A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

By definition, the object must be in view because efferent vision means that we're seeing things in real time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Circular: we are discussing IF efferent vision is valid. You cannot invoke it as true, therefor the object must not be in view "by definition".

I want to show how it works, if it's true. I am not making claims right now that it is true.

In order to see anything in real time (which is the point at which we must work backwards)

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is why you go wrong so much: you assume something, and then try to make it fit reality. This is unscientific, and even irrational unless you are doing it as a mere thought-experiment.

I'm not trying to make anything fit.

we need light, which is a reflection of what is happening in the real world.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Self-contradictory and nonsensical. Light is not a reflection of anything.

Light allows us to see the world.

It is the exact opposite of afferent vision, which claims that the eyes are a sense organ and, therefore, light is bringing us the real world, which takes time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nonsensical: there is no exact opposite to optics, nor does your idea represent the exact opposite of same.

Really truly, if you let go of your defensiveness, you will see that Occam's Razor in this instance is correct. It is a much easier model.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Appeal to malice on my part, which is childish. Occams razor applies to efferent vision, not afferent: efferent vision explains nothing, but requires photons to behave in ways that have never been observed and are deemed impossible: they affect a retina from great distances without crossing that distance, and instantly.

Photons are behaving the same way they always have. If it's true that the eyes are not a sense organ, it changes everything.

No, there is nothing in optics that is inconsistent with efferent vision such that this knowledge would exclude this model outright.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Blanket denial without any substance - also this does not address the point I was making, which is that your sentence "If the object is in view, the light is present due to the inverse square law" is completely nonsensical. Again, your responses have no logical connection with what you are supposed to be responding to. Why is this? Are you confused, or just unwilling to face up to reality?

It is not nonsensical Vivisectus. If the object is in view, the corresponding light is present in this account.

Don't you see what you're doing? You are reasoning that there is no intervening space, which I never said. There is an intervening space, but when it comes to sight, efferent vision changes the true distance because of the way THE EYES WORK.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

1: I was not arguing that there is no intervening space. I was arguing that the photons somehow affect a film or retina across this space with crossing it, or taking any time.
2: You are arguing that the eyes somehow change the distance between the sun and the earth - this is absurd. And then you simply say this is BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE EYES WORK - which is the same as saying that cheese causes gravity because of the way fermented lactose allows it to.

Can you really not see that this is crazy talk? It really does not make sense.

It's not absurd if you understand that the direction that the eyes see, make all the difference. You can't see what I'm talking about yet, so you are blaming me. You think that's fair?

Why does this not make sense? I'm trying to help you to see that it does make sense.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

you said:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The first sentence is nonsense, but on top of that, the second sentence does not logically follow from the first at all. The inverse square working and photons (P) travelling does not mean that logically, as long as an object is sucking up light the non-sucked up light is being revealed. Not only is every sentence nonsensical, even if sentence 1 was true, there is no reason to believe that makes sentence 2 true!

If we can see the object (assuming that it is the object and not just light), even if the object gets smaller and smaller the farther away we get from it, I'm just pointing out that the inverse law remains intact in this version.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That you do not see this is a bit frightening. I literally cannot imagine how someone can not know the difference between a sentence that is a logical conclusion from the first and a sentence that is merely adjacent to it. You display the kind of reasoning I would expect from someone who has taken drugs.

All of my sentences are coherent and logical.

Not at all. I am agreeing that photons themselves don't fade out, but you are forgetting the default position of light, which is white light and joins the non-absorbed wavelength light (so to speak) as the distance gets too far away from the observer. The problem here is that you think light alone jumps off of the object and continues on. This is wrong. This is why I keep saying that efferent VISION is being forgotten, which IS THE WHOLE CLAIM THAT PROVES LESSANS RIGHT.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

First off, there is no such thing as a default position of light.

You don't know that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Secondly, light spreading leading to signal loss is something that has to do with afferent vision, which we call optics, not efferent vision.

