between the vaccinated and unvaccinated Great Danes in the present study to further explore the clinical consequences of vaccine-related auto-antibodies produced against fibronectin or thyroglobulin.

Dr. Glickman and his colleagues theorize that repeated vaccination causes dogs to produce antibodies against their own tissue. The antibodies are caused by contaminants in the vaccine introduced in the manufacturing process. While the amounts are minuscule, they gradually accumulate with repeated vaccinations over the years. But Dr. Glickman cautions that more
research is needed before a clear link can be established between antibody levels and autoimmune disease. Monthly Heartworm Medication - Atlantic Pet Hospital - Dr. Arthur Malernee - Pet Vaccines - Atlantic Pet Hospital - Dr. Arthur Malernee - Delray Beach Florida - Cat Vet - Dog Vet - Pet Vet - Veterinarian Medicine

Even if vaccines aren't perfect, they cause fewer deaths in dogs than Parvo. In humans they prevent diseases that once killed thousands of children annually.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, please think carefully about this because there is a logical explanation but only if you will allow yourself to see it. The object is capable of absorbing the wavelength [coming from the light] as we see the object in real time. We are able see the wavelength that is remaining and the only reason we didn't come to this conclusion is because we believed that the eyes were a sense organ. There is nothing being reflected. It is true that light travels at a finite speed, but it doesn't take every wavelength that it crosses with it. Light interacts with objects, but it is the property of light that we see, not the property of the object. The object is not capable of reflecting anything. All it does is absorbs certain wavelengths so we are able to see the object.

We're talking about cameras here, Peacegirl, not vision. And you've said that the light at the film (whose wavelength determines the color of the resulting image) is light which has come from the Sun directly without ever arriving by way of the object. So absorption of other wavelengths cannot explain why that light at the film is only blue light. That only makes sense if the light at the film has come from the object which absorbed the non-blue light. And you just denied that this is where that light came from. So try again.

You've said that the wavelength of the light at the film will determine the color of the resulting photographic image. You've said that this light arrived at the camera, but never travelled from the object to the camera. So...

1. Why is that light only light of blue wavelength?

2. Was it also still light of only blue wavelength just before it arrived?

(Remember, I'm asking you about cameras, not vision. Cameras, not vision.)

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never used the term "looking out". I couldn't have been more clear in explaining the difference between afferent and efferent than in this thread. Yes we see, and yes we look out, but it's how we see that makes all the difference.

Seriously? You just used it again in this very post! What is it then that you think the brain does, through the eyes as a window, to see things in real time? If not "looking out", then what exactly is the efferent part of the process?

To avoid the above objection you would have to be able to describe what the brain does without using any synonyms for vision or seeing. (Because that would be to employ the very concept you are supposed to be explaining.)

Efferent vision has no explanation for vision. We just look out and see stuff. We see by seeing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Without a mechanism or detailed explanation to compare to what we observe in the lab, validity cannot be determined

I believe based on his extremely astute observations and sound reasoning, he is correct. If people feel there needs to be more proof, I have no problem with that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to get into explaining the exact model at this point. I want to establish the validity of efferent vision before trying to figure out the exact mechanism.

You need the mechanism to establish validity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All the major functions that work with afferent vision work with efferent vision. The major functions are the retina, optic nerve, and visual cortex.

A major function of the visual cortex is the visual cortex?

Do you even know what a function is?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I meant to say the object does not reflect an image.

Nobody says objects reflect images either.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Blue is seen by the eye, but blue (the blue wavelength) is not in the light itself.

Light can be of a blue wavelength...what do you mean the blue wavelength is not in the light itself?

I thought you said understood what light is and how light works?

I didn't say there's a mistake. I said that there could be some other explanation for this phenomenon. It is not my responsibility to disprove the moons of Jupiter experiment. It's my responsibility to explain efferent vision, and why I believe Lessans was spot on. The rest is up to scientists to figure out.

