A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really think it's fair to compare me to some other person who may be a crackpot for all I know?

She has a full blown model and diagrams and data from several experiments! She actually beats your ass in that regard.

But, yeah, she's a total crackpot.

[LadyShea]

I like how the brain allows photons to interact with camera film, somehow.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course the object had to be present at the time the light was emitted or reflected, but this is not what's at issue. What's at issue is the belief that the reflected light carries (you know what I mean by carry) the image when the object is no longer there. This is the biggest fallacy EVER due to the belief that the eyes are afferent.

No, what is at issue is a very specific matter of fact. That being your claim that the standard model "leaves out the object entirely". You have just acknowledged that the standard model does not leave out the object entirely. Therefore, you have just admitted that your very specific claim regarding a very specific aspect of the standard model was wrong. There goes another brick.

[seebs]

Yes, you can see an object which was there when the light left it and isn't there when the light reaches you. This is completely unsurprising.

Look, ever watch someone doing something loud from a distance (chopping wood is the classic example)? Light reaches you, then sound reaches you. When you hear the sound, the event that makes the sound has been over for a while.

Well, light also has travel time; it's just a lot faster.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She has a full blown model and diagrams and data from several experiments! She actually beats your ass in that regard.

But, yeah, she's a total crackpot.

Yeah, you can have a perfectly valid experiment, and still not be sound. I could care less if she bests my ass in that regard, just don't put Lessans in the same category. Thank you!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I like how the brain allows photons to interact with camera film, somehow.

Just keep your eye on "efferent" vision. This is the key which allows light to be present at the film/retina and does not require light to travel to Earth for us to see a celestial body out in space. The reason for this is because there is a 180 difference between these two models.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No, what is at issue is a very specific matter of fact. That being your claim that the standard model "leaves out the object entirely". You have just acknowledged that the standard model does not leave out the object entirely. Therefore, you have just admitted that your very specific claim regarding a very specific aspect of the standard model was wrong. There goes another brick.

Where have I acknowledged that the standard model does not leave out the object entirely? I said that the standard model states that the (N) reflected light carries the information of the object within it, even when the object is no longer present.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by seebs

Yes, you can see an object which was there when the light left it and isn't there when the light reaches you. This is completely unsurprising.

Look, ever watch someone doing something loud from a distance (chopping wood is the classic example)? Light reaches you, then sound reaches you. When you hear the sound, the event that makes the sound has been over for a while.

Well, light also has travel time; it's just a lot faster.

Seebs, I don't know when you got here, but you're just repeating the very premise that Lessans is disputing.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seebs, I don't know when you got here, but you're just repeating the very premise that Lessans is disputing.

Yes he is stating the premise that we know to be true because it is supported by all the observation and evidence. Just because Lessans disputes it doesn not make it false or unrepeatable. Everything we know about light and vision support the afferent model, efferent vision is only put forward by Lessans say so, which doesn't amount to anything.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

just don't put Lessans in the same category. Thank you!

We are not putting Lessans in any catagory, in his book he has put himself firmly in the catagory of a crackpot.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where have I acknowledged that the standard model does not leave out the object entirely? I said that the standard model states that the (N) reflected light carries the information of the object within it, even when the object is no longer present.

Try reading the whole post, that first quote is yours.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just keep your eye on "efferent" vision. This is the key which allows light to be present at the film/retina and does not require light to travel to Earth for us to see a celestial body out in space. The reason for this is because there is a 180 difference between these two models.

You've yet to offer a physical mechanism by which the brain performs this miraculous allowing of photons to teleport from the Sun to the surface of camera film instantly, breaking multiple laws of physics.

Of course you didn't read the Morton's Demon essay, but it perfectly describes you, even though he was talking about Young Earth Creationists.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Try reading the whole post, that first quote is yours.

The afferent model leaves out the object [almost] entirely. Is that better?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've yet to offer a physical mechanism by which the brain performs this miraculous allowing of photons to teleport from the Sun to the surface of camera film instantly, breaking multiple laws of physics.

Of course you didn't read the Morton's Demon essay, but it perfectly describes you, even though he was talking about Young Earth Creationists.

There is no teleporting of photons LadyShea. I also said that the mechanism as to how the brain looks outward is not yet known, but this does not make his observations inaccurate. I am sorry you think I sound like a Young Earth Creationist, but nothing here defies the laws of physics. Have you ever considered that you might not be capable of grasping these relations? I don't think you're intellectually incapable; but you might be emotionally incapable.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seebs, I don't know when you got here, but you're just repeating the very premise that Lessans is disputing.

It is not a premise, it is a conclusion. You do realize we did not always know this, right? That prominent thinkers of past ages believed something not too terribly different from what Lessans claims about sight? That it was only through new experimental evidence that we eliminated the old explanations for sight and eventually figured out how it really worked?

Who am I kidding, of course you don't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

It is not a premise, it is a conclusion. You do realize we did not always know this, right? That prominent thinkers of past ages believed something not too terribly different from what Lessans claims about sight? That it was only through new experimental evidence that we eliminated the old explanations for sight and eventually figured out how it really worked?

Who am I kidding, of course you don't.

