A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

And, of course you want me to "move on", you can't refute my statements in any coherent manner and you can't demonstrate I am wrong in any meaningful way.

So you are left with vapid and empty assertions like "You're so wrong!"

The claim looks ridiculous because it is ridiculous, peacegirl.

[LadyShea]

1. The Sun newly ignited at noon
2. Camera film on Earth at noon
3. No photons of light on Earth until 12:08 ACCORDING TO LESSANS HIMSELF
4. No light on Earth means no photons for the camera film to physically touch which is required for absorption and photochemical reaction.

How do photons come to be in contact with camera film on Earth, 93 million miles away, at noon if the photons have neither traveled to Earth, nor teleported to the camera film?

If you can't describe a mechanism that doesn't break the laws of physics (which bar photochemical reactions at a physical distance), then your claims regarding cameras taking photographs in real time are proven false.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

TLR, something about your eagerness to know the truth makes me believe you haven't given up. Maybe I'm wrong, but my intuition tells me I'm not.

You're holding out hope that davidm can be convinced too?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

You're holding out hope that davidm can be convinced too?

Peacegirls intuition tells her that Lessans is correct about what he wrote, What does that tell you about Peacegirls intuition.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

TLR, something about your eagerness to know the truth makes me believe you haven't given up. Maybe I'm wrong, but my intuition tells me I'm not.

All you have to do is show me some convincing evidence that everything we thought we knew about Relativity Theory, optics, neurobiology, and the anatomy of the eye is wrong. It would be, to say the least, an exciting discovery. Indeed, I think that everyone here would agree.

I'm not holding my breath while I wait for you to provide said evidence, however.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And, of course you want me to "move on", you can't refute my statements in any coherent manner and you can't demonstrate I am wrong in any meaningful way.

So you are left with vapid and empty assertions like "You're so wrong!"

The claim looks ridiculous because it is ridiculous, peacegirl.

It's not ridiculous that you move on LadyShea, or should I say we all move on. There is no point because the premise on which my refutation is based is not proved by science, even though it is correct. The only thing I can wish for is that science does more empirical testing. Only then will they listen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Just to clarify, for peacegirl's sake -- because I know perfectly well that the point went right over her head:

Your "logic" is exactly like that of a flat-earther, or a geocentrist, or a young-Earth creationist.

Why?

Because, like a flat-earther, or a geocentrist, or a YEC, you're perfectly willing to accept those branches of science which don't conflict with your religious views. But you hypocritically, illogically, and unthinkingly reject any and all science that does conflict with your views.

It's not like flat-earthers reject modern medicine, for instance, or that geocentrists reject genetics, or that YECs reject gravity.

But flat-earthers refuse to accept the fact that the Earth is not flat, and geocentrists refuse to accept the fact that the Earth is not stationary, and YECs refuse to accept the fact that all living things on Earth are related through common descent.

And they all reject these facts for exactly the same reason. And that reason is absolutely not because there is any ambiguity or "controversy" regarding the relevant science, nor is it because there is in any way shape or form room for informed, rational doubt on these issues.

In each case, they reject these facts for one reason and one reason only: because those facts conflict with their unquestionable religious beliefs.*


And that is exactly why you reject any and all facts which disprove Lessans' claims -- because they conflict with your religious belief that Lessans was correct.

And make no mistake: it most-definitely is a religious belief on your part. Or more precisely, they represent pure, unquestionable faith on your part. [The distinction being that while your beliefs are faith-based, they are not sufficiently clear-cut or well-formed to constitute a true religion.]


After all, you don't have any evidence that Lessans' claims are true -- none whatsoever. It's simply an article of faith on your part. In all this time, you have yet to provide a single piece of objectively-verifiable evidence in support of Lessans' claims. You can babble about his supposed "astute observations" all you want. That. Is. Not. Evidence.