The Moons of Jupiter observation definitively disproves real time seeing. So you should find an explanation for it that fits with efferent vision, or it remains conclusively wrong and no scientist will do anything but laugh at you and Lessans.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have explained enough about light and sight to show that efferent vision is not out of the question like so many in here believe.

You haven't coherently addressed any of our refutations or shown you even understand what anyone is talking about. It's out of the question unless you can show it isn't.

So far no good.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is true that light travels at a finite speed, but it doesn't take every wavelength that it crosses with it.

Once again, you demonstrate you have no clue what light is or what wavelength means. Light has a wavelength, it is an inherent property of light. It doesn't "take" or "carry" wavelengths it comes across (what does that even mean?)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The object is not capable of reflecting anything. All it does is absorbs certain wavelengths so we are able to see the object.

Then how do mirrors work?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you actually read the studies, rather than what one person thought about the studies, peacegirl?

The dogs developed antibodies but they recorded no adverse health effects resulting from these antibodies. What was that study supposed to prove?

That certain animals and people can have a bad reaction to some vaccines. I read that some animals died as a direct result.

haywardstudyonvaccines

As in two previous studies we conducted, we confirmed that vaccinated dogs when compared with non-vaccinated dogs have a higher concentration of antibodies in their serum directed against bovine proteins such as thyroglobulin and fibronectin. These antibodies are probably produced in response to contaminants from fetal calf serum commonly used to make canine vaccines. These anti-bovine antibodies probably then cross-react with a dog’s own thyroglobulin and fibronectin, resulting in detectable concentrations of autoantibodies in their serum. It would be difficult to design a study in pet dogs to prove this process of cross-reaction between bovine and canine proteins actually causes clinical signs of autoimmune disease in vaccinated dogs. There were too many differences between the vaccinated and unvaccinated Great Danes in the present study to further explore the clinical consequences of vaccine-related auto-antibodies produced against fibronectin or thyroglobulin.

Dr. Glickman and his colleagues theorize that repeated vaccination causes dogs to produce antibodies against their own tissue. The antibodies are caused by contaminants in the vaccine introduced in the manufacturing process. While the amounts are minuscule, they gradually accumulate with repeated vaccinations over the years. But Dr. Glickman cautions that more
research is needed before a clear link can be established between antibody levels and autoimmune disease. Monthly Heartworm Medication - Atlantic Pet Hospital - Dr. Arthur Malernee - Pet Vaccines - Atlantic Pet Hospital - Dr. Arthur Malernee - Delray Beach Florida - Cat Vet - Dog Vet - Pet Vet - Veterinarian Medicine

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Even if vaccines aren't perfect, they cause fewer deaths in dogs than Parvo. In humans they prevent diseases that once killed thousands of children annually.

LadyShea, I don't know if that comment is even true. I offered this article to allow people to get a glimpse of what is happening to some animals when given too many vaccines. There is a growing concern that animals could be a lot healthier if so many vaccines each year were not standard protocol. The more information we get, the better informed we will become when making an important choice for ourselves and our dependents. It is my hope (and I believe others as well) that the decision as to whether we should get our animals or children vaccinated will not be contaminated by misleading information or coercion.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then how do mirrors work?

Lol! This is Peacegirl tripping herself up. She worked out that she was misusing terms concerning reflection - objects reflecting light vs. light reflecting objects - but she has here forgotten which half of that she had agreed was incorrect and needed to reject. Just more evidence that she doesn't understand any of what she is agreeing to, and is merely repeating things back like a parrot trying to make it sound like she is in accordance with as much of established science as possible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Once again, you demonstrate you have no clue what light is or what wavelength means. Light has a wavelength, it is an inherent property of light. It doesn't "take" or "carry" wavelengths it comes across (what does that even mean?)

Light has a wavelength, obviously, but the wavelength does not travel with the wavelength of the object. I already told you that for lack of a better word I use the word "carry" which means "adopt the wavelength of the object it strikes." It doesn't take or carry anything related to the object. We see the object due to light's presence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The object is not capable of reflecting anything. All it does is absorbs certain wavelengths so we are able to see the object.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then how do mirrors work?

