A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes but Peacegirl wants to concentrate only on the brain and the object as the most important elements of vision. The nature of light, the structure of the eye are secondary to efferent vision, and the problem is that those considerations disprove efferent vision which is why Peacegirl wants to wave them aside as less important than the other parts of the visual system. By looking only at the brain and object it is difficult to disprove efferent vision, actually a clever ploy on her part, push aside those factors that are not consistant with efferent vision and keep the discussion on the factors that may not negate it if the dialogue is kept vague enough.

I am not being vague on purpose doc, which is your justification for attacking Lessans non-stop. I ask you to please stop it for the sake of the listening audience. There is all the time in the world to say his claims don't work. So why rub in what you think is happening when you don't even know for sure? This is causing such a disruption in the conversation. You are causing the discussion to slow down by constantly interjecting your nonsensical refutations.

[ceptimus]

You asked why, if vision and photography work the way we claim, we're unable to photograph an object that is out of range.

You use the term 'field of view' to mean 'in range', but as we've repeatedly pointed out, 'field of view' has a different meaning to most people than the one you intend, so 'in range' and 'out of range' are better.

I was merely trying to point out that when objects are 'out of range' of a camera, it doesn't mean that light from those objects isn't reaching the film or sensor, just that the light lands on too small a part of the sensor to be resolved into a discernible image.

The same is true of the eye - it has a finite number of receptors (rods and cones) just as a digital camera has a finite number of pixels.

Think of a mountainside a few miles away - the whole area of the mountain clearly fits into one photograph taken by the camera, or the whole mountain is seen, at one glimpse, by the eye. But if 100,000 people were standing all over the mountainside, neither camera nor eye would be able to resolve them individually - it's not that the light isn't travelling from them, it's just that they are too (apparently) small.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you not understand that you are supporting Lessans' claims in the very words you speak?

lol, if you think that, then you understand nothing I have said.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

You asked why, if vision and photography work the way we claim, we're unable to photograph an object that is out of range.

You use the term 'field of view' to mean 'in range', but as we've repeatedly pointed out, 'field of view' has a different meaning to most people than the one you intend, so 'in range' and 'out of range' are better.

I was merely trying to point out that when objects are 'out of range' of a camera, it doesn't mean that light from those objects isn't reaching the film or sensor, just that the light lands on too small a part of the sensor to be resolved into a discernible image.

The same is true of the eye - it has a finite number of receptors (rods and cones) just as a digital camera has a finite number of pixels.

Think of a mountainside a few miles away - the whole area of the mountain clearly fits into one photograph taken by the camera, or the whole mountain is seen, at one glimpse, by the eye. But if 100,000 people were standing all over the mountainside, neither camera nor eye would be able to resolve them individually - it's not that the light isn't travelling from them, it's just that they are too (apparently) small.

Thanks Ceptimus. I'll try to remember to use the phrase "in range" from here on in. I understand that objects have to be in range for the eye or camera to be able to resolve them, so how can anyone say that light alone can bring us the image of the people standing on the mountainside; and how can scientists say that lenses are just collectors of light even if the objects are not in range for the pixels to record?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

lol, if you think that, then you understand nothing I have said.

You are trying very hard to make your explanation make sense, but it doesn't. Regardless of the size, configuration, or sensitivity of the detector, THE OBJECT IS NEVER OUT OF RANGE IF A PICTURE IS GOING TO BE RESOLVED. Yes, we get better resolved pictures than others, but regardless, the object has to be within range of the camera. To repeat: The detector cannot resolve a picture unless the object is within range.

[LadyShea]

Regardless of the size, configuration, or sensitivity of the detector, THE OBJECT IS NEVER OUT OF RANGE IF A PICTURE IS GOING TO BE RESOLVED.To repeat: The detector cannot resolve a picture unless the object is within range.