No one is disputing this Vivisectus. Light spreading and leading to signal loss only indicates that there is less and less light which is present at the film/retina. This does not contradict the efferent version.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The photons do not travel from the sun to the eye in your model - this would take time and would mean we simply interpret light. They somehow interact with the retina from a distance.

So how can they spread?

All that is necessary in this version is to recognize that the object must be in view. If that is true, that in itself changes our relationship to light.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The last sentence

is plain incoherent. Efferent vision is what your father claims. A claim cannot prove anyone or anything right. Again I must ask - do you really not notice how strange and disjointed your reasoning is?

All I mean is that the requirements for efferent vision to be possible are being overlooked. By definition, the object must be in one's field of view. How many times have I asked why we can't get a photograph of someone who is directly outside of one's visual range, but in a direct line with it? Talk about evasion.

What is background light other than white light? The light does contain information as long as we're looking at the object since light is the mirror image counterpart. We're not getting rid of light. Light reflects our world, but light does not carry patterns to our eyes.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Background light can be any light. But this is something that matters in optics, not efferent vision. The next sentence is again weird and disjointed:

First off, you are contradicting the book which states the opposite.

It contains information, otherwise, there would be no image on the film/retina, but we do not decode images in the brain from light alone. That doesn't mean we can't map patterns because there is a definite connection between the external and internal world. If you can't even grasp the basic concept, it's no wonder you think the model makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then you say that light is the mirror image counterpart... of what? And what does that even mean? A mirror image is an optical illusion caused by light reflecting off a surface, giving us the illusion that what is reflected is behind the surface of the mirror. Light is not a "mirror image counterpart" of anything, nor does calling light "A mirror image counterpart" explain anything. Can you draw me a diagram of what happens when we look at an object and light is a mirror image counterpart? Because what you wrote down simply makes no sense!

I wish I could draw a diagram. The inverse square law shows that the image is in exact proportion to distance, and that light provides information to the film/retina. There has to be a connection or we wouldn't get a photograph or see anything at all. Although photons are constantly being replaced by new photons as this light continually interacts with matter, if efferent vision is true, we are not interpreting the image in the brain. We are seeing reality. All light does is reveals reality to us. This is why we can't call the eyes a sense organ.

Vivisectus, I am not stringing together nonsensical idiosyncractic weird terms

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Again your beliefs are in conflict with reality. (P) reflection, (P) light and (P) travelling are all idiosyncratic terms: no-one knows what they mean, and you are the only one claiming to know what they mean. They are also undefined, make no sense, and I find them weird.

Spacemonkey coined these terms, so ask him to clarify what they mean.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are also unable to demonstrate any kind of logical connection between your statements. You use words like "therefore" when what you said before does not lead logically to what comes after! You seem to think that simply putting another claim after an initial claim and sticking the word "therefore" in between constitutes a logical proof!

I'm giving the efferent account. I'm not discussing proof at this point. And show me where I put "therefore" and it didn't follow from the previous sentence.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is just weird, Peacegirl. You do not even seem to notice that the things you are saying are incoherent. You seem to consider these sentences on a very basic emotional level only, and you seem to be unable to consider them rationally at all.

Be specific.

That's your cop-out, which gives you a sense of winning this debate, but you haven't won at all since you are not interested in anything else Lessans has to say.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Emotional appeals that are irrelevant. If my point of view is biased, then I must be wrong, and you should be able to show that I am wrong. You cannot, which is why you resort to these emotional appeals.

I'm offering this model for consideration. I don't want this model to be thrown out without further testing, which may be why I sound emotional. Wouldn't you want something tested if there's even a slight chance that it may be correct?

The only reason I'm on this thread is because this knowledge will either keep interest or it won't, and if I come back with an answer that doesn't explain what you are asking, this in itself doesn't make this model wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Just because I cannot explain to you how cheese causes gravity does not make it wrong either! It just does not give you any reason to believe it is right. Just like you have not been able to give us any reason to believe Lessans was right.