Nor are Lessan's claims logically consistent and logically sound. You will, of course -- as a matter of pure faith -- insist that this is not the case. But that Lessans' claims are neither consistent nor logically sound has been very thoroughly explained to you in a manner that any reasonably intelligent child could understand. The fact that you adamantly refuse to even understand these explanations demonstrates that you have no actual interest in whether or not Lessans' claims are consistent or logically sound.



In short, Lessans' claims are demonstrably false, inconsistent, self-contradictory, and utterly illogical. All of this has been explained to in exhaustive detail, and in language that anyone who has managed to get through elementary school should have no difficulty in comprehending.



Despite this, you continue to insist that the myriad disproofs of Lessans' claims are somehow "inconclusive," and you reject entire branches of science out of hand for no other reason than because they conflict with your faith-based belief. Goodness knows, it's not because you have the slightest comprehension of the science that you reject!

In this, you are indeed indistinguishable from any other Religious Fundamentalist, whether of the flat-Earth or geocentrist or YEC variety. And like any good Fundamentalist, when the facts are impossible to ignore, you'll simply lie about them.

The only real difference between your peculiar brand of Fundamentalism and other forms of Fundamentalist belief is that yours is a religion that has only one follower.



*In fairness, some of these people "reject" such things as evolutionary biology not because they actually believe their own claims, but because they're making money and/or gaining followers by preying upon people who do have such beliefs. One thing I'll say about a person who refuses to accept the fact of biological evolution or the fact that the eyes are sense organs (by definition) because he's ignorant and misinformed, or just plain stupid -- is that at least he's honest. It's sad, but it doesn't make him a bad person.

But the person who writes books about how "evilution" doesn't occur or that the eyes aren't sense organs when he knows he's lying -- because he knows that he can sell this crap to the ignorant and stupid -- is just plain despicable, in my opinion.

Considering that I have worked on this for years now, making money is certainly not the first thing on my mind. Most people who want to take people's money for dishonest reasons don't wait around to do it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Most people who want to take people's money for dishonest reasons don't wait around to do it.

Then should I assume that you have had considerable experience doing this which gives you a basis on which to make this statement?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

All you have to do is show me some convincing evidence that everything we thought we knew about Relativity Theory, optics, neurobiology, and the anatomy of the eye is wrong. It would be, to say the least, an exciting discovery. Indeed, I think that everyone here would agree.

I'm not holding my breath while I wait for you to provide said evidence, however.

You kidding? It would potentially give us time-travel or faster-than-light travel, if we could discover the mechanism behind it and start applying it to other things. It would be the most astounding thing ever.

But the discovery of magical pixies that can magic us to wherever we want would do that too. And there is as little evidence for one as for the other so far.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say afferent vision didn't have a model to explain everything...

Yes you did. You were insisting that you had not been given an answer for why we cannot see things which are in our line of sight but out of visual range.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're not doing that because the efferent model creates a completely different relationship with light --- which you are not recognizing --- and still not violate the laws of physics.

But I am doing exactly as I said. I am beginning from your conclusion that vision is real-time and then working backwards to try to work out what this completely different relationship must be. But when this approach leads to contradictions and absurdities all you do is refuse to explain them or answer my questions about it. What you do not do is explain this completely different relationship with light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not that at all; it's that your account will necessarily cause a conflict because if efferent vision is true, there is no traveling of photons whatsoever. You can't see how this is possible, but that does not make Lessans wrong. It makes you need to think outside of the box, because the minute you start talking about travel time, you're right back discussing the afferent model without even realizing it.

That's just stupid. And in complete contradiction with everything you've said about real-time vision up to this point. If there are no traveling photons whatsoever, then either light does not consist of photons at all, or light consists of stationary photons. Or you don't really mean what you just said. Unless your account has either no photons at all, or only stationary photons, it does posit traveling photons. And as long as there are traveling photons (as per your own previous answers) I am not thereby discussing afferent vision by asking about them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then let it go; we're going in circles and it's not worth my time when there is no resolution in sight (no pun intended).

We are going around in circles because you refuse to answer questions, and contradict yourself whenever you do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then you need to drop your insistence that camera film and CCDs, which must have traveling photons physically land on them to create images from the pattern of light, are also real time seeing devices like the eyes and brain.