YOU CAN EXTEND THE RANGE AT WHICH AN IMAGE CAN BE RESOLVED USING SPECIALIZED LENSES AND MORE SENSITIVE AND/OR LARGER SENSORS.

In fact, the range is determined by the size, configuration, or sensitivity of the detector

There, does the all caps help your neurons fire better?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are trying very hard to make your explanation make sense, but it doesn't. Regardless of the size, configuration, or sensitivity of the detector, THE OBJECT IS NEVER OUT OF RANGE IF A PICTURE IS GOING TO BE RESOLVED. Yes, we get better resolved pictures than others, but regardless, the object has to be within range of the camera. To repeat: The detector cannot resolve a picture unless the object is within range.

And you seem to be trying very hard to not understand our explanations. We've repeatedly explained why, on the affferent model, a picture cannot be resolved when the object is out of range:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not being vague on purpose...

But when you're not being vague, you're being completely self-contradictory. Efferent vision and real-time photography so far remains logically impossible on your own account of it:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Just as before, your own answers are again a mess of self-contradictory nonsense. I've highlighted the problematic parts.

Your answer to Q3 contradicts your answers to Q1 & Q2. The absorptive properties of the object are not properties of the light at the camera. They are properties of the object. If it is the light at the camera which determines the color of the resulting image, then your answer to Q3 needs to tell me what properties of that light are responsible. So you need to change either your answer to Q3 or your answers to Q1 & Q2.

Your answer to Q4 doesn't answer what was asked, and contradicts your answers to Q5 & Q7. You admit that any light present at the camera was previously travelling, but you don't tell me whether or not it previously travelled from the object to get there. And if you agree that it travelled (from somewhere) to get there, then it can't get there instantly (Q5) without travelling faster than the speed of light (Q7).

Your answer to Q5 doesn't answer where the light at the camera previously came from.

Your answer to Q6 is completely nonsensical, and is inconsistent with your answers to Q1, Q2, & Q4. In Q1 & Q2 you answer that it is light at the camera determining the color of the image, and in Q4 you agree that this light was travelling before it arrived at the camera. That means the camera has captured arriving light. I have no idea what you think the camera is capturing in your answer to Q6, but it is clearly not light anymore.

Your answer to Q11 is inconsistent with the standard meaning of 'reflection', which is fine but requires further explanation. That was the purpose of Q12, but your answer to Q12 doesn't actually answer the question asked.

Your answer to Q14 shows you disagree with the standard account of the color of objects - which again is fine, but your answer raises a further serious problem: If the non-absorbed light doesn't get reflected from the surface of the object to travel towards the camera, then where does it go? What happens to the non-absorbed light? Does it just float there in a cloud of stationary photons waiting for us or a camera to see it?

And your answer to Q14 is inconsistent with your answers to Q4 & Q9/10. If there is light which is not absorbed by the object, then by your answer to Q4 it must be leaving the surface and travelling somewhere. And if the wavelength is a property of the light such that neither the wavelength nor the light can travel independently of each other, then that wavelength (of the non-absorbed light) must be travelling somewhere too.

In fact your answers are such a mess of self-contradictory nonsense you might as well start over again. (Remember, if you cannot provide logically consistent answers to these questions, then your account of real-time photography remains impossible, making efferent vision impossible too):


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

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

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

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

5. How did the light already present at the camera get to be there, i.e. where did it come from?

6. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?

7. Can light travel faster than light?

8. Is wavelength a property of light?

9. Can light travel without any wavelength?

10. Can wavelengths travel independently of light?

11. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?

12. What does a reflection consist of?

13. What does light consist of?

14. 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)?

15. What happens to any light striking the surface of an object which does not get absorbed, after it strikes that object?

