A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Here are your previous answers:

10. What does a reflection consist of?
Light.

11. What does light consist of?
Photons.

12. 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)?
Yes.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please indicate which of these you would like to change.

...and showing (not reflecting) only the light of blue-wavelength.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you think the wavelength is traveling. In that case you would be right that the red would show up first.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, my questions have nothing to do with the order of the arriving light.

I thought it did.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's understanding what the lens is doing instead of what light is doing. That's why I think it's better to focus on the brain and the eyes in order to understand this concept rather than light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I asked you in the very post you were here replying to, what you think lenses actually do beyond receiving incoming light. You still haven't answered.

They don't receive incoming light. The light is instantly at the lens. If it's true that we see efferently, the light that I'm using to see objects in the real world is the same light that is at the lens. You can't discuss light without discussing efferent vision because the same principles that work with the eye work with the lens of a camera.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not shifting the blame.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, you are. You keep trying to blame your inconsistencies and contradictions on other people's assumptions about the afferent model instead of on your own assumptions made during your failed attempts to explain the efferent model.

Based on my assumptions, I believe my reasoning is consistent.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You need to either revise your earlier answers to my questions (quoted above), or answer my further questions about how the light at the camera could have been blue before it arrived and before the object itself was blue.

It couldn't have been blue before the object itself was blue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Silly looking according to Einstein or not, QM works and I personally believe the big answers will come from that field. Ohnoes I am disagreeing with the beloved Saint Einstein.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just as you believe the answers to the deeper questions of life can only come from appointed fields.

This discovery has no modal fallacies.

Originally Posted by LadyShea"N.A. note the odd use of modal verbs yet again. peacegirl and Lessans do this repeatedly. "can" becomes "does", "does" becomes "must", "might" becomes "should"

I said "I believe answers will come from X"
peacegirl heard "I believe answers can only come from X"

Any known mental illness where this is common?[/quote]

So now you're stooping down to N.A.'s level? What has this thread come to?

[quote="LadyShea

Anyway peacegirl, I simply stated that I think QM holds the answers to some of the big questions, I did not say I think only QM can hold the answers.

And what does "appointed fields" mean?

And you also said that neuroscience would find the answers to anything related to the brain. Appointed fields means just that: the fields of study that are supposed to find the answers related to that field. No outsiders are invited in.

[LadyShea]

I didn't say the discovery has modal fallacies (though it does), I said you use modal verbs oddly.

You use cannot for no reason, you use should for no reason, you replace will with can only.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you also said that neuroscience would find the answers to anything related to the brain.

I did not say "would" I said maybe and might. Again, that modal verb replacement.

But, since you mentioned it, as neuroscience is the field dedicated to learning about the brain, most important findings about the brain are likely to come from neuroscience. What field do you think might learn more? Botany?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't have an issue with holes acting as lenses because I know what that actually means.

I want to hear YOU explain how holes act as lenses, when you've stated that lenses focus out on objects.

In a pinhole camera, the hole acts like a lens by only allowing a narrow beam of light to enter. It forms the same type of upside-down, reversed image as a regular camera. There's still an object present. It is this object that is revealing the wavelengths that are drawn into the pinhole.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no such thing as indeterminism. That's all I have to say on the subject of QM.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is nothing but a statement of faith, yet you claim to be offering scientifically valid information.

Maybe I misunderstood what people meant by indeterminism. I thought it meant the opposite of determinism. Obviously, we can't predict all things. Many things appear random. If that's what is meant by indeterminism, I don't have a problem with that. But as far as will is concerned, we have no free will.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Really, skeptics and critical thinkers are not your audience. Go peddle to the woos, seriously

I may do just that.

[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?
Yes.

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 absorb light. The term 'reflect' as a transitive verb means throwing or bending back from a surface. It may mean giving back or showing an image of. This word is creating a problem.

10. What does a reflection consist of?
Light.

11. What does light consist of?
Photons.

12. 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)?
Yes.

You've only changed one answer, and you've changed it in such a way that it no longer answers the question asked.