This doesn't change anything. We see a reflection in a mirror due to light's ability to deflect, but the image that we look at is being seen in real time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We're talking about cameras here, Peacegirl, not vision. And you've said that the light at the film (whose wavelength determines the color of the resulting image) is light which has come from the Sun directly without ever arriving by way of the object. So absorption of other wavelengths cannot explain why that light at the film is only blue light. That only makes sense if the light at the film has come from the object which absorbed the non-blue light. And you just denied that this is where that light came from. So try again.

You've said that the wavelength of the light at the film will determine the color of the resulting photographic image. You've said that this light arrived at the camera, but never travelled from the object to the camera. So...

1. Why is that light only light of blue wavelength?

2. Was it also still light of only blue wavelength just before it arrived?

(Remember, I'm asking you about cameras, not vision. Cameras, not vision.)

In addition to this, why isn't there light at the camera which has arrived from the object?

If the camera is pointed at the object, and there is a constant stream of photons hitting the object and bouncing off in all directions, why isn't any of that light arriving at the camera?

Why isn't the light at the film (whose wavelength is determining the color of the resulting photographic image) light which previously bounced off the surface of the object in order to later arrive at the camera?

If there is light from the object present, in addition to the light whose wavelength will affect the film (light which you say never came from the object), then why is only the latter light (not from the object) and not the former light (from the object) capable of affecting the film?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lol! This is Peacegirl tripping herself up. She worked out that she was misusing terms concerning reflection - objects reflecting light vs. light reflecting objects - but she has here forgotten which half of that she had agreed was incorrect and needed to reject. Just more evidence that she doesn't understand any of what she is agreeing to, and is merely repeating things back like a parrot trying to make it sound like she is in accordance with as much of established science as possible.

I am trying to understand what has been established already so I can pinpoint where the flaw is. It's actually helping me to explain efferent vision better than before because I see more clearly where the misunderstanding is stemming from. Thanks to everyone for educating me!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has a wavelength, obviously, but the wavelength does not change with every object it strikes. I already told you that for lack of a better word I use the word "carry" which means "adopt the wavelength of the object it strikes." It doesn't take or carry anything related to the object. We see the object due to light's presence.

Light cannot "adopt the wavelength of the object it strikes" because objects do not have wavelengths. The afferent model does not say that light takes or carries anything from the object. Do you not remember being corrected on this exact point already? It was only a couple of pages ago.

It is responses like this that make people suspect that in addition to your faith-related cognitive impairment, you might be suffering from an actual memory disorder.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to understand what has been established already so I can pinpoint where the flaw is. It's actually helping me to explain efferent vision better than before because I see more clearly where the misunderstanding is stemming from. Thanks to everyone for educating me!

But you don't understand what has been established already, you haven't pinpointed any flaw, you haven't improved your explanations of efferent vision (or real-time photography), and I don't think anyone here has yet actually succeeded in educating you about anything at all (despite their most valiant and commendable efforts).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, please think carefully about this because there is a logical explanation but only if you will allow yourself to see it. The object is capable of absorbing the wavelength [coming from the light] as we see the object in real time. We are able see the wavelength that is remaining and the only reason we didn't come to this conclusion is because we believed that the eyes were a sense organ. There is nothing being reflected. It is true that light travels at a finite speed, but it doesn't take every wavelength that it crosses with it. Light interacts with objects, but it is the property of light that allows us to see. The object is not capable of reflecting anything. All it does is absorbs certain wavelengths so we are able to see the object.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We're talking about cameras here, Peacegirl, not vision. And you've said that the light at the film (whose wavelength determines the color of the resulting image) is light which has come from the Sun directly without ever arriving by way of the object. So absorption of other wavelengths cannot explain why that light at the film is only blue light. That only makes sense if the light at the film has come from the object which absorbed the non-blue light. And you just denied that this is where that light came from. So try again.