[thedoc]

I'm going to make a wild guess here, (and I could be wrong) but I think Peacegirl is posting on the other thread, and may not have the capacity to participate on 2 different threads. So you might not get an answer from her, here. And didn't she say she did not want to talk about vision?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks Ceptimus. I'll try to remember to use the phrase "in range" from here on in. I understand that objects have to be in range for the eye or camera to be able to resolve them, so how can anyone say that light alone can bring us the image of the people standing on the mountainside; and how can scientists say that lenses are just collectors of light even if the objects are not in range for the pixels to record?

For goodness sake peacegirl!

All objects, no matter how distant or small, produce images in principle.

You seem quite happy that bacteria produce small images and so we can't see them.

Why is it so hard to understand that distant objects will also produce small images, so we cannot see them?

Do you still not understand that far away objects look small?

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Do you still not understand that far away objects look small?

Near and far, you say?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I'm going to make a wild guess here, (and I could be wrong) but I think Peacegirl is posting on the other thread, and may not have the capacity to participate on 2 different threads. So you might not get an answer from her, here. And didn't she say she did not want to talk about vision?

She started another thread because she is getting hammered here and there is nothing left for her to do but run.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by davidm

But if you do kill yourself, killing yourself was the greater satisfaction.

No david, but if you kill yourself that would be a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction, for someone I could name.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I ask you to please stop it for the sake of the listening audience.

Now that's odd, I turned the volume all the way up while looking at this thread and I still can't hear anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

YOU CAN EXTEND THE RANGE AT WHICH AN IMAGE CAN BE RESOLVED USING SPECIALIZED LENSES AND MORE SENSITIVE AND/OR LARGER SENSORS.

In fact, the range is determined by the size, configuration, or sensitivity of the detector

There, does the all caps help your neurons fire better?

No, the caps don't help. I'm not talking about how the range is determined. I'm saying that regardless of the differences in the sensitivity, size, and configuration of the detector, the image will never be seen beyond that range. Therefore, extending the range based on the specialized lenses or more sensitive sensors only confirms that the object HAS TO BE WITHIN RANGE FOR AN IMAGE TO BE DETECTED.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks Ceptimus. I'll try to remember to use the phrase "in range" from here on in. I understand that objects have to be in range for the eye or camera to be able to resolve them, so how can anyone say that light alone can bring us the image of the people standing on the mountainside; and how can scientists say that lenses are just collectors of light even if the objects are not in range for the pixels to record?

Originally Posted by Dragar

For goodness sake peacegirl!

All objects, no matter how distant or small, produce images in principle.

You seem quite happy that bacteria produce small images and so we can't see them.

Why is it so hard to understand that distant objects will also produce small images, so we cannot see them?

Yes, I understand this but this still doesn't explain science's version of afferent vision. If afferent is true, we should be able to see the object even after it's out of range because all we need is light to bring the image back to the camera. Doesn't science say that the lens is just a collector of light even if the object is no longer present?

Originally Posted by Dragar

Do you still not understand that far away objects look small?

Bacteria are microscopic therefore they will never be able to be seen without some kind of magnification. For the purpose of this conversation, I'm talking about objects that don't require magnification under normal circumstances.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the caps don't help. I'm not talking about how the range is determined. I'm saying that regardless of the differences in the sensitivity, size, and configuration of the detector, the image will never be seen beyond that range. Therefore, extending the range based on the specialized lenses or more sensitive sensors only confirms that the object HAS TO BE WITHIN RANGE FOR AN IMAGE TO BE DETECTED.

Beyond what range? The range of view is DETERMINED by those things, so you can always get bigger more sensitive and longer range optical equipment, as well as manipulate exposure time. At some distance the curvature of the Earth becomes an obstacle, but otherwise, yeah given enough money for equipment and correct conditions, you could get a photo.