But we know certain things about cheese and gravity which allow us to decipher that this couldn't be true. What I am saying has a rational basis. There may be some distrust because it's hard to imagine that this account could be right when the afferent version of sight has been accepted for ages but so has free will. If you really want to know whether something is true, it behooves everyone to keep researching, or you may be holding onto a belief that is flawed. I certainly can't hurt, and can only help to validate what is true.

It just means there is a miscommunication.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It can also mean that Lessans is wrong.

Only what is true is true. If Lessans is wrong, then he's wrong, and if he's right then he is right.

Unfortunately, if I can't get across that Lessans was not wrong, or at the very least that his claim is not crazy, people will refuse to listen to his most important discovery of all: that man's will is not free and what this means for all mankind.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Indeed. And so far you have been unable to show that Lessans was not crazy. This is caused by the fact that his claims were irrational, and completely unsupported. They were merely his opinions, and not very informed opinions at that.

I'm sorry you have come to these conclusions. The least I expected was a greater interest to check these claims out, instead of concluding he is wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Peacegirl, I suggest you try to put efferent vision in really, really simple terms. Step by step. And whenever you cannot do so, consider that perhaps you had a feeling it made sense, but really it didn't, since you cannot put it into coherent language. Because the way you reason right now is worryingly disjointed.

I agree, but I don't know how to explain it in a way that doesn't sound disjointed. Maybe we all need to take a break.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you're missing the entire concept because you are imagining that the photons reflected off the object are traveling long distances. Yes, (N) light travels long distances but there is no pattern in the light itself unless the object is there. The first thing this model states is that the non-absorbed light is not bouncing off of the object and traveling. You are imagining that the photons have a life of their own (sort of like drops of water that are traveling apart from the body of water it came from) and the object is a springboard to catapult this non-absorbed light into the universe. That's the misconception. Are you here to try to get me to see where my father was wrong, or are you actually trying to see if this model is plausible?

Is this pathetic weaselling all you have left? Here again is what I just asked you. Try answering this time:


So you have photons at the film when the photograph is taken. How did they get there? [Answer goes here]

Did they exist, say, 10 seconds ago? [Yes or No]

[If Yes, then...] Where were those photons then? [State a location]

How did they get from wherever they were 10 seconds ago to the film where they are now? [Answer goes here]


Don't !

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The first thing this model states is that the non-absorbed light is not bouncing off of the object and traveling.

That's not even what I was asking about, but seeing as you've brought it up: What does happen to the non-absorbed photons hitting the object if they don't bounce off and travel away? ((P)reflection isn't an answer - you need to explain what happens to the (P)reflected photons by specifying their location and behavior after they hit the object.)

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes, this is worrying as Peacegirl is a human being and does warrent some degree of compassion and concern for her well being.

If you really have concern for her well-being, you should do as I recommended long ago (and admittedly only somewhat adhere to myself):

STOP POSTING TO HER.

If people stop posting to her and feeding her delusions of grandeur, ultimately she might get help. This is the only message board she has left, since all the others lock her threads. Threads aren't locked here, but if people stop responding to her craziness, she will have no more Internet left to spread it, and may ultimately seek help.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that white light is constantly in motion and when it is surrounding an object, that object absorbs and (P) reflects light. The fact that we can see the object indicates that the inverse square law is working. We can determine the actual distance of the object due to this phenomenon, but when we can no longer see the object, that non-absorbed light is joined, once again (so to speak) with all the other light within the visible spectrum, due to the fact that this non-absorbed light does not bounce and travel indefinitely, which is the theory. That is why people think that we will see the past from the pattern of light that existed long ago, even when the event is gone. But, if this is not what is occurring, how in the world can we see the distant past from this pattern of light when the object or event is a necessary part of this equation?

Your word salad doesn't address my question. I asked you: If these photons at the film didn't travel to get there (and didn't teleport), then how did they get there? How did the photons comprising the mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel or teleport to get there?

Are you ever going to answer this question?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All of my sentences are coherent and logical.