If it's only about the brain and eyes, then cameras must be excluded from your model. If cameras are included in your model, light physics must be included in your model.

It's pretty simple, peacegirl. You can't have it both ways, again.

You're wrong about that, and I gave my reasons why. Yes, images from the pattern of light land on camera film and CCDs, but they are not traveling IF the lens is aimed at the object which causes the light to become a mirror image. It works the same way as the eyes because the same light that the eyes use to see in real time is the same light that is present at the film in real time. There is no difference, even though cameras don't have brains.

[LadyShea]

Images from the pattern of light land on camera film and CCDs, but they are not traveling IF the lens is aimed at the object from which the light is focused.

Nobody said the image travels anywhere. Nobody thinks the image lands on the film. You are aware of this, you keep saying, yet you keep using wrong terminology. Why?

The photons have to physically contact the film or CCD to be absorbed. Meaning, the photons and the film or CCD have to exist in the same physical location. They cannot be at a physical distance

Lenses can't reach out and capture the photons and bring them to the film, the film or CCD can't teleport to the photons. So, the only way for the photons to get to the surface of the film or CCD is to travel there to that location, or teleport there, to that location.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say afferent vision didn't have a model to explain everything...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes you did. You were insisting that you had not been given an answer for why we cannot see things which are in our line of sight but out of visual range.

I was given an answer but it is not adequate. According to afferent vision, all we need is light to strike the retina, which gives us the pattern of a past event. Ask David and you'll see that the object doesn't have to be anywhere in sight.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're not doing that because the efferent model creates a completely different relationship with light --- which you are not recognizing --- and still not violate the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But I am doing exactly as I said. I am beginning from your conclusion that vision is real-time and then working backwards to try to work out what this completely different relationship must be. But when this approach leads to contradictions and absurdities all you do is refuse to explain them or answer my questions about it. What you do not do is explain this completely different relationship with light.

Don't you see that the minute you start talking about photons leaving the object and traveling to distant cameras, you're already misconstruing how efferent vision works. Do you expect me to sit here and continue this charade just to keep myself from looking foolish? By answering your interrogation I have misrepresented myself entirely. I refuse to talk about traveling photons anymore because this is not part of the efferent version of sight.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not that at all; it's that your account will necessarily cause a conflict because if efferent vision is true, there is no traveling of photons whatsoever. You can't see how this is possible, but that does not make Lessans wrong. It makes you need to think outside of the box, because the minute you start talking about travel time, you're right back discussing the afferent model without even realizing it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's just stupid. And in complete contradiction with everything you've said about real-time vision up to this point. If there are no traveling photons whatsoever, then either light does not consist of photons at all, or light consists of stationary photons. Or you don't really mean what you just said. Unless your account has either no photons at all, or only stationary photons, it does posit traveling photons. And as long as there are traveling photons (as per your own previous answers) I am not thereby discussing afferent vision by asking about them.

I already told you that efferent and afferent are completely opposite models, therefore traveling photons in the efferent model OF SIGHT do not exist because we do not get an image from light that is interpreted in the brain. To repeat, photons travel, but if Lessans is right, then light becomes a condition of sight, not a cause.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then let it go; we're going in circles and it's not worth my time when there is no resolution in sight (no pun intended).

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We are going around in circles because you refuse to answer questions, and contradict yourself whenever you do.

It's not a contradiction. You're just not grasping the meaning of efferent vision and what this entails.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is false?

There is no question, whatsoever, about how cameras work and how light works. These are 100% factual statements I made. Traveling photons must physically land on camera film or a CCD, to be absorbed, for photographic images to be created. There is no disputing that, it is fact.

If efferent vision requires these to not be facts, then efferent vision is proven false.

Photons travel, that is true, but there is no travel time when the lens is aimed at the object (or anything in the external world), for then an instant mirror image occurs.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...traveling photons in the efferent model OF SIGHT do not exist... To repeat, photons travel...