We are back to the Hubble Deep Field Images. Even with all the multi-million dollar specialized equipment, they had to expose the CCD to the light coming from those coordinates for a million minutes (in 20 minute increments as it orbited out of position) to gather enough light to get those images. The galaxies were "out of range" for any kind of standard viewing or photography.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, I understand this but this still doesn't explain science's version of afferent vision. If afferent is true, we should be able to see the object even after it's out of range because all we need is light to bring the image back to the camera.

peacegirl, there is no such thing as 'out of range'. There is no range. Light travels forever; it has no range. There is always an image; the question is, is it big enough to be perceived? We can work out the size of an image of an object. The size will depend on the distance. That's why distant things appear small. Have you never noticed this before?

And an image isn't brought somewhere; an image is the pattern of light landing on the focal plane (the CCD or film or retina).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Bacteria are microscopic therefore they will never be able to be seen without some kind of magnification.

And yet you ignore the whole reason why! We can't see them because the images produced are small; magnification increases the image size.

The images of distant objects are also small. A telescope acts to increase the image size.

Are we still not clear on the fact that distant objects produce small images yet?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, there is no such thing as 'out of range'. There is no range. Light travels forever; it has no range. There is always an image; the question is, is it big enough to be perceived? We can work out the size of an image of an object. The size will depend on the distance. That's why distant things appear small. Have you never noticed this before?

And an image isn't brought somewhere; an image is the pattern of light landing on the focal plane (the CCD or film or retina).

And yet you ignore the whole reason why! We can't see them because the images produced are small; magnification increases the image size.

The images of distant objects are also small. A telescope acts to increase the image size.

Are we still not clear on the fact that distant objects produce small images yet?

We're very clear on that but it does not explain why we never see images small or large that are not within range. I don't keep harping on this, but this is a central point that needs to be resolved.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're very clear on that but it does not explain why we never see images small or large that are not within range. I don't keep harping on this, but this is a central point that needs to be resolved.

Did you actually even read his post? Are you incapable of processing even the simplest points?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're very clear on that but it does not explain why we never see images small or large that are not within range. I don't keep harping on this, but this is a central point that needs to be resolved.

Images aren't something that are 'in range', images are made.

If you meant objects, not images, then note: there is no such thing as range. Light travels forever. Please don't ignore this point, this time.

If by range you actually mean 'the distance beyond which I can't see an object', then you're talking in circles - there is certainly a distance where we can't see objects (optics can helpfully predict this distance, and it depends on the size of the image landing on our retinas), but it should be no mystery why we can't see an object when it's not in range: because that's what you've chosen 'in range' to mean.

Your post is really an astonishing response, peacegirl. It's like you're just ignoring everything I say because you want to cling onto this notion vision-via-light is somehow wrong. Interpreted literally, it's nonsense. Interpreted charitably it's wrong or circular, and rudely ignores everything I've patiently explained.

[davidm]

Now, now, Dragar! Your anger at Lessans is showing! peacegirl is sorry that Lessans is threatening your worldview.

[LadyShea]

It hurts her

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It hurts her

Only because we are trying to make her see reality rather than fantasy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not being vague on purpose...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But when you're not being vague, you're being completely self-contradictory. Efferent vision and real-time photography so far remains logically impossible on your own account of it:

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 absorptive properties of the object.

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?
This is the confusing part. Yes, light is always traveling but it's the way that the lens (or something acting as a lens) works (and how it captures the image) that you're missing, which is the other half of the equation.

5. How did the light already present at the camera get to be there, i.e. where did it come from?
It got there instantly due to light already being present, and the lens focusing that light.

6. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?
No, but the arriving light is not what is being captured by the camera. There is a difference between arriving photons from the Sun (which is in a constant stream), and what the camera captures due to the absorptive properties of matter that allow us to see the material world.

7. Can light travel faster than light?
No, but this is not about traveling faster than the speed of light. I thought you knew this already.

8. Is wavelength a property of light?
Yes.

9. Can light travel without any wavelength?
No.

10. Can wavelengths travel independently of light?
No.

11. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?
Light reflects objects. In other words, light allows us to see objects that exist in the external world due to the ability of matter to absorb certain wavelengths.

