A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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...

This is still wrong, no matter how many times you repeat it. That we don't get an image is what it means for an object to be out of range, so what you are suggesting should follow from the afferent model is impossible by definition. And that model explains that an image of the object will fail to be produced when the light arriving from that object is less than the minimum resolution the film is capable of resolving.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

I have not ignored you Spacemonkey. I don't agree with the explanation that light travels too fast and that's why we can't get an image when it's out of range, yet we get an image when the object is in range and the light is even closer to the camera.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is still wrong, no matter how many times you repeat it. That we don't get an image is what it means for an object to be out of range, so what you are suggesting should follow from the afferent model is impossible by definition. And that model explains that an image of the object will fail to be produced when the light arriving from that object is less than the minimum resolution the film is capable of resolving.

I'm sorry but that part is actually in agreement with efferent vision, no matter how much you are trying to resolve the conflict.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not ignored you Spacemonkey. I don't agree with the explanation that light travels too fast and that's why we can't get an image when it's out of range, yet we get an image when the object is in range and the light is even closer to the camera.

That wasn't the explanation.

And yes, you have ignored me every time I reposted that explanation asking for you to explain what part you do not understand.

[Spacemonkey]

Here it is once again:

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'm sorry but that part is actually in agreement with efferent vision, no matter how much you are trying to resolve the conflict.

If you were in agreement with this, then you wouldn't keep wrongly claiming that the afferent model predicts something different. That you do keep saying this shows that you don't understand and that the conflict remains your own.

Your continued unwillingness to re-answer my list of questions (which you have yet to answer without self-contradiction) shows that you have no interest in trying to resolve the conflict within your own model.

[Dragar]

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.

Your agreement shouldn't be important here; we're discussing the standard, scientific explanation. Unless you think I'm misrepresenting that position, what does your agreement have to do with this?

As for answering your questions, I've patiently explained why your questions don't even make sense. You keep on asking why we can't make images of objects that are 'out of range', and I keep telling you that there is no such thing as 'out of range', that we can make images of objects no matter the distance, and that the only barrier to this is the size of the image created by a distant object will be very small.

You then proceed to ignore all this, and repeat your confused question.

Is there a part of my explanation you don't understand?

Do you understand the difference between an object and an image?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Your agreement shouldn't be important here; we're discussing the standard, scientific explanation. Unless you think I'm misrepresenting that position, what does your agreement have to do with this?

Because of this comment:

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.

Originally Posted by Dragar

As for answering your questions, I've patiently explained why your questions don't even make sense. You keep on asking why we can't make images of objects that are 'out of range', and I keep telling you that there is no such thing as 'out of range', that we can make images of objects no matter the distance, and that the only barrier to this is the size of the image created by a distant object will be very small.

Why should the size of the image matter if light is supposed to be carrying that image, or transporting that image. We shouldn't need an object to be in range at all. If light has this property of bringing images to us so they can be interpreted from signals, we should not need an object to be in range at all. You keep talking about optics, but as I said earlier, this is more supportive of efferent vision than afferent.

Originally Posted by Dragar

You then proceed to ignore all this, and repeat your confused question.

Is there a part of my explanation you don't understand?

Do you understand the difference between an object and an image?

Yes I do. And light is supposed to be bringing the image to us to be interpreted (or made) by the brain. So with that train of thought, we shouldn't need an object in range at all. That's why scientists say that we would see Columbus discovering America if the light finally reached us. How could that happen if the event is no longer in range, which you have admitted is necessary?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why should the size of the image matter if light is supposed to be carrying that image, or transporting that image. We shouldn't need an object to be in range at all. If light has this property of bringing images to us so they can be interpreted from signals, we should not need an object to be in range at all. You keep talking about optics, but as I said earlier, this is more supportive of efferent vision than afferent.

Your intense and unbreakable confusion as to how an image is produced by light is not supportive of efferent vision.

Yes I do. And light is supposed to be bringing the image to us to be interpreted by the brain. So with that train of thought, we shouldn't need an object in range at all. That's why scientists say that we would see Columbus discovering America if the light finally reached us. How could that happen if the event is no longer in range, which you have admitted is necessary?