It's not a contradiction.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Photons travel, that is true, but there is no travel time when the lens is aimed at the object (or anything in the external world), for then an instant mirror image occurs.

As long as photons travel then I'm not discussing afferent vision by asking about them, am I?

What does this instant mirror image at the film consist of?

Photons that traveled to get there? Photons that got there instantly from somewhere else (i.e. teleported)? Newly existing photons that popped into existence at the film? Something other than photons? What?

[LadyShea]

Photons travel, that is true, but there is no travel time when the lens is aimed at the object (or anything in the external world), for then an instant mirror image occurs.

The photons have to physically contact the film or CCD to be absorbed. Meaning, the photons and the film or CCD have to exist in the same physical location. They cannot be at a physical distance

Lenses can't reach out and capture the photons and bring them to the film, the film or CCD can't teleport to the photons. So, the only way for the photons to get to the surface of the film or CCD is to travel there to that location, or teleport there, to that location.

[Spacemonkey]

Are there traveling photons striking the object on your account, which do not get absorbed by the object? If so, where are they immediately after they hit the object? Are they traveling away from the surface of the object or not?

Are there photons at the film and interacting with it when the photograph is taken? Are they photons which were previously traveling towards the camera or not? If not, did they exist at all prior to the photograph being taken? If they did previously exist, then where were they immediately before the photograph was taken?

(Note how none of these questions presuppose anything about afferent vision or traveling photons.)

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was given an answer but it is not adequate.

What exactly is not adequate with the answer you've been given? Merely disagreeing with it does not show it to be inadequate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you expect me to sit here and continue this charade just to keep myself from looking foolish?

So you'd rather look foolish than try to answer questions about your own position?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

By answering your interrogation I have misrepresented myself entirely.

Whose fault is it if you can't answer simple and reasonable questions about your own position without misrepresenting yourself?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to talk about traveling photons anymore because this is not part of the efferent version of sight.

But it is. You admit in your very next post (and in this one) that there are traveling photons on your account. That means I get to ask about them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you that efferent and afferent are completely opposite models, therefore traveling photons in the efferent model OF SIGHT do not exist because we do not get an image from light that is interpreted in the brain. To repeat, photons travel, but if Lessans is right, then light becomes a condition of sight, not a cause.

You can't say photons travel if traveling photons don't exist. That is not 'repeating' yourself - it is called 'contradicting' yourself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a contradiction. You're just not grasping the meaning of efferent vision and what this entails.

Apparently you're not grasping the meaning of 'contradiction'.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to afferent vision, all we need is light to strike the retina, which gives us the pattern of a past event. Ask David and you'll see that the object doesn't have to be anywhere in sight.

And this is true but what you are failing to understand is the time it takes for the object to dissapear and the last photons to reach the eyes is very short, on the order of a few nanoseconds.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to talk about traveling photons anymore because this is not part of the efferent version of sight.

But traveling photons are a part of observed reality, therefore efferent vision is not part of observed reality.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you that efferent and afferent are completely opposite models,

Therefore, since the afferent model of vision is true based on observed facts and accurate tests and experiments, then the efferent model must be false. Hmm, that was easy, - next.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Not at all, huh? Do you think that is saying anything remotely meaningful? What's not at all?

Photons travel. That's a fact.
Photons interact with matter in specific consistent measurable ways. That's a fact

So what do you mean "not at all"?

What I meant is that light can do what it does and efferent vision still be valid.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I meant is that light can do what it does and efferent vision still be valid.

You haven't established that at all. You've yet to show any way in which real-time vision could be possible without light having to behave completely differently from how it does. This is just another faith claim.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You kidding? It would potentially give us time-travel or faster-than-light travel, if we could discover the mechanism behind it and start applying it to other things. It would be the most astounding thing ever.

But the discovery of magical pixies that can magic us to wherever we want would do that too. And there is as little evidence for one as for the other so far.

When I look out at the world in real time, this doesn't have anything to do with traveling faster than the speed of light, so to bring this up, as if it means something, is just a distraction.