A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Before we talk about cameras (which involves the same light), you need to understand why efferent vision does not violate the laws of physics. As long as you keep discussing light only, and not the eyes, you're going to miss the reason why real time seeing is a viable model.

You are the one who claims cameras work as eyes do, because if they don't work instantaneously as eyes do, then efferent vision is disproved by merely taking a photograph. You insist cameras have the non-brain equivalent of efferent vision, because YOU KNOW it's a fatal flaw in Lessans reasoning.

So, you now need a mechanism for getting photons and camera film to the same location without breaking the laws of physics. Because photography requires physical contact between photons and film or CCD.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, if the eyes are efferent, the light is at the film/retina, as you look at the object or substance. The light is not at two places at once.

How does the light get to the film in Lessans scenario, combined with your repeated claims about photography, laid out below?


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.
5. Your claim is that we could photograph the newly ignited sun AT NOON

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.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I can say in defense is that what appears to be clear-cut may not be what it seems.

What else might it be?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Neither.

You don't get to choose neither. There has to be actual photons actually at the film to produce an image. If the photons didn't pop into existence there, then they had to get there from somewhere else. And that means they either got there by traveling across the intervening distance, or they got there without traveling across the intervening distance. It's a case of either P or not-P, so you can't choose neither without contradiction. If you choose the former then you have either faster-than-light travel, or some non-zero travel time. If you choose the latter then you have teleportation.

So which do you pick? Travel, or teleportation? (Your only other option is more dishonest weaseling.)

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, photons. Because according to you, when you look at something, the same light is both at the object and at the eyes. Or is it teleported in stead - but then why use the word "replicate", or speak of mirror images?

You see, this is one of those examples where you do not even understand what you are actually writing.

There is a third option. Instead of the light at the object teleporting to the eyes/camera or creating duplicate light there, it might cause the light already there (and which previously traveled there from the object) to change its wavelength properties (and presumably also its pattern of distribution). It's no less crazy than teleportation or duplication, but it is a third possible option. However, Peacegirl has already rejected this option along with the other two, leaving her with no possible options at all.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Before we talk about cameras (which involves the same light), you need to understand why efferent vision does not violate the laws of physics. As long as you keep discussing light only, and not the eyes, you're going to miss the reason why real time seeing is a viable model.

You've claimed that cameras operate in real time too. That means you have to be able to explain this magical ability of cameras, and do it without relying upon anything involving eyes or vision. If you can't do that, then real-time vision will be refuted by the simple fact that cameras do not produce different images from what we see (in terms of time delay).

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is obviously a different point of view than mirror images in the afferent version because, in this version, it is believed that light is still bringing the image through space, and therefore time, however quick it occurs.

No. It. Isn't. The afferent model does not involve images traveling through space or being carried by light.

Why are you so completely impervious to correction on this point?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No. It. Isn't. The afferent model does not involve images traveling through space or being carried by light.

Why are you so completely impervious to correction on this point?

How many times has this lying little asshat been corrected on this elementary point? The upshot is she will not brook correction, because she is an arrogant air head, but also because daddy said that scientists say light brings images; and Daddy cannot be wrong about ANYTHING --including his air-headed mischaracterizations of what scientists actually say.

Give this dope the bum's rush and ignore her babble. All you're doing is going over the same ground again and again with her. Why?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are the one who claims cameras work as eyes do, because if they don't work instantaneously as eyes do, then efferent vision is disproved by merely taking a photograph. You insist cameras have the non-brain equivalent of efferent vision, because YOU KNOW it's a fatal flaw in Lessans reasoning.

So, you now need a mechanism for getting photons and camera film to the same location without breaking the laws of physics. Because photography requires physical contact between photons and film or CCD.

A camera works the same way, since the lens must be aimed at whatever is producing the image. This automatically causes physical contact, just as it would with the eye. You need to remember that the light does not have to travel to Earth for there to be contact. All that is necessary is for the object to be bright enough and large enough to be seen, which creates the conditions that allow physical contact since distance between the object and the observer is not measured in the same way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No. It. Isn't. The afferent model does not involve images traveling through space or being carried by light.

Why are you so completely impervious to correction on this point?

So how do you want me to phrase it? You know what I mean by now, don't you? The light bouncing off of the object, according to the afferent model, continues to travel through space and time which eventually gets detected as a pattern, which is the exact image of the object even though the object is gone. Is that correct?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've claimed that cameras operate in real time too. That means you have to be able to explain this magical ability of cameras, and do it without relying upon anything involving eyes or vision. If you can't do that, then real-time vision will be refuted by the simple fact that cameras do not produce different images from what we see (in terms of time delay).

That's what I'm trying to do; show you that cameras get the same image but not because of time delay, but rather because they work the same way as the eye. They just don't have a brain, therefore, they aren't using the light that is at the retina to see the actual object. Instead, a camera develops a photograph from the same light which is instantly at the film when the lens is aimed at the object.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So how do you want me to phrase it?

Correctly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what I mean by now, don't you?

If you know that what you just said was wrong, then why do you keep saying it wrongly? Why keep saying something that is wrong and which requires reinterpretation before it will express what you really mean? Why not just say what you mean to start with?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what I'm trying to do...

No you're not. You're running away from my questions about it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Instead, a camera develops a photograph from the same light which is instantly at the film when the lens is aimed at the object.

And how did that light get there? Where was it a moment beforehand?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A camera works the same way, since the lens must be aimed at whatever is producing the image. This automatically causes physical contact, just as it would with the eye.