12. What does a reflection consist of?
A reflection is what we are able to see; not what comes to us.

13. What does light consist of?
Photons.

14. 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)?
It's not reflecting which means leaving the surface and traveling somewhere. The individual wavelength (the wavelength of blue) is not traveling anywhere. It is displaying as we look at the object.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Just as before, your own answers are again a mess of self-contradictory nonsense. I've highlighted the problematic parts.

Your answer to Q3 contradicts your answers to Q1 & Q2. The absorptive properties of the object are not properties of the light at the camera. They are properties of the object.

True.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If it is the light at the camera which determines the color of the resulting image, then your answer to Q3 needs to tell me what properties of that light are responsible. So you need to change either your answer to Q3 or your answers to Q1 & Q2.

The property of light that is responsible is its ability to be absorbed by matter and the non-absorbed light that remains is instantly at the film or the retina.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your answer to Q4 doesn't answer what was asked, and contradicts your answers to Q5 & Q7. You admit that any light present at the camera was previously travelling, but you don't tell me whether or not it previously travelled from the object to get there. And if you agree that it travelled (from somewhere) to get there, then it can't get there instantly (Q5) without travelling faster than the speed of light (Q7).

No, it does not specifically travel from the object to get to the film. Light is in a continuous stream from the Sun. It is white because it has all of the colors of the visible spectrum. When the lens focuses on the object, we see the object due to the non-absorbed light which creates the image.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your answer to Q5 doesn't answer where the light at the camera previously came from.

The Sun which gives us daylight.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your answer to Q6 is completely nonsensical, and is inconsistent with your answers to Q1, Q2, & Q4. In Q1 & Q2 you answer that it is light at the camera determining the color of the image, and in Q4 you agree that this light was travelling before it arrived at the camera. That means the camera has captured arriving light. I have no idea what you think the camera is capturing in your answer to Q6, but it is clearly not light anymore.

The light (or image) that is captured is the non-absorbed light, but it does not travel to the film. The wavelength that is not being absorbed by the object is instantly at the film.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your answer to Q11 is inconsistent with the standard meaning of 'reflection', which is fine but requires further explanation. That was the purpose of Q12, but your answer to Q12 doesn't actually answer the question asked.

I thought I did answer it. A reflection is what we see, but the way you're defining it, the object is reflecting the light which to me sounds like the light is bouncing off the object. There is no bouncing, and if "reflecting" means leaving the surface of the object with the non-absorbing wavelength, that is incorrect if efferent vision is right.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your answer to Q14 shows you disagree with the standard account of the color of objects - which again is fine, but your answer raises a further serious problem: If the non-absorbed light doesn't get reflected from the surface of the object to travel towards the camera, then where does it go? What happens to the non-absorbed light? Does it just float there in a cloud of stationary photons waiting for us or a camera to see it?

No, the white light is continually streaming from the Sun. The only difference is that the light does not travel with a blue wavelength (e.g. the blue ball). It is there at the film or the retina as the lens focuses on the object, but, to repeat, the light does not travel with the blue wavelength through space and time. It travels with all of the wavelengths in the visible spectrum.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And your answer to Q14 is inconsistent with your answers to Q4 & Q9/10. If there is light which is not absorbed by the object, then by your answer to Q4 it must be leaving the surface and travelling somewhere. And if the wavelength is a property of the light such that neither the wavelength nor the light can travel independently of each other, then that wavelength (of the non-absorbed light) must be travelling somewhere too.

That is exactly where the confusion is. It does not travel with the wavelength that is seen by the eye. It is there to be seen when the eye looks, and that same light that allows the eyes to see the object also allows the camera to capture the image.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

In fact your answers are such a mess of self-contradictory nonsense you might as well start over again. (Remember, if you cannot provide logically consistent answers to these questions, then your account of real-time photography remains impossible, making efferent vision impossible too):

I hope the answers I just gave helped you, but I don't think it's necessary to answer those same questions again.