You are still agreeing that the color of the photograph is determined by the wavelength of the light at the camera (when the photo is taken) which has previously travelled from the object to the camera, and has therefore taken time to arrive. Yes, it was already at the lens when the photo was taken. But before that, it was travelling towards the camera.

That means I get to ask whether the light (which is blue when at the camera at the time the photo is taken) was either still blue or was rather a different color previously when that same light was travelling between the object and the camera (before the photo was taken, and before the object became blue).

Do you even understand the question yet?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They don't receive incoming light. The light is instantly at the lens. If it's true that we see efferently, the light that I'm using to see objects in the real world is the same light that is at the lens. You can't discuss light without discussing efferent vision because the same principles works with the lens of a camera.

No, they don't. Because efferent vision relies upon the principle of the brain "looking out", which a lens or film cannot do. And that a lens receives incoming light is entirely compatible with there being light already there when the camera takes a photo. Where do you think that light previously came from, if it isn't incoming light being passively received by the lens? That the light at the lens has to travel to get there doesn't mean that it doesn't start travelling until the time the photo gets taken.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It couldn't have been blue before the object itself was blue.

Well I'm glad you can see that part of the problem. You can't have blue light travelling to the camera at a time when the object is red. But your only other option is to say that light is red before it gets to the camera, meaning the arriving light changes color as it arrives, to match the color of the object as that object changes color. That requires action at a distance, and is also an option which you have also previously rejected as implausible.

You have rejected both of the only two possible options here, while committing yourself (by your very own answers) to the only assumptions needed to ensure that these really are the only two options.

You've agreed that the blue light at the film whose wavelength determines the color of the photo previously travelled to get there. You've denied that this light could have been blue before arriving. And you've denied that it could have been not-blue before arriving. So by your own assumptions, real-time photography (and by extension, efferent vision) is clearly impossible. I don't know how I can make your inconsistency any clearer to you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't say the discovery has modal fallacies (though it does), I said you use modal verbs oddly.

You use cannot for no reason, you use should for no reason, you replace will with can only.

You'll have to be more specific. Could you point out the sentences? And for you to say there are modal fallacies in the book show me how little you know.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you also said that neuroscience would find the answers to anything related to the brain.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I did not say "would" I said maybe and might. Again, that modal verb replacement.

You were implying that Lessans can't have the answers because neuroscience is the only field that can. It was a subtle stab at Lessans. That's how I took it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But, since you mentioned it, as neuroscience is the field dedicated to learning about the brain, most important findings about the brain are likely to come from neuroscience. What field do you think might learn more? Botany?

Of course not. But you could give a little more credit to people who, although they aren't in the field, may have come up with something related to that field.

[peacegirl]

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?
Yes.

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 absorb light. The term 'reflect' as a transitive verb means throwing or bending back from a surface. It may mean giving back or showing an image of. This word is creating a problem.

10. What does a reflection consist of?
Light.

11. What does light consist of?
Photons.

12. 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)?
Yes.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've only changed one answer, and you've changed it in such a way that it no longer answers the question asked.

You are still agreeing that the color of the photograph is determined by the wavelength of the light at the camera (when the photo is taken) which has previously travelled from the object to the camera, and has therefore taken time to arrive. Yes, it was already at the lens when the photo was taken. But before that, it was travelling towards the camera.

Light is everywhere. You're still thinking in terms of light being reflected (bouncing) off of an object and traveling towards the camera. That's not what is happening.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That means I get to ask whether the light (which is blue when at the camera at the time the photo is taken) was either still blue or was rather a different color previously when that same light was travelling between the object and the camera (before the photo was taken, and before the object became blue).

Do you even understand the question yet?

I understand, and I know you want me to say red.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They don't receive incoming light. The light is instantly at the lens. If it's true that we see efferently, the light that I'm using to see objects in the real world is the same light that is at the lens. You can't discuss light without discussing efferent vision because the same principles works with the lens of a camera.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, they don't. Because efferent vision relies upon the principle of the brain "looking out", which a lens or film cannot do.