That breaks several laws of physics. A photon cannot come to the same location as camera film without traveling there or teleporting there or coming into existence there. If a lens can't put a marble in an envelope from across the room, then a lens can't put a photon onto camera film from across the room. That is what physical contact is.

You have focusing lenses magically causing photons to somehow appear on the surface of the film.


So, your model is disproven.

[LadyShea]

allow physical contact since distance between the object and the observer is not measured in the same way.

Distance between camera film and photons is distance no matter how it's measured. They are in two separate locations unless they are at the same location.

If a lens can't put a marble in an envelope from across the room, then a lens can't put a photon onto camera film from across the room. That is what physical contact is.

[thedoc]

If I might make an obsrevation, while teleportation has been well defined and described it has not been demonstrated as physicaly possible. Therefore it would seem to me that teleportation, while easthetically pleasing as a theory, would break several known laws of physics and if this is the mechanism claimed for efferent vision it is still outside the known laws of physics. I do understand that it is not in conflict with Quantum Theory but I say it has not been demonstrated, so show me teleportation and I will believe.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by davidm

I'll say this for Lessans: He makes a good poster boy for why one should stay in school. You should promote him in that way. Maybe the Department of Education can focus a campaign around him and you can make some money off of it.

I will be glad to donate the following for the campaign's first bumper sticker.


Don't be stupid. Stay in school.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If I might make an obsrevation, while teleportation has been well defined and described it has not been demonstrated as physicaly possible. Therefore it would seem to me that teleportation, while easthetically pleasing as a theory, would break several known laws of physics and if this is the mechanism claimed for efferent vision it is still outside the known laws of physics. I do understand that it is not in conflict with Quantum Theory but I say it has not been demonstrated, so show me teleportation and I will believe.

Actually, QT does not have a real solution either as my Astro-physicist son assures me. He then started uttering such barbaric jargon that my face froze into a risus sardonicus like expression as I tried to at least remember some of the words, but I by trying to repeat them I will most likely make just such a hash of it as Pecegirl makes of normal physics.

The gist of it seems to have been: Sure, one could theoretically imagine such a thing, but it would be hard to see how it could apply to photons, and even when applied to two particles that are each others positive and negative, checking if they are actually only separated in this dimension and not in others is impossible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What else might it be?

I really don't want to speculate because anything I say will be used against me. I'd rather focus on Lessans' claim of efferent vision, and if it turns out that he was right, then scientists can speculate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Distance between camera film and photons is distance no matter how it's measured. They are in two separate locations unless they are at the same location.

If a lens can't put a marble in an envelope from across the room, then a lens can't put a photon onto camera film from across the room. That is what physical contact is.

I understand that, but light works differently if efferent vision is true. Like I said, even though cameras don't have brains, the light that is (P) reflected and striking the retina would be the same light that is interacting with the film. You're not grasping this physical phenomenon that doesn't in any way break the laws of physics. The reason why we can see something thousands of miles away in real time is due to the fact that light does not have to travel to Earth to have a physical reaction with the film. The physical reaction exists because the object is within the camera's field of view, which makes the light a mirror image (since there is no travel time involved, nor is there teleportation) because the requirements have been met. If all that was required was focusing the light (without the object being present), then it would be true that this light would first have to reach Earth before there could be any interaction with the film. Until you see the way efferent vision works, you will continue to be confounded by this alternate model of sight.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually, QT does not have a real solution either as my Astro-physicist son assures me. He then started uttering such barbaric jargon that my face froze into a risus sardonicus like expression as I tried to at least remember some of the words, but I by trying to repeat them I will most likely make just such a hash of it as Pecegirl makes of normal physics.

The gist of it seems to have been: Sure, one could theoretically imagine such a thing, but it would be hard to see how it could apply to photons, and even when applied to two particles that are each others positive and negative, checking if they are actually only separated in this dimension and not in others is impossible.

I believe that, as one program stated, the probability of teleportation happening is very low but is not zero, According to the theory.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

light works differently if efferent vision is true

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're not grasping this physical phenomenon that doesn't in any way break the laws of physics.

You say light works differently if efferent vision is true, then you say you don't need to break or change the proven laws of physics for efferent vision to be true.

How light works (light physics aka optics) is known and proven. You are contradicting yourself

[LadyShea]

The physical reaction exists because the object is within the camera's field of view, which makes the light a mirror image

If the mirror image consists of photons, you have to explain how they got there. If it doesn't consist of photons, then there can't be a photochemical reaction with camera film and the mirror image

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I believe that, as one program stated, the probability of teleportation happening is very low but is not zero, According to the theory.

I am told that that is something they say because it is almost impossible to explain what the theory really has to say about it without really going into it. I am too poorly informed to check if that is true, but I have a pretty reliable source

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You don't get to choose neither. There has to be actual photons actually at the film to produce an image. If the photons didn't pop into existence there, then they had to get there from somewhere else. And that means they either got there by traveling across the intervening distance, or they got there without traveling across the intervening distance. It's a case of either P or not-P, so you can't choose neither without contradiction. If you choose the former then you have either faster-than-light travel, or some non-zero travel time. If you choose the latter then you have teleportation.

So which do you pick? Travel, or teleportation? (Your only other option is more dishonest weaseling.)

No Spacemonkey, there is a third option. You don't seem to care one whit about the eyes and how they work. In the efferent model, the eyes are able to match up with the light, so to speak, because the brain is looking out, through the eyes, which turns everything believed about the external world and our relationship to it, upside down. If we see the way Lessans' claims, the requirement for real time seeing is being met because the actual substance of which the light is interacting is within visual range and therefore a mirror image is always present at the film/retina.