I think I misunderstood you. The light at the film has come from the object which has absorbed the non-blue light. This same wavelength is used to see the object as the brain looks through the eyes. Let me repeat: It is the same wavelength in both the eyes and the camera. The only difference is that we see the object directly using the cones and rods, whereas the film interacts with the blue wavelength and develops into a photograph. If we turn our attention from the blue ball to the grass, all non-green light is absorbed so we are able to see green. Without any absorption from an object, the photons remain white.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've said that the wavelength of the light at the film will determine the color of the resulting photographic image. You've said that this light arrived at the camera, but never travelled from the object to the camera. So...

1. Why is that light only light of blue wavelength?

Because the light is a mirror image of the blue wavelength but it does not become part of the wavelength.

2. Was it also still light of only blue wavelength just before it arrived?

(Remember, I'm asking you about cameras, not vision. Cameras, not vision.)

The object absorbs all of the other wavelengths in the visual spectrum, which allows us to see blue at T1. The light allows that object to be seen directly or it allows the image to interact with the film to create a picture [using the same wavelength]. The only condition is that the object has to be in the camera's field of view, or in our visual field, otherwise there would be no blue wavelength from which to see the object or to develop into a photograph.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

In addition to this, why isn't there light at the camera which has arrived from the object?

There is light at the camera depending on which wavelengths are absorbed and which ones are not. The light is already interacting with the film the minute the lens is focused on the object. Try not to use the terms "travel" or "arrive" because they are misleading terms.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If the camera is pointed at the object, and there is a constant stream of photons hitting the object and bouncing off is all directions, why isn't any of that light arriving at the camera?

Once again, light doesn't have to arrive at the camera. It's already at the camera the instant the camera's lens focuses on the object. If there is no light around the object, we wouldn't be able to see the object at all because light is a necessary condition. That's why we can't see each other at night unless there is light coming from an indirect source. For example, if we're under a street lamp, we can be seen. Of course the quality of the light also determines how well we can see.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why isn't the light at the film (whose wavelength is determining the color of the resulting photographic image) light which previously bounced off the surface of the object in order to later arrive at the camera?

It is at the camera, but it doesn't take time to arrive there. In other words, the light's wavelength doesn't bounce off the surface of an object and arrive at the camera because this implies that it took time to get there, and there is no time involved.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If there is light from the object present, in addition to the light whose wavelength will affect the film (light which you say never came from the object), then why is only the latter light (not from the object) and not the former light (from the object) capable of affecting the film?

The light that the object is absorbing to highlight the blueness of a blue ball, for example, is the same light that is interacting with the film. There is no latter light and former light. It's all the same light. Just because there is a constant stream of photons coming from the sun doesn't change what we see.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That certain animals and people can have a bad reaction to some vaccines. I read that some animals died as a direct result.

Those studies were not about deadly reactions at all, they were about a cumulative development of antibodies that might, possibly cause autoimmune problems, though none were observed.

That being said, yes, some dogs are allergic to components of certain vaccines as are some people, and death can be a terrible outcome of such a reaction.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has a wavelength, obviously, but the wavelength does not change with every object it strikes.

Nobody said wavelengths change with every object light strikes.

I already told you that for lack of a better word I use the word "carry" which means "adopt the wavelength of the object it strikes."

Nobody said it adopts the wavelength of the object. In fact we have told you the opposite numerous times

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't take or carry anything related to the object.

Again, you are arguing a strawman version of what you mistakenly think science claims about light and sight.

Nobody said light takes or carries anything from the object.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This doesn't change anything. We see a reflection in a mirror due to light's ability to deflect, but the image that we look at is being seen in real time.

So the object (mirror) reflects light. You said objects are not capable of reflecting anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has a wavelength, obviously, but the wavelength does not change with every object it strikes. I already told you that for lack of a better word I use the word "carry" which means "adopt the wavelength of the object it strikes." It doesn't take or carry anything related to the object. We see the object due to light's presence.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Light cannot "adopt the wavelength of the object it strikes" because objects do not have wavelengths. The afferent model does not say that light takes or carries anything from the object. Do you not remember being corrected on this exact point already? It was only a couple of pages ago.