The difference is that their reasoning was not based on accurate observations. It was a hunch which was refuted by scientists. Ironically, it didn't make those scientists any more right. The experimental evidence was based on the premise that afferent vision was correct (you say it was a conclusion; I beg to differ), therefore everything seemed to fit. But now it's being disputed again. Of course, it's even harder this time around because this model of sight has graduated into absolute fact.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The afferent model leaves out the object [almost] entirely. Is that better?

And that is what makes afferent vision correct, because it is the light (photons) interacting with the film/retina that produce an image, once the light is reflected off the object, no matter how far away, it is the light that produces sight and the object is no longer important, it was only needed to reflect the light.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The difference is that their reasoning was not based on accurate observations. It was a hunch which was refuted by scientists. Ironically, it didn't make those scientists any more right. The experimental evidence was based on the premise that afferent vision was correct (you say it was a conclusion; I beg to differ), therefore everything seemed to fit. But now it's being disputed again. Of course, it's even harder this time around because this model of sight has graduated into absolute fact.

If afferent and efferent vision claimed to see exactly the same things then you might be able to claim some kind of controversy ( but not really since afferent vision agrees with physics). But from what you and Lessans claim, one does not see the same things. So one can check the two kinds of vision against each other and see which difference the kind of vision fails at. Anybody can test instantaneous vision and do it right here on earth. Lessans fails.

There is no controversy, just one very confused lunatic.

Get help peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And that is what makes afferent vision correct, because it is the light (photons) interacting with the film/retina that produce an image, once the light is reflected off the object, no matter how far away, it is the light that produces sight and the object is no longer important, it was only needed to reflect the light.

But that's where science is mistaken thedoc, and no matter how many times you denounce Lessans, it doesn't change the facts.

[Spacemonkey]

You haven't answered my questions, Peacegirl. Why is that?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's where science is mistaken thedoc, and no matter how many times you denounce Lessans, it doesn't change the facts.

The fact is that science got it right and Lessans didn't know enough about it to know where he was wrong.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yeah, you can have a perfectly valid experiment, and still not be sound. I could care less if she bests my ass in that regard, just don't put Lessans in the same category. Thank you!

Relax. There's no chance whatsoever of anyone putting Lessans in the category of having a perfectly valid experiment.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, here are the two sets of questions again. I will include some tips in red to help you avoid repeating the same mistakes.


FIRST SET

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]
(Answering 'Yes' to this question will not mean that the light bouncing off the object will be only blue-wavelength light.)

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]
(Answering 'Yes' to this question will mean that you are positing stationary light. Nothing can stay anywhere without thereby being stationary.)

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]
(If you answer 'No' to all of the above options then you have to answer this one. And you cannot say just that 'nothing happens to it'. If it still exists then it must be somewhere and be doing something. I want to know where the blue-wavelength light is just after it hits the object and what it is then doing.)


SECOND SET

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]
(If these specific photons are newly existing, then the correct answer here would be 'No', in which case you do not need to answer Q2 below, because these photons will not have had any location before they came into existence.)

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]
(If you do answer this question - i.e. if you answer 'Yes' to Q1 above - then you cannot answer 'At the film' here without thereby making those photons stationary. And if the photons at the film just before the photograph was taken are different photons from those there at the next moment, then they are not the photons this question is asking you about.)

3. If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?
(The correct answer to this question - and you got it right last time - should obviously be 'Stationary'. But this means you cannot answer 'At the film' to Q2 above without positing stationary light.)

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No. You did not tell me that. You gave me no answer at all as to what happens to the blue-wavelength light. You did specifically tell me that light coming into existence at the film or retina is not the same light as the blue-wavelength light which just hit the object. So tell me: What happens to this blue-wavelength light (contained within the sunlight) when it hits the blue ball. You say it gets (P)reflected. What does that mean? Where are these blue-wavelength photons at the moment in time immediately after they hit the ball?

If this process of (P)reflection means they are turning up at the film, then you have two problems: (i) You will have just made them teleport themselves from the ball to the film, contrary to your previous answers; and (ii) You will have thereby made it false that the light at the film is newly existing, because it will rather have been light which was previously at the ball hitting its surface.

So please explain exactly what happens to this blue-wavelength light immediately after it hits the surface of the ball.

Even if this were comprehensible, none of it tells me what happens to the blue-wavelength light (within the sunlight) after it hits the surface of the ball. Take me through the journey of one of these blue-wavelength photons. Call him Bob. I'm Bob and I've just been emitted by the sun, along with all of my friends of other wavelengths comprising the rest of the spectrum. I am zooming through space towards the ball. Then I hit the ball. Then what? Where am I next, and what am I doing?

That means you answered wrongly, and need to answer them again correctly. Here, I'll answer the second set of questions for you, and you can tell me if I'm doing so correctly:

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]
No, they are newly existing photons.

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]
They did not then exist.

3. If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?
Stationary.

See? Easy. If you disagree with these answers, just let me know. Otherwise I will assume they represent your position.

I've answered the second set for you. But you still haven't properly answered the first set of questions.

You've denied that the blue-wavelength light teleports itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas, but you have just claimed that it will be (P)reflected when it hits the blue ball. Please explain the difference by detailing exactly what happens to these blue-wavelength photons when they get (P)reflected. Be sure to specifiy exactly where they are and what they are doing at the moment immediately after they hit the surface of the ball. And remember that you've said the photons at the film/retina are newly existing photons which were therefore not previously at the ball's surface.

Bump.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I also said that the mechanism as to how the brain looks outward is not yet known...

Magic!