Light does not "bring an image to the brain" - this is confused and stupid and does not represent the scientific model for vision. You don't understand the model you are trying to critique - a tragic shame consider how much information has been offered to you.

I'm afraid naturalist.atheist is right - you have a disability, a disfunction that renders you incapable of understanding.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because of this comment:

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.

Why should the size of the image matter if light is supposed to be carrying that image, or transporting that image.

Because, as has been explained numerous times to you now, an image that is very small means it is difficult to see. Once too small, the pattern can no longer be interpreted by the brain as a pattern - it just appears to the brain as a spot, if anything at all. That is why we can't see small things, too, without a way to make the image bigger. And light does not 'carry' the image; the pattern of light landing on the focal plane makes the image. That's all it is. That's what people have been trying to explain to you about pixels and so on, but you ignore it.

Do you understand that moving an object further away makes the image it produces smaller?

Do you understand that making an object smaller, also makes the image smaller?

Since you seem happy with small things that make small images being hard to see, why are you unhappy with distant objects producing small images being hard to see?

We shouldn't need an object to be in range at all.

peacegirl, I just said, in the previous post, there's no such thing as range. So why are you talking about it again?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I do. And light is supposed to be bringing the image to us to be interpreted by the brain. So with that train of thought, we shouldn't need an object in range at all. That's why scientists say that we would see Columbus discovering America if the light finally reached us. How could that happen if the event is no longer in range, which you have admitted is necessary?

If you understand all that, why are you still talking about range?

There's no such thing as range, peacegirl. There is only the size of the image - which, as we discussed earlier, is the representative pattern of light. You seem to have forgotten all of this. If you still want to talk about range, please tell me what the range of my eyesight vision is, roughly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Your intense and unbreakable confusion as to how an image is produced by light is not supportive of efferent vision.

Light does not "bring an image to the brain" - this is confused and stupid and does not represent the scientific model for vision. You don't understand the model you are trying to critique - a tragic shame consider how much information has been offered to you.

I'm afraid naturalist.atheist is right - you have a disability, a disfunction that renders you incapable of understanding.

Then what is light supposed to be doing if not striking the retina; the retina transposing the impulses through the optic nerve; and the brain turning those impulses into an image?

[LadyShea]

The light is not carrying, bringing, or transporting an image. Light is just being light. The image is created in the brain.

You have said several times you understand that, but keep using it as if you do not understand.

[ceptimus]

I would say that the image is created by the light, but not carried by the light. You don't need a brain or a film or detector to create an image - you get an image on, say, a white-painted wall, when a small gap in the curtains or blind on the window acts as a pinhole. You would also get an image on the retina of the (open) eye of a dead person, even though there is no living brain to interpret that image.

A definition for this kind of image would just be: The pattern of light falling on a plane surface.

Nothing CARRIES the image - the pattern of light as it impinges on a surface is what we CALL the image. The image is just a pattern of light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

I would say that the image is created by the light, but not carried by the light. You don't need a brain or a film or detector to create an image - you get an image on, say, a white-painted wall, when a small gap in the curtains or blind on the window acts as a pinhole. You would also get an image on the retina of the (open) eye of a dead person, even though there is no living brain to interpret that image.

A definition for this kind of image would just be: The pattern of light falling on a plane surface.

Nothing CARRIES the image - the pattern of light as it impinges on a surface is what we CALL the image. The image is just a pattern of light.

I'll try to remember to say "a pattern of light" because people think I mean the light is actually carrying the image, which I've said numerous times that I am not creating a strawman. I just have no better way of explaining this. Thanks.

Yes, we see a pattern of light on a wall or plane surface but that always involves a lens, or something acting like a lens. Don't you agree?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The light is not carrying, bringing, or transporting an image. Light is just being light. The image is created in the brain.

You have said several times you understand that, but keep using it as if you do not understand.

Exactly.