You're right, objects don't have wavelengths, but they highlight certain wavelengths in the visual spectrum by their absorption properties. This ability to see the object because of light's presence is a two-way street.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is responses like this that make people suspect that in addition to your faith-related cognitive impairment, you might be suffering from an actual memory disorder.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Those studies were not about deadly reactions at all, they were about a cumulative development of antibodies that might, possibly cause autoimmune problems, though none were observed.

That being said, yes, some dogs are allergic to components of certain vaccines as are some people, and death can be a terrible outcome of such a reaction.

If Gary is correct in believing that the inflammatory response is not protective but a sign that invasion is taking place under cover of darkness, vaccines are certainly not the friends we thought they were. They are undercover assassins working on behalf of the enemy, and vets and medical doctors are unwittingly acting as collaborators. Worse, we animal guardians and parents are actually paying doctors and vets to unwittingly betray our loved ones.

Potentially, vaccines are the stealth bomb of the medical world. They are used to catapult invaders inside the castle walls where they can wreak havoc, with none of us any the wiser. So rather than experiencing frank viral diseases such as the 'flu, measles, mumps and rubella (and, in the case of dogs, parvovirus and distemper), we are allowing the viruses to win anyway - but with cancer, leukaemia and other inflammatory or autoimmune (self-attacking) diseases taking their place.

NaturalRearing.com ~ Science of Vaccine Damage

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you don't understand what has been established already, you haven't pinpointed any flaw, you haven't improved your explanations of efferent vision (or real-time photography), and I don't think anyone here has yet actually succeeded in educating you about anything at all (despite their most valiant and commendable efforts).

They are educating me. The question is: Am I educating them?

[LadyShea]

Wow, scaremonger with hyper-emotive language much? That's a red flag for quackery peacegirl

Looks like quacks have misinterpreted that Purdue study quite a lot
http://skeptivet.blogspot.com/2010/0...teresting.html

And, as far as I can tell, the Purdue studies were never published in a peer reviewed journal, though many exist for veterinary medicine

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It [the light at the film] did come from the object...

Great. Then you can re-answer this earlier question for which you previously gave a different answer:

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

You previously anwered "No". Is your new answer now "Yes"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...the light allows the wavelength of blue to strike the film...

This is inconsistent with your earlier agreement that wavelength is a property of light. It's like saying that when you catch a yellow ball, the ball allows the yellowness to strike your hand.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...the light does not carry that blue wavelength with it because the wavelength does not become part of the light itself.

Again, this is inconsistent with wavelength being a property of light. No-one anywhere is claiming that wavelengths are carried or become part of the light. Stop talking of light carrying things, and stop making excuses for your inability to correctly express yourself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the light is a mirror image of the blue wavelength but it does not become part of the wavelength.

This is nonsensical. I can't work out what you are even trying to say, or how it is meant to answer my question. See below.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light never had a blue wavelength. The object absorbs all of the other wavelengths in the visual spectrum, which allows us to see blue. All the light does is mirror that image. That's why we can't see objects unless they are in the camera's field of view, or the eye's visual field of view.

Obviously the light at the camera has to have a blue wavelength at the time it is at the film, if it is the wavelength of this light determining the blue color of the real-time image of the blue ball.

Do you agree with our account of what it means for the ball to be blue? I.e. that it is presently absorbing all non-blue light striking it, and reflecting from its surface only the light of blue-wavelength?

Because you seem to be saying that at any time when this is the case (i.e. when the ball is blue in the above sense), the wavelength of the light now at the camera (which you agree previously travelled there from the object) will have the same (blue) wavelength as the light which is presently being reflected rather than absorbed by the ball's surface. This seems to be what you mean by saying that the light at the camera is "mirroring" the absorptive properties of the object. Is this what you are saying?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are educating me.

We are trying to. But there is no evidence at all that it's working.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The question is: Am I educating them?

Yes, but not on the topics you are trying to educate us about.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We are trying to. But there is no evidence at all that it's working.

She has provided plenty of evidence that her brain just can't learn.