A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

It is very necessary. You need to answer these questions without contradicting yourself, otherwise real-time photography and efferent vision remains impossible:

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?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

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.

I thank you for your explanation and I'm learning a lot about optics and light, but does this mean I have to agree with your explanation, or agree that your explanation answers my questions? I hope not.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

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.

The Sun which gives us daylight.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Still contradictory, and still nonsensical. You are saying both that the light at the film is the light that was not absorbed by the object and which is there instantly, as well as saying that the light at the film is light of all wavelengths which has traveled directly from the Sun which has taken time to get there, and that objects do not reflect unabsorbed light from their surfce at all. You are also constantly confusing photography with vision. I am not asking you about vision at all, so "seeing" should not be a part of any of your answers. Your answers here do not explain why the light arriving is white light from the Sun rather than unabsorbed light from the object, why light from the object is not managing to reach the camera, or how purely dispositional absorptive properties of white light which has never been in contact with the object could interact with the film to produce a blue image.

You need to start again by re-answering the questions without contradicting yourself.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thank you for your explanation and I'm learning a lot about optics and light, but does this mean I have to agree with your explanation, or agree that your explanation answers my questions? I hope not.

The important point is not (yet) whether this explanation is correct, but that this is how the afferent model explains why objects can be too small or too far away to be seen or photographed with a given camera. That means the afferent model does not make the absurd predictions you keep attributing to it. If you want to show that the afferent model is somehow inadequate on this point as you have claimed, then you have to show where this explanation is inadequate. Merely not being personally convinced by it is not sufficient.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

If you are certain that light does not bounce off of objects then try this simple experiment and tell us what happens.

Using a flash, take a picture of yourself in a mirror. Now, without using a flash take another picture of yourself in a mirror. Print both pictures. Describe the pictures for us. Even better, post the pictures in this thread.

Here is another experiment you can try.

Beg, buy, borrow or steal a laser pointer. In a dark room hold up a mirror in your left had with the mirror held at an angle pointing away from you and facing toward a blank wall. Hold the laser pointer in your right hand. Point the laser pointer in the direction of the face of the mirror. Turn on the laser pointer. Look at the wall of the room that is opposite the face of the mirror. Tell us what you see.

I recommend that you do both of these experiments on Earth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

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.

The Sun which gives us daylight.

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.

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.

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.

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

Still contradictory, and still nonsensical. You are saying both that the light at the film is the light that was not absorbed by the object and which is there instantly, as well as saying that the light at the film is light of all wavelengths which has traveled directly from the Sun which has taken time to get there

I did not say that. Whatever the lens is focused on, the object or scene will reveal itself through the non-absorbed light that is instantly at the film.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

, and that objects do not reflect unabsorbed light from their surfce at all. You are also constantly confusing photography with vision. I am not asking you about vision at all, so "seeing" should not be a part of any of your answers. Your answers here do not explain why the light arriving is white light from the Sun rather than unabsorbed light from the object, why light from the object is not managing to reach the camera, or how purely dispositional absorptive properties of white light which has never been in contact with the object could interact with the film to produce a blue image.

I am not saying that white light reaches the film. When we look at a tree, we see white light next to the tree. That white light is at the film too which would look like daylight. Daylight surrounds the object, it's not part of it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You need to start again by re-answering the questions without contradicting yourself.

I'm doing the best I can.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The important point is not (yet) whether this explanation is correct, but that this is how the afferent model explains why objects can be too small or too far away to be seen or photographed with a given camera. That means the afferent model does not make the absurd predictions you keep attributing to it. If you want to show that the afferent model is somehow inadequate on this point as you have claimed, then you have to show where this explanation is inadequate. Merely not being personally convinced by it is not sufficient.

It doesn't add up, that's why. It's like you're all in denial. How can only light travel from an object to the film when nothing will be picked up by the film if the object is not in view? If you can answer this, then we have a real dilemma because I have never seen a picture taken from light alone. Isn't that what afferent vision says? The lens of a camera is supposed to be a light detector, right? Even when something is so far away that the pixels can only get a very tiny picture, the object is still in range. We will get an exact photograph of what that optical range looks like, but if there's no object at all, the light will never give us a photograph as the light travels toward the camera.

[LadyShea]

I have never seen a picture taken from light alone

Yes you have. You just dismissed them because they shatter your worldview. Deciding that Hubble images don't count, for no rational reason, is a way to bury your head in the sand and say "I don't see that".

[Kael]

But they're not on Earth, LadyShea. Obviously we can't trust them, because we can't reach out and touch the galaxies and stars. And what a convenient dodge, claiming that light is "too fast" to make the same sorts of observations on Earth without special equipment, that just happens to be controlled by the entrenched scientific establishment! What a hustle!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't add up, that's why. It's like you're all in denial. How can only light travel from an object to the film when nothing will be picked up by the film if the object is not in view?

We're all in denial! Oh, the awesome frontiers, never before broached, of rich irony!

By Zod, this woman is stupid!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If you are certain that light does not bounce off of objects then try this simple experiment and tell us what happens.