I think the reason why you can't understand the scientific model of light is because it is nothing like the way Lessans thinks it is. You keep on trying to understand how vision works in the context of Lessans' books, but you can't. You can't because Lessans didn't understand or describe it properly.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, we see a pattern of light on a wall or plane surface but that always involves a lens, or something acting like a lens. Don't you agree?

No.

Consider a mirror, for example.

Other objects, like walls, are all poor mirrors. The pattern of light striking a wall gets thrown out in all directions, so no pattern is left that reaches our eyes - just chaos. Light striking a mirror, on the other hand, lets us see the image striking the wall perfectly.

The only thing a lens does is bend the path of light rays, so that the image is bigger or smaller than it would otherwise be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The light is not carrying, bringing, or transporting an image. Light is just being light. The image is created in the brain.

You have said several times you understand that, but keep using it as if you do not understand.

I understand completely, but whether a pattern that is displayed in the brain confirms that the brain is seeing reality (not just patterns and shadows) is questionable and needs more study.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

No.

Consider a mirror, for example.

Other objects, like walls, are all poor mirrors. The pattern of light striking a wall gets thrown out in all directions, so no pattern is left that reaches our eyes - just chaos. Light striking a mirror, on the other hand, lets us see the image striking the wall perfectly.

The only thing a lens does is bend the path of light rays, so that the image is bigger or smaller than it would otherwise be.

You're missing one important point. If the object disappears, there will be no image from the mirror. Just because a mirror is a convoluted way to see the image doesn't mean the object is not causing that image to appear.

[LadyShea]

Yes, the object reflects light, which is what causes the pattern of color and intensity, also known as an image. The travel time and intensity loss over distance of light is therefore always pertinent.

We can also see and photograph light without the object (such as stars and rainbows and the aurora, etc)

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Exactly.

I think the reason why you can't understand the scientific model of light is because it is nothing like the way Lessans thinks it is. You keep on trying to understand how vision works in the context of Lessans' books, but you can't. You can't because Lessans didn't understand or describe it properly.

If this outcome had been the result of a few hundred posts I might agree with you. But we are approaching 20,000 posts. This goes way beyond a simple lack of accurate information.

peacegirls brain is dysfunctional.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're missing one important point. If the object disappears, there will be no image from the mirror. Just because a mirror is a convoluted way to see the image doesn't mean the object is not causing that image to appear.

Great, so let's do a test. First we need to work out what vision-via-light predicts.

Vision-via-light predicts that if we remove an object from a room, the object will remain in mirror image until the last light reflected by the (now removed object) has struck the mirror and reflected into our eyes.

You know the speed of light. In a big room (say 100m by 100m), for how long after removing the object should we expect to still see an image in the mirror even with no object present?

[Dragar]

[Dragar]

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

If this outcome had been the result of a few hundred posts I might agree with you. But we are approaching 20,000 posts. This goes way beyond a simple lack of accurate information.

peacegirls brain is dysfunctional.

Oh, no doubts. The interesting part is how her brain is dysfunctional. Lessans book is so internalized by her that there is literally nothing else, and every objection and misunderstanding can be found in in the book itself. You can see the confusion in her writing when she tries to explore areas of thought not covered in the book.

Shit, now I can't participate any more. This is bringing up memories of my Grandmother's dementia - she lived for years assuming that my Grandfather was just in the next room, and she went into total shutdown when reminded he had died...

Maybe peacegirl's more functional, but it never felt good breaking apart my Grandmother's delusions, and it never helped.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The light is not carrying, bringing, or transporting an image. Light is just being light. The image is created in the brain.

You have said several times you understand that, but keep using it as if you do not understand.

Light is just being light, but what does that actually mean LadyShea? The pattern in the light (coming from the object or light source) is believed to be traveling through space and time and landing on the film or retina.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Exactly.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I think the reason why you can't understand the scientific model of light is because it is nothing like the way Lessans thinks it is. You keep on trying to understand how vision works in the context of Lessans' books, but you can't. You can't because Lessans didn't understand or describe it properly.

That's a matter of opinion. This thread is full of group think, and the bias is palpable.