It doesn't matter. The lens works the same way. The only difference is that the brain, looking through the eyes as a window, sees the object directly because of light's presence, whereas that same light is used by the film to create the same exact image.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And that a lens receives incoming light is entirely compatible with there being light already there when the camera takes a photo. Where do you think that light previously came from, if it isn't incoming light being passively received by the lens? That the light at the lens has to travel to get there doesn't mean that it doesn't start travelling until the time the photo gets taken.

You're right, but the picture that is taken is capturing the wavelengths that are at the object instantly. I wish I could create a diagram. In other words, light is constantly traveling but the object being revealed due to light is not traveling from the object to the lens. It's captured.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It couldn't have been blue before the object itself was blue.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Well I'm glad you can see that part of the problem. You can't have blue light travelling to the camera at a time when the object is red. But your only other option is to say that light is red before it gets to the camera, meaning the arriving light changes color as it arrives, to match the color of the object as that object changes color. That requires action at a distance, and is also an option which you have also previously rejected as implausible.

That would be implausible if the light was actually traveling to the lens, but it's not.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have rejected both of the only two possible options here, while committing yourself (by your very own answers) to the only assumptions needed to ensure that these really are the only two options.

You've agreed that the blue light at the film whose wavelength determines the color of the photo previously travelled to get there.

If I said that it was a mistake.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've denied that this light could have been blue before arriving. And you've denied that it could have been not-blue before arriving. So by your own assumptions, real-time photography (and by extension, efferent vision) is clearly impossible. I don't know how I can make your inconsistency any clearer to you.

That is a total inconsistency, but that's not what I meant. What I continue to maintain is that there is no traveling and no arriving. The picture is blue if the object is blue because the wavelength is instantly at the film. I feel like I'm being interrogated until you force an answer out of me that you want to hear.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you could give a little more credit to people who, although they aren't in the field, may have come up with something related to that field.

We give credit to people who provide evidence that they've come up with something.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, real time seeing is in complete contradiction to relativity.

Causal effects (such as, reacting to something at a distance instantly) cannot propagate faster than the speed of light without serious consequences. Those consequences are the basics of causality.

For you to believe both Einstein's theory and your 'real time seeing' means that there is no longer such a thing as cause and effect, and opens up a whole bunch of paradoxes. It's perhaps no surprise to hear at this point you're okay with that, or don't understand (or care!) about this.

Real time seeing has nothing to do with cause and effect. There are still causes and there are still effects. I don't see any paradoxes.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Real time seeing has nothing to do with cause and effect. There are still causes and there are still effects. I don't see any paradoxes.

Of course it does. If I see something, I can react to it. That means I can react instantly to something I see happening million of miles away, within mere moments.

Meanwhile, in someone else's frame of reference (here you need to understand relativity), I react to this thing happening before it actually happens!

Oh noes, relativity has ruined your day and all causality is gone!

But you don't care or understand any of this, do you? You think Lessans is right, and it seems Einstein is always right too, and therefore none of this can be the case.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand, and I know you want me to say red.

Wrong. I have no preference either way. You face fatal objections with either answer. They are just different objections.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is everywhere. You're still thinking in terms of light being reflected (bouncing) off of an object and traveling towards the camera. That's not what is happening.

You're right, but the picture that is taken is capturing the wavelengths that are at the object instantly. I wish I could create a diagram. In other words, light is constantly traveling but the object being revealed due to light is not traveling from the object to the lens. It's captured.

That would be implausible if the light was actually traveling to the lens, but it's not.

If I said that it was a mistake.

That is a total inconsistency, but that's not what I meant. What I continue to maintain is that there is no travel and no arriving.

All these comments are in direct contradiction with the answers you just agreed to. Either the light at the camera when the photo is taken previously travelled to get there or it didn't. You can't have it both ways.

If it didn't travel to get there, then you have light mysteriously materializing on the film or lens. If it did travel to get there, then you have to say that this light was either blue or not-blue before it arrived. And you have rejected both options.

Here are your previous answers. Either revise them to be consistent with your above claims, or own up to your own complete inconsistency and admit the impossibility of real-time photography:

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?
Yes.