No, they aren't. You are deeply ill.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well Spacemonkey coined these terms, so ask him to clarify what they mean.

The fuck I did. All I did was suggest you distinguish between what we mean by reflection ((N)reflection='bouncing off') and what you were trying to use it to mean ((P)reflection='...?...'). Your (P)reflection remains undefined (it's not what I took you to mean by it at the time), and I never suggested that you try to distinguish between different kinds of 'light' and 'traveling'.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All of my sentences are coherent and logical.

Rainbow Dash - (laughing) - YouTube

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said the photons got there instantly. They are always traveling because new photons are always replacing old photons, so why do you keep bringing this up?

What does it mean to say that the photons are "present" at the film instantly if they don't "get there" instantly?

Are you here agreeing that these photons at the film previously traveled to get there?

Did they get to the film by traveling there? If not, then how did they get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Change it? What do you mean by that? Change it to your way of thinking?

No, I mean change it so it is no longer contradictory and incoherent. Change it so that it includes answers to the questions I am asking. Change it so that you don't have to keep weaseling and speaking gibberish in the futile attempt to conceal the inadequacies of your present account.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

Bump.

[Vivisectus]

Well Spacemonkey coined these terms, so ask him to clarify what they mean.

So you do realize that you use words that you do not know the meaning of? And you still insist that what you say makes sense?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

If people stop posting to her and feeding her delusions of grandeur, ultimately she might get help.

Yes, but I believe it is the abuse and hostility that is feeding her delusions possibly reinforcing her martyr complex. She threatens to ignore those who indulge in namecalling and profanity but those are the ones she is responding to, yet she seems to have me on ignore or at least is not responding to my posts.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes, but I believe it is the abuse and hostility that is feeding her delusions possibly reinforcing her martyr complex. She threatens to ignore those who indulge in namecalling and profanity but those are the ones she is responding to, yet she seems to have me on ignore or at least is not responding to my posts.

Whatever the specific case is, peacegirl is ill. I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect that responding to her craziness is feeding her illness. The sooner people drop responding to her, the sooner she will be left with nothing more than the echo chamber of her own mind. When that time comes, perhaps (or perhaps not) she will get some help.

[LadyShea]

[Vivisectus]

At any rate it is pointless trying to debate someone who speaks gibberish without noticing.

[LadyShea]

How many times have I asked why we can't get a photograph of someone who is directly outside of one's visual range, but in a direct line with it? Talk about evasion.

How many times has that been answered? At least a dozen!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How many times has that been answered? At least a dozen!

Wow. I missed that.

Peacegirl, why are you asking this same question yet again? You know that question has been answered for you. Repeatedly. How on earth does our repeatedly answering your question count as evasion?

"The problem isn't that this hasn't been answered for you, but that you keep ignoring the answers you've been given until the topic changes and you forget about the answer, only to then mentally reset to the same deluded belief that it can't be answered. This is strong evidence of a broken mind. Do you know how many times you've ignored my answer to this very question? I do."

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But we know certain things about cheese and gravity which allow us to decipher that this couldn't be true.

Just like we know certain thing about light and vision which allow us to decipher that efferent vision couldn't be true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well that's the only way I can distinguish light that travels at a finite speed, and light that does not. I am not under the impression that I am demonstrating that this is so. I am describing the model.

So, what you are saying is that your model requires that there be two different kinds of light, light that travels at a finite speed and light that does not travel at a finite speed. If this second (previously unknown) kind of light does not travel at a finite speed then it must either travel at infinite speed or not travel at all. Which is it?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Wow. I missed that.

Peacegirl, why are you asking this same question yet again? You know that question has been answered for you. Repeatedly. How on earth does our repeatedly answering your question count as evasion?

"The problem isn't that this hasn't been answered for you, but that you keep ignoring the answers you've been given until the topic changes and you forget about the answer, only to then mentally reset to the same deluded belief that it can't be answered. This is strong evidence of a broken mind. Do you know how many times you've ignored my answer to this very question? I do."

