A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Light is just being light, but what does that actually mean LadyShea?

I means light has properties so that as it travels and interacts with matter (it can reflected, absorbed, diffused, etc) it can create patterns

This is not unlike how different colors and intensity of dots can form recognizable patterns in pointillism

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I means light has properties so that as it travels and interacts with matter (it can reflected, absorbed, diffused, etc) it can create patterns

This is not unlike how different colors and intensity of dots can form recognizable patterns in pointillism

Who is debating this? Not me.

[LadyShea]

You are debating the properties of light being what they are with your crap about it not reflecting and traveling to the eye or camera.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not ignored you Spacemonkey...

You just ignored it yet again.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Here it is once again:

[Spacemonkey]

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.

This is precisely the strawman version of light 'carrying' images which you keep denying you are presenting.

After 8+ years of having the afferent model explained to you at every level of detail, you still don't understand any part of it whatsoever.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is precisely the strawman version of light 'carrying' images which you keep denying you are presenting.

After 8+ years of having the afferent model explained to you at every level of detail, you still don't understand any part of it whatsoever.

And unless she gets profession help she may never understand much of anything, even what Lessans wrote.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who is debating this? Not me.

You would think that by now she would understand more. But she doesn't. Anybody here thinking that they can change peacegirl's mind must realize that if it is gonna happen it will take more than a few posts on a forum. I suspect she will need some serious medication. For all I know she might have some kind of a brain tumor.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

What signals? According to you the light contains no signals and there are no signals being transmitted to the brain.

sig·nal  noun
1.any thing that serves to indicate, warn, direct, command, or the like, as a light, a gesture, an act, etc.

5. Electronics. an electrical quantity or effect, as current, voltage, or electromagnetic waves, that can be varied in such away as to convey information.

You have repeatedly insisted that light, although it strikes the retina, does not convey, transmit or carry information of any sort. However, conveying information is precisely what signals do. So, what signals are you talking about? Where are they coming from and what sort of information are they conveying?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

Yes, that is exactly what is happening in the process of vision, it's good to see that you can at least state it correctly.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes, that is exactly what is happening in the process of vision, it's good to see that you can at least state it correctly.

Just wait a few posts. This could be a random response. She is after all tossing out word salad.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Just wait a few posts. This could be a random response. She is after all tossing out word salad.

Well, I'm not holding my breath.

[peacegirl]

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.

Have I explained that in simple enough terms for you?

If the red ball gets too small for the outer detectors to detect, it will not be represented on film. Where does this negate efferent vision?

[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.

Added to previous post: What you just said doesn't add up, but this all goes back to whether the camera is getting the image from light (without the object having to be in physical range), or whether the object is (P) reflecting the image in real time as the lens is focused on it. The image of the object will fail to be produced not when the light arriving from that object is less than the minimum resolution the film is capable of resolving, but because the object is too small for the photons to be resolved when we are looking at the object or when we are taking a snapshot.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

The afferent model predicts that the image is in the light, and when that image gets too small for the detectors to pick up, these photons will not be represented on film. Efferent vision correctly says that when the object (the physical entity) gets further and further away from the film, the photons will not be represented on film and a photograph will not show up because the physical entity is not in visual range.

[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?

I'm not in disagreement with the standard definition. I am contesting the conclusions that are being drawn from that definition; that's all.

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.

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, but I'm afraid you don't. There is definitely an "out of range" limit to what we can see. If our telescopes magnify the image of the object that we are viewing (I'm referring to the physical object), then we can get a close view of it. But, according to efferent vision, we're getting a real time image of an actual physical event.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the red ball gets too small for the outer detectors to detect, it will not be represented on film. Where does this negate efferent vision?

It doesn't negate efferent vision. It explains why things that are too far away, and therefore the apparent size is too small to be resolved by the specific detector, can't be photographed or seen. In other words, it determines what the the distance in which an image can be resolved. A different detector can extend the distance in which the image can be resolved.

[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.

So where am I wrong, or is this just more semantics? What is light bringing, according to the scientific explanation, if not the wavelength of the object that is than transported through space and time and interpreted by the brain as an image through incoming signals???

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is definitely an "out of range" limit to what we can see.

What is that limit in efferent vision?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So where am I wrong, or is this just more semantics? What is light bringing, according to the scientific explanation, if not the wavelength of the object that is than transported through space and time and interpreted by the brain as an image through incoming signals???

The light is only "bringing" photons of light. Nothing else. The light that strikes a detector will have a wavelength (which is a property of traveling waves*, not a property of the object), and an angle, and an intensity. The angle, intensity, and wavelength are properties of the light and determined by the interactions with matter by being filtered, reflected, refracted. The pattern this detected light forms is interpreted into an image.

Wavelength=the distance, measured in the direction of propagation, between two points of the same phase in consecutive cycles of a wave.The distance between one peak or crest of a wave and the next peak or crest. It is equal to the speed of the wave divided by its frequency, and to the speed of a wave times its period.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So where am I wrong, or is this just more semantics? What is light bringing, according to the scientific explanation, if not the wavelength of the object that is than transported through space and time and interpreted by the brain as an image through incoming signals???

This description is also wrong. You don't understand the scientific model of vision. Your mental dysfunction leads me to believe that it doesn't matter what I tell you, you will still misunderstand the scientific model.

You like to quote Wikipedia, go search there and stop trying to waste my time.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So where am I wrong, or is this just more semantics? What is light bringing, according to the scientific explanation, if not the wavelength of the object that is than transported through space and time and interpreted by the brain as an image through incoming signals???

Light lands on the retina in a pattern. We discussed this before: an image is a representation. The landing light arrives in a pattern that represents the shape of the object; if there is a circular object, a circle of light will land on our retinas. It doesn't bring anything with it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I means light has properties so that as it travels and interacts with matter (it can reflected, absorbed, diffused, etc) it can create patterns

This is not unlike how different colors and intensity of dots can form recognizable patterns in pointillism

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN???

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

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?

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

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.

EVERYTHING HAS TO DO WITH VISUAL RANGE DRAGAR. I CAN'T WORRY WHETHER YOU ARE AN EXPERT IN YOUR FIELD, I AM OFFERING MY TRUTH AND MY TRUTH MATTERS.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

There is a distinction being made between (P) light and (N) light which is the only I can get across to you what I'm trying to say. Why are you failing me?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not in disagreement with the standard definition. I am contesting the conclusions that are being drawn from that definition; that's all.

Yes, but I'm afraid you don't. There is definitely an "out of range" limit to what we can see. If our telescopes magnify the image of the object that we are viewing (I'm referring to the physical object), then we can get a close view of it. But, according to efferent vision, we're getting a real time image of an actual physical event.

Here we go again peacegirl. We are talking about standard vision, not your crazy nonsense version. Remember? Because you said:

"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."

In standard vision, we can see as far as we like, given a powerful enough telescope and ignoring the diffraction limit. So when you claim there is an 'out of range', that should somehow be worrying to the standard model of vision, you're talking nonsense. We're currently discussing this very same point in the other thread, where (like here) you've refused to give a proper definition of 'out of range' or 'outside the visual range' beyond 'can't be seen'.

Which again leaves your sole argument against standard vision "there are some things we can't see that we can't see!". Not very impressive, is it?