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 absorb light. The term 'reflect' as a transitive verb means throwing or bending back from a surface. It may mean giving back or showing an image of. This word is creating a problem.

10. What does a reflection consist of?
Light.

11. What does light consist of?
Photons.

12. 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)?
Yes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Since we're stuck on Einstein...bump!

That's really cool, but do you actually think this negates efferent vision? We're just seeing the different paths that the light has taken, but we're still seeing these images in real time. I didn't say we can't detect light as it travels through different regions and finally reaches the lens; I said we don't see objects from light itself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Optics, for the love of Pete look it up. You seriously are making yourself look impaired.

Where does this negate efferent vision. I haven't a clue.

Optical science is relevant to and studied in many related disciplines including astronomy, various engineering fields, photography, and medicine (particularly ophthalmology and optometry). Practical applications of optics are found in a variety of technologies and everyday objects, including mirrors, lenses, telescopes, microscopes, lasers, and fiber optics.

Optics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;999887]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I'm not talking about something that is too small to form an image. I'm talking about a large object such as an airplane that is just outside of the field of view, or a person standing just beyond the scope of the lens but in a straight with it. You can't use this as an example.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The explanation you were addressing said nothing at all about the size of the object.

And there is no such thing as "just beyond the scope of the lens".

I said that it's an object normally seen by the naked eye when it's in view of the camera. The only difference is that now it is out of the field of view of the camera. No one has answered this question adequately. They just keep saying I don't understand optics. Great cop out.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that it's an object normally seen by the naked eye when it's in view of the camera. The only difference is that now it is out of the field of view of the camera. No one has answered this question adequately. They just keep saying I don't understand optics. Great cop out.

It has been answered adequately, and you don't understand optics. Dragar's post explained it perfectly. Your response was mistaken, as I already pointed out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you retarded? Do you or do you not understand "apparent" size and that things appear smaller the further away they are?

Yes, it's smaller until it travels toward the camera and gets larger. The question remains: Why can't the light (reflected off the object) travel directly toward the camera and be developed into a picture if it was only a few feet out of the camera's field of view? In other words, if a picture can be taken of an object just a few feet forward but within the camera's field of view, why can't that same light travel toward the film if it's just a few feet backward but slightly out of the camera's field of view?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's really cool, but do you actually think this negates efferent vision? We're just seeing the different paths that the light has taken, but we're still seeing these images in real time. I didn't say we can't detect light as it travels through different regions and finally reaches the lens; I said we don't see objects from light itself.

If we're seeing the images in real time, why are the two images different, peacegirl? We are seeing the galaxy at two different times...so which one is real time?

Oh, my gosh. You think these are images literally on the sky, don't you? Like a giant projector screen!

peacegirl, the images form in our cameras. Two images. Two different images. Or they form on our retinas. We see the galaxy twice. Which one is in real time, and why?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It has been answered adequately, and you don't understand optics. Dragar's post explained it perfectly. Your response was mistaken, as I already pointed out.

Then the explanation isn't clear to me as to why this observation isn't valid.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

If we're seeing the images in real time, why are the two images different, peacegirl? We are seeing the galaxy at two different times...so which one is real time?

Oh, my gosh. You think these are images on the sky, don't you? Like a giant projector screen! peacegirl, the images form in our cameras. Two images. Two different images. Or they form on our retinas. We see the galaxy twice. Which one is in real time, and why?

If I take a route to my home that takes a little longer, and my sister takes another route and gets there faster, the time it takes to get there makes no difference. Both of our routes are correct. Not the best analogy but the only one I could come up with. We're seeing the same galaxy but we're seeing it at different times, depending on how long it takes for the light to reach the telescope. Therefore all of the images of the galaxy are correct. This isn't even what I'm disputing.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They're both correct. If I take a different route to my home that takes a little longer, and my sister takes another route and gets there faster, the time it takes to get there are both right. We're seeing the same galaxy but we're seeing it at different times, depending on how long it takes for the light to reach the telescope. Therefore the images of light are forming on our cameras at different times. They're all correct images. This isn't even what I'm disputing.