This is absolutely correct. Her mind is desperately broken. Her short-term memory is certainly shot; she can't recall five posts back. This is why she keeps asking the same stupid questions over and over, even though each of her stupid questions has been answered dozens and in some cases hundreds of time.

Just recall that because her mind is so broken that she can't even master the quote function, she not long ago quoted something that she said and attributed to someone else, and then proceeded to argue with her own words!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by davidm

Just recall that because her mind is so broken that she can't even master the quote function, she not long ago quoted something that she said and attributed to someone else, and then proceeded to argue with her own words!

Yeah, that was in response to me. And it wasn't just a failure to correctly use the quote function. She had to have typed those very words which she misattributed to me during the same reply where she then failed to recognize them as her own words - words she herself had only just then typed. She wasn't arguing against her own words from a previous quoted post. She was arguing against the very words she had just then typed during that very same reply. I wouldn't have made much of it, only she refused to own up to what she'd done, and tried to accuse me of making things up to make her look bad.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by davidm

Whatever the specific case is, peacegirl is ill. I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect that responding to her craziness is feeding her illness. The sooner people drop responding to her, the sooner she will be left with nothing more than the echo chamber of her own mind. When that time comes, perhaps (or perhaps not) she will get some help.

I'm with you up to that last part. If I believed that not responding to her would at all increase the chances of her seeking help then I'd stop posting immediately. But I don't believe that. Based on past experience I expect she would just go looking for a new forum and start all over again. She says she would never do that, but she's said this at several previous forums too. She will almost certainly forget having decided not to restart again anywhere else, and it is also quite possible that she could mentally reset to the extent that she would not even remember having done all of this before. In any case, I don't think anything short of direct intervention by a friend or family member will ever get her the help she needs. Ignoring her here will only send her in search of a new audience, who will be unaware of the depths of her irrationality and the complete futility of trying to reason with her.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your word salad doesn't address my question. I asked you: If these photons at the film didn't travel to get there (and didn't teleport), then how did they get there? How did the photons comprising the mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel or teleport to get there?

Are you ever going to answer this question?

Let's forget about it. It's getting too exhausting for me.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let's forget about it. It's getting too exhausting for me.

Given your memory I'm sure you will forget about it. However, the rest of us will remember that you can't provide a consistent and coherent model capable of answering simple questions about your own claims.

Does this mean you are leaving, fake leaving, or just seeking to temporarily change the topic?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to show how it works, if it's true. I am not making claims right now that it is true.
I'm not trying to make anything fit.

Wrong, you have been claiming that efferent vision is true from the begining, even when it has been demonstrated to be false.

And you are certainly trying to shoehorn reality into your twisted version of the world.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Wow. I missed that.

Peacegirl, why are you asking this same question yet again? You know that question has been answered for you. Repeatedly. How on earth does our repeatedly answering your question count as evasion?

"The problem isn't that this hasn't been answered for you, but that you keep ignoring the answers you've been given until the topic changes and you forget about the answer, only to then mentally reset to the same deluded belief that it can't be answered. This is strong evidence of a broken mind. Do you know how many times you've ignored my answer to this very question? I do."

The answer given was not adequate and nobody countered it with a better explanation.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The answer given was not adequate and nobody countered it with a better explanation.

You never gave any reason whatsoever for thinking it to be inadequate. Therefore no better explanation is required.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Given your memory I'm sure you will forget about it. However, the rest of us will remember that you can't provide a consistent and coherent model capable of answering simple questions about your own claims.

Does this mean you are leaving, fake leaving, or just seeking to temporarily change the topic?

I don't want to continue because either I'm failing to explain it clearly, or you just don't see why the light is a mirror image when the object is in range. Either way, it's not worth it because even if there is a plausible model, until more empirical testing is done that offers substantial evidence, no one is going to believe it. Of course, since people are happy with science's account, they are upset with me because I am now considered the person who is upsetting the status quo.