Using a flash, take a picture of yourself in a mirror. Now, without using a flash take another picture of yourself in a mirror. Print both pictures. Describe the pictures for us. Even better, post the pictures in this thread.

Here is another experiment you can try.

Beg, buy, borrow or steal a laser pointer. In a dark room hold up a mirror in your left had with the mirror held at an angle pointing away from you and facing toward a blank wall. Hold the laser pointer in your right hand. Point the laser pointer in the direction of the face of the mirror. Turn on the laser pointer. Look at the wall of the room that is opposite the face of the mirror. Tell us what you see.

I recommend that you do both of these experiments on Earth.

That would be a good experiment actually. If we see an image on a blank wall , such as Columbus discovering America (which, of course, is impossible thus the problem we're having), Lessans would have been wrong.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That would be a good experiment actually. If we see an image on a blank wall , such as Columbus discovering America (which, of course, is impossible thus the problem we're having), Lessans would have been wrong.

Another great example of peacegirls mental problems. It doesn't appear she can even register anything that conflicts with her delusions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes you have. You just dismissed them because they shatter your worldview. Deciding that Hubble images don't count, for no rational reason, is a way to bury your head in the sand and say "I don't see that".

That's not it at all LadyShea. You have me all wrong.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not it at all LadyShea. You have me all wrong.

peacegirl, crazy people seldom see that they are crazy.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not it at all LadyShea. You have me all wrong.

If I did have you all wrong, you would not have dismissed the Hubble images.

[LadyShea]

We can't see an image on a wall, because walls don't reflect light well. We can see an image on a blank sheet of glass that has been silvered (called a mirror) because it does reflect light very well and not in a diffused manner.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We can't see an image on a wall, because walls don't reflect light well. We can see an image on a blank sheet of glass that has been silvered (called a mirror) because it does reflect light very well and not in a diffused manner.

LadyShea, you are whipping a dead horse.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

LadyShea, you are whipping a dead horse.

Welcome to the club.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say that. Whatever the lens is focused on, the object or scene will reveal itself through the non-absorbed light that is instantly at the film.

I am not saying that white light reaches the film. When we look at a tree, we see white light next to the tree. That white light is at the film too which would look like daylight. Daylight surrounds the object, it's not part of it.

How can the non-absorbed light (light which struck the object but was not reflected from its surface) be at the film (instantly or otherwise) if that light at the film never travelled from the object to get there, and if that unabsorbed light is never reflected (bounced off the object) at all?

Why are you still talking about vision when I'm only asking you about photography and cameras?

What is it at the camera and interacting with the film, and how did it get there? You still have no consistent or coherent answer to this simple question.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm doing the best I can.

If you were doing the best you can then you would have re-answered my questions, which you have yet to do without directly contradicting yourself:


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?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't add up, that's why. It's like you're all in denial. How can only light travel from an object to the film when nothing will be picked up by the film if the object is not in view? If you can answer this, then we have a real dilemma because I have never seen a picture taken from light alone. Isn't that what afferent vision says? The lens of a camera is supposed to be a light detector, right? Even when something is so far away that the pixels can only get a very tiny picture, the object is still in range. We will get an exact photograph of what that optical range looks like, but if there's no object at all, the light will never give us a photograph as the light travels toward the camera.

I have answered this for you already, as have many others, in terms so simple even a child could understand. I have repeatedly reposted that explanation asking you to tell me which part you do not understand. Everytime I have simply been ignored. So which one us is in denial?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That would be a good experiment actually. If we see an image on a blank wall , such as Columbus discovering America (which, of course, is impossible thus the problem we're having), Lessans would have been wrong.

They would indeed be good experiments, both of them. They are simple to perform and the resources are easily available to you. So why don't you go do them and then report the results?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

They would indeed be good experiments, both of them. They are simple to perform and the resources are easily available to you. So why don't you go do them and then report the results?

You assume that she can comprehend the experiment as simple as it may be.

[naturalist.atheist]

Yet another example (which is not necessary at this time) that Lessans was wrong:

Blind Learn To See With Tongue - YouTube

So much for "efferent vision". Not that this will register with peacegirl in any meaningful way. Her brain doesn't appear to be able to process new information in any part of her brain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

But they're not on Earth, LadyShea. Obviously we can't trust them, because we can't reach out and touch the galaxies and stars. And what a convenient dodge, claiming that light is "too fast" to make the same sorts of observations on Earth without special equipment, that just happens to be controlled by the entrenched scientific establishment! What a hustle!

That's not it Kael. Has it not dawned on you that the lens (the collector of photons) never photographs an image without the object present? People keep attributing this to optics, as if this explains it. If light is all that is necessary to capture an image, then we should at some point be able to get an image on film without the object in range, whether close to the camera or far from it. Isn't that the theme of the afferent model? We should be able to photograph an object from light alone?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Yet another example (which is not necessary at this time) that Lessans was wrong:

Blind Learn To See With Tongue - YouTube

So much for "efferent vision". Not that this will register with peacegirl in any meaningful way. Her brain doesn't appear to be able to process new information in any part of her brain.

I don't see where this negates efferent vision. The signals that would be captured on the retina or on film are being rerouted to the tongue and interpreted by learning what those signals mean.