They can't both be correct. We're seeing the galaxy in real time. Real time! So why do we see two the galaxy at two different times?

What does how long the light takes to reach the telescope have to do with it? That's not seeing in real time, that's seeing in delayed time!

Edit: peacegirl, in case you have misunderstood: two images of the galaxy fall on our retinas, or on the back of our telescope, simultaneously. They are images of the same galaxy, but one image has a time delay with respect to the other - if we were viewing a clock instead of a galaxy, one image of the clock would show a different to time to the other, though both images are taken simultaneously.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then the explanation isn't clear to me as to why this observation isn't valid.

Okay, imagine the camera as having thousands of individual detectors each corresponding to an individual pixel of its resolution. The resulting image is a collection of dots, each of which has to be one specific color. Stick a red ball right in front of the camera, and every detector will see red, and the photo will be all red. Progressively move the ball away from the camera, and the outer detectors cease to see red, with only a progressively smaller group of central detectors seeing red, such that we get a smaller and smaller red circle in the center of the photo. Eventually the red circle gets smaller than the size of the single central detector, such that all the other detectors are not detecting red, and this one central detector is receiving more non-red light (from the areas around the ball) than red light (from the ball itself). At that point the ball will represent a smaller part of the image than the smallest detector, and the ball will cease to show up on the image. That central detector will have a decision to make as to whether or not to create a red dot in the image, and as it is receiving more non-red than red light, it will not indicate red. So even though the camera is still receiving (a small amount) of red light from the ball, the resulting image will not show the ball at all.

Have I explained that in simple enough terms for you?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No argument on the last, but this actually seems like a reasonable link for her to make. Both QM and philosophy are concerned wth causal (in)determinism.

She thought indeterminism was a synonym for Free Will

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;999908]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You use cannot for no reason, you use should for no reason, you replace will with can only.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You'll have to be more specific. Could you point out the sentences?

"The brain cannot do this unless vision is efferent" (this referring to the type of conditioning Lessans posited)

"If vision is afferent dogs should be able to recognize their master by facial features alone"

No reason in the world that the brain cannot project values on the images it interprets.

No reason in the world afferent vision should lead to facial recognition in dogs

I said I personally believe the big answers will come from QT and you changed it to my saying they can only come from QT

You were implying that Lessans can't have the answers because neuroscience is the only field that can. It was a subtle stab at Lessans. That's how I took it.

I was implying that Lessans is unlikely to have had the right answers about how the brain works with regard to conscience since he knew zero about neuroscience.

I also said neuroscience is the most likely to possibly someday offer the hard data regarding the functions of the brain, but that there is no way to objectively measure greater satisfaction right now.

You are not paying attention to what I am actually typing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course not. But you could give a little more credit to people who, although they aren't in the field, may have come up with something related to that field.

At the time I was discussing hard data and empirical evidence. Anybody that comes up with hard data and/or empirical evidence wrt free will and levels of conscience will get credit, even if they aren't neuroscientists

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We give credit to people who provide evidence that they've come up with something.

But there's much more skepticism if an astute observation disrupts established theories and is coming from someone outside of the field. It's almost like an affront to the professionals who are in the field.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She thought indeterminism was a synonym for Free Will

There is a lot of confusion with the term "predetermination". We can't always predict the cause of a certain effect, but that does not mean there isn't one. Once I choose something there was something that compelled me to choose that thing (I'm not talking about force). No one in the world can predict with complete accuracy how something will be manifested in the physical world, therefore something may look random but but that does not mean it is random. When the dice are thrown, the outcome is already known.

A number of philosophers have argued that lack of determinism does not entail absence of causation. For instance, Karl Popper writes
"For the thesis of philosophical determinism, that 'Like effects have like causes' or that 'Every event has a cause' is so vague that it is perfectly compatible with physical indeterminism"
"Indeterminism' — or, more precisely physical indeterminism — is merely the doctrine that not all events in the physical world are predetermined with absolute precision".

Indeterminism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia