A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I provide compelling evidence for my point of view, which you avoid. I replied to your explanation, showing why you were wrong with - again - compelling support and evidence. You are just avoiding the glaringly obvious fact that 1: there is strong evidence that suggests efferent sight is wrong and 2: no evidence that suggests it is right.

The only reasonable conclusion is that efferent sight is wrong. If this is not so: please present your evidence in favour, and explain why we observe phenomena that should be impossible if efferent sight were true.

I have tried to explain the model. Further evidence will come from empirical testing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I can't believe how little you have understood in all this time.

You are a True Believer, period, peacegirl.

Easy cop-out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I told you that once this claim is proved true, scientists will have to adjust their theory as to what they are seeing, and what is actually going on. This is not up to me to do. All I am required to do is try to describe this model of sight in the hope that people will take it seriously and do more testing.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then your theory does not describe reality. If it does, it needs to include an explanation for these observations.

This is the first piece of evidence that suggests your father was wrong: his idea does not have an explanation for a well-known phenomenon.

These are not reliable tests, that's why. Show me how many have been done and what the controls were.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

U disregard test results without even knowing the test then? And you call other people biased? Pretty clear indication that you believe in this idea no matter what reality says.

Wrong. I wanted to see if you knew what the controls were. Those controls were ridiculous in my opinion. To train a dog to push a lever with the intention of making the test reliable, is the very thing that made the test unreliable.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It was done by first rewarding dogs every time he picked a picture of his master, training the dog to actually execute the test.

Then, using a different picture of their handlers that they had not seen before and some pictures of strangers, they were asked to pick them out again. 50 dogs were tested, mostly collies because they are bright and easy to train.

All pictures were handled by the same person to avoid scent-marking. All people in them wore similar clothing.

The dogs could do it in about 88% of cases. They did the same thing with cats. The result - unsurprising to any cat owner! - was that they were far less good at it, scoring only 55% or so.

Later tests confirmed this, and also taught us that dogs can also pick out pictures of familiar scenes from unfamiliar ones. Funnily enough they are actually LESS good at picking out familiar dogs than they are at picking out familiar humans, scoring only 82% on that test. Cats are more than 90% accurate at picking out familiar cats. Self-centered bastards that they are!

So as you can see, there is VERY strong evidence that dogs can indeed recognize photographs.

This is the second piece of evidence suggesting your father was wrong, as his opinion about dog-sight was one of the (few!) pieces of actual support for his idea that he offered. As it turns out, this support was actually a misconception.

I don't care how you try to weasel through this, but this test is unreliable, because empirical tests do not take the place of empirical observation. The animal lovers I know have never once seen a dog run up to a picture and wag its tail in recognition. For you to say that these observations hold no weight because they can't be measured in a controlled setting, flies in the face of observed reality. I do believe some animals are able to connect word/object relationships (I think LadyShea gave the example of the dog that could pick out many objects when the owner asked the dog to find it by name), but to generalize this ability to pictures is stretching it because a photograph is an abstract representation. To recognize someone from a picture would involve a lot of language and cognitive ability in order to recognize the differences in features.

- How come lab tests show that infants can see, they just cannot change the focus distance of their eyes? (please study carefully what lenses do and what focussing is before you go into this one)

The theory is that they can't change the focus because the ciliary muscle is not developed. Lessans disputes this. Who is right is not yet determined, even though science thinks it already has the answers and there is no need to rock the boat.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is beside the point. The point is that the CAN see, contradicting what your father said.

It's not a matter of seeing; it's a matter of focusing, and the reasons for it are not in agreement with what science states.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is the third piece of evidence against your fathers idea about how human sight works: infant sight was the only other piece of real evidence he offered. As it turns out, infants do not need to be conditioned to see, they can do so from day one. They just cannot change focus yet.

Lessans said nothing about infants needing to be conditioned in order to see. He said they need other sense experience in order to focus the eyes to see what it is they are experiencing.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 118-119

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ.

The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This
desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see
that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception —
in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike
the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But
in order to look, there must be a desire to see.

The child becomes
aware that something will soon follow something else which then
arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the
relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when
this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a
nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a
potato, a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called a sense
organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an inaccurate
observation that was never corrected.

Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light
travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted
that 5 senses was equally scientific, made the statement (which my
friend referred to) and still exists in our encyclopedias that if we could
sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the
earth we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching
America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught
this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure
Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is
not a scientific fact?”

Again my reply was, “Are you positive because you were told this,
or positive because you, yourself, saw the relations revealing this
truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on
the chopping block to show me how positive you really are?”

“I am not that positive, but this is what I was taught.”
Once again certain facts have been confused and all the reasoning
except for light traveling at a high rate of speed are completely
fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is
that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us it
would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach
Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a
telescope? Let me show you how confused these scientists are.

- How come neutrinos and the image of a supernova always show up in the same timeframe, while we know that they travel at just below the speed of light?

I'm just guessing but maybe we are seeing actual particles that have been traveling along with the neutrinos, and we are actually seeing remnants of the actual event. Maybe the neutrinos are coming in advance of these other particles.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But we do not see particles that have been travelling along: what we see is an exploding star. One minute we see a star, then we see an explosion beginning. If these were "travelling particles that are remnants from an actual event", then how come we saw a star first, and then watched it explode? Was the star "particles that were travelling"?

If efferent vision is correct, the star was seen in real time (just like we would see the Sun turned on), because it met the requirements. It was bright enough and large enough to be seen with a powerful telescope.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This makes no sense, and does not explain the neutrinos. This is another very strong piece of evidence that show that efferent vision is incorrect: we should not be seeing these things happen. We should detect streams of neutrinos LONG after the supernova has dissipated.

-How do the photons interact with film at a distance in the scenario where the sun has just been turned on? This is commonly thought to be impossible and a breach of the laws of physics. How do the eyes manage it anyway? Please actually demonstrate.

That's what I've been trying to explain. If we see the actual Sun as it is turned on, we are seeing this because the brain, looking through the eyes, can see it due to the conditions that allow it to occur. The Sun is large enough to be seen, and bright enough, and that light that is emitted becomes the condition, not the cause. This doesn't contradict any thing else regarding how light works, if you carefully think about it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is not an explanation at all. You are saying "If efferent vision is correct, then we see things the way they are explained by efferent vision." Nothing else. You do not explain how photons interact with film at a distance, but merely claim THAT it happens. That this is impossible is perhaps the strongest piece of evidence that shows that efferent vision is not correct.

I'm saying if efferent vision is correct, because I don't want to be presumptive. I'm saying it that way for your benefit, not mine.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have tried to explain the model.

You failed. Your "explanation" was self-contradictory, incoherent and unevidenced codswallop. After all your babble your explanation of the physical mechanism of sight under your non-existent model remains, "Voila! We see!"

Further evidence will come from empirical testing.

"Further evidence that the world is flat will come from empirical testing."

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Easy cop-out.

LOL, says the weasel

[davidm]

Pop-off goes the

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not make that up. So if that wasn't the answer, then give me the answer as to why we cannot get an image of a person (a real human being with substance) when he steps out of visual range but he is in a straight line with the observer. According to the current belief, the person should be reflecting said light toward the film/retina, and we should get an image. Tell me why we don't. The inverse square law isn't the reason because the person isn't that far from the observer to be the cause.

You're truly pathetic Peacegirl. You were given my answer twice on the very same page as this post of yours before you posted this request. You've since been given it twice again. And you STILL haven't shown it to be inadequate in any way whatsoever.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have painstakingly answered your questions, but I'm not going to answer to remarks that get us nowhere. You say I'm wrong; I say I'm right, you say I'm wrong; I say I'm right, you say I'm wrong; I say I'm right. I have explained why your reasoning is inadequate, but what do you do? You say I'm wrong without considering my reply.

Pathetic. Vivisectus did not merely assert that you were wrong. He considered your replies and correctly explained why they were inadequate. YOUR response was to merely assert that he was wrong without explaining why. And yet you have the gall to accuse him of doing what YOU just did and which he did not.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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 !

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.)

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

2nd bump.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have tried to explain the model. Further evidence will come from empirical testing.

A pretty good one is under way already: Mars explorer "curiosity" is about halfway to Mars as we speak. We have calculated Mars' position based on our observations through telescopes, taking the time delay involved into account.

Now if efferent vision were correct, we should miss by quite a bit! I cannot wait for the final confirmation, through empirical testing!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong.

Not wrong. You were busted at IIDB where you were first presented with these experiments, and where you did reject them immediately without having looked at them at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wanted to see if you knew what the controls were. Those controls were ridiculous in my opinion. To train a dog to push a lever with the intention of making the test reliable, is the very thing that made the test unreliable.

Ah, so for evidence against Lessans, we need carefully controlled tests!...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

empirical tests do not take the place of empirical observation. The animal lovers I know have never once seen a dog run up to a picture and wag its tail in recognition. For you to say that these observations hold no weight because they can't be measured in a controlled setting, flies in the face of observed reality.

...But for evidence in his favor, no controls are required at all, and completely uncontrolled observation trumps controlled testing!

How amazingly consistent and unbiased you are!

[Vivisectus]

Wrong. I wanted to see if you knew what the controls were. Those controls were ridiculous in my opinion. To train a dog to push a lever with the intention of making the test reliable, is the very thing that made the test unreliable.

You called the test unreliable before I told you that, genius.

Also I never said anything about levers, nor have you explained why levers would make the test unreliable. You seem to be talking at random here. Amusing, but it does not make a lot of sense.

I don't care how you try to weasel through this, but this test is unreliable, because empirical tests do not take the place of empirical observation. The animal lovers I know have never once seen a dog run up to a picture and wag its tail in recognition.

I can see that you are going to be a big hit when you start presenting this book to the scientific community! So this test of recognition is invalid because you have never seen a dog mistake a picture for an actual person? And that is what you call "Empirical observation"?

For you to say that these observations hold no weight because they can't be measured in a controlled setting, flies in the face of observed reality.

I don't have to, even. Your "observed reality" is not relevant in the slightest, and hilariously so!

I do believe some animals are able to connect word/object relationships (I think LadyShea gave the example of the dog that could pick out many objects when the owner asked the dog to find it by name), but to generalize this ability to pictures is stretching it because a photograph is an abstract representation. To recognize someone from a picture would involve a lot of language and cognitive ability in order to recognize the differences in features.

Nevertheless - the tests show that dogs can recognize faces in a picture. In fact, they seem to be better at it than they are at recognizing other dogs, amazingly enough!

It's not a matter of seeing; it's a matter of focusing, and the reasons for it are not in agreement with what science states.

They cannot change their focus. They are focused appropriately for seeing at close range, such as looking at the face of a parent who is holding them.They can see: we have tested this. The book says otherwise, and uses it as support for efferent vision. The book, however, is wrong.

Lessans said nothing about infants needing to be conditioned in order to see. He said they need other sense experience in order to focus the eyes to see what it is they are experiencing.

And he was wrong. They can mimic expressions without any other senses indicating that anything is going on.

If efferent vision is correct, the star was seen in real time (just like we would see the Sun turned on), because it met the requirements. It was bright enough and large enough to be seen with a powerful telescope.

That does not explain why the neutrinos appear in the same timeframe as the image. They should be lightyears apart. In fact, that is just you repeating your claim. No proof, no explanation how it works. Just you repeating the same tired old mantra.

Again - this does not explain how photons can interact with film from enormous distances. Nor does it explain why we see neutrinos in the same timeframe. It is merely you repeating the very thing those two facts prove wrong.

I'm saying if efferent vision is correct, because I don't want to be presumptive. I'm saying it that way for your benefit, not mine.

The point is that it explains nothing. You are merely saying "If efferent vision is correct, then it is not wrong".

So - to sum it up:
Evidence in favour of efferent vision: 0
Observations that contradict efferent vision explained: 0
Gloriously idiotic statements to keep Vivisectus entertained: 1

I will never forget that just because I have never tried to kiss a picture of my wife, thinking it was her, I cannot recognize her face on a photograph. Awesome!

[davidm]

Here, peacegirl, I am going to take the liberty of editing that long passage you posted from your father's book for the sake of brevity and concision:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 118-119

Codswallop

You're welcome.

LOL, I love his "let me show you how confused these scientists are." Buffoon lines like that, from somehow who was probably more confused than anyone who ever lived, are priceless indeed. Thanks for reminding me how downright hilarious this book is.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nevertheless - the tests show that dogs can recognize faces in a picture. In fact, they seem to be better at it than they are at recognizing other dogs, amazingly enough!

Vision does not require language ability in Dogs or Humans, that is another fiction Lessans invented to prop up his other ideas. Dogs DO NOT understand language as humans understand it, Dogs respond to a particular group of sounds and can associate it with certain objects or places but they do not have the cognative comprehension of the words as humans do. Niether Humans nor animals require specific words to see or recognize things or other living beings, both are capable of seeing many things without knowing the name or word associated with that thing.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Here, peacegirl, I am going to take the liberty of editing that long passage you posted from your father's book for the sake of brevity and concision:

You're welcome.

LOL, I love his "let me show you how confused these scientists are." Buffoon lines like that, from somehow who was probably more confused than anyone who ever lived, are priceless indeed. Thanks for reminding me how downright hilarious this book is.

Fixed. Yours was slightly incomplete. (Does that make it too redundant?)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're truly pathetic Peacegirl. You were given my answer twice on the very same page as this post of yours before you posted this request. You've since been given it twice again. And you STILL haven't shown it to be inadequate in any way whatsoever.

I really don't know what you're referring to. So instead of attacking me verbally, just repeat it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2nd bump.

I've answered this plenty of times Spacemonkey. If the eyes are efferent, everything works exactly the opposite, therefore, the photons don't have to meet the eyes on Earth. The mirror image is present because we are able to see the object (which is always in one's field of view in order to be seen) due to how the eyes and brain work. We could not see the object if the light was not showing up on the retina. You keep thinking that it's physically impossible, because light from a faraway object has to travel long distances to reach the eye or film, and there's no getting around the fact that you can't get from A to B without traversing this distance. Therefore, your reasoning concludes that we would be getting a delayed image, and if the object changes to blue from red, we would not see blue immediately; we would see red. But you're coming from the afferent perspective. The efferent model of sight is not computing for some reason.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I can see that you are going to be a big hit when you start presenting this book to the scientific community! So this test of recognition is invalid because you have never seen a dog mistake a picture for an actual person? And that is what you call "Empirical observation"?

Something like this eposode of 'Married with Children',

Season 6, epesode 20, 'HI I.Q.'

I believe these are avaliable on Netflex for free, (the only way I would watch anything.)

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't know what you're referring to. So instead of attacking me verbally, just repeat it.

It's in bold red text in post #15264. I've presented you with the exact same text something like 20 times now. You've never once shown it to be in any way an inadequate explanation.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've answered this plenty of times Spacemonkey. If the eyes are efferent, everything works exactly the opposite, therefore, the photons don't have to meet the eyes on Earth. The mirror image is present because we are able to see the object (which is always in one's field of view in order to be seen) due to how the eyes and brain work. We could not see the object if the light was not showing up on the retina. You keep thinking that it's physically impossible, because light from a faraway object has to travel long distances to reach the eye or film, and there's no getting around the fact that you can't get from A to B without traversing this distance. Therefore, your reasoning concludes that we would be getting a delayed image, and if the object changes to blue from red, we would not see blue immediately; we would see red. But you're coming from the afferent perspective. The efferent model of sight is not computing for some reason.

YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION HERE EITHER! Weasel!

I'm not asking you about vision or eyes, and I'm not asking you to tell me about my reasoning. I'm asking you a simple question about your own claim. You've said that when the photograph is taken, there will be a mirror image at the film consisting of photons. How... did... they... get... there...? Did they travel there? Did they teleport there? If neither, then how did they get 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?

It is a mind-bogglingly simple question, and you still HAVEN'T answered it at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Wrong. I wanted to see if you knew what the controls were. Those controls were ridiculous in my opinion. To train a dog to push a lever with the intention of making the test reliable, is the very thing that made the test unreliable.

You called the test unreliable before I told you that, genius.

Because that was the only test that was discussed in this thread, so I assumed you were referring to it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also I never said anything about levers, nor have you explained why levers would make the test unreliable. You seem to be talking at random here. Amusing, but it does not make a lot of sense.

Because the training of how to use a lever is not an easy task, and to put that together with how the dog is supposed to use the lever, is taking for granted that the dog has the cognition to understand the directions.

I don't care how you try to weasel through this, but this test is unreliable, because empirical tests do not take the place of empirical observation. The animal lovers I know have never once seen a dog run up to a picture and wag its tail in recognition.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I can see that you are going to be a big hit when you start presenting this book to the scientific community! So this test of recognition is invalid because you have never seen a dog mistake a picture for an actual person? And that is what you call "Empirical observation"?

Laugh now while you have the chance.

For you to say that these observations hold no weight because they can't be measured in a controlled setting, flies in the face of observed reality.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I don't have to, even. Your "observed reality" is not relevant in the slightest, and hilariously so!

That's the kind of comment that wastes my time.

I do believe some animals are able to connect word/object relationships (I think LadyShea gave the example of the dog that could pick out many objects when the owner asked the dog to find it by name), but to generalize this ability to pictures is stretching it because a photograph is an abstract representation. To recognize someone from a picture would involve a lot of language and cognitive ability in order to recognize the differences in features.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nevertheless - the tests show that dogs can recognize faces in a picture. In fact, they seem to be better at it than they are at recognizing other dogs, amazingly enough!

Hilariously so. (ugh)

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is beside the point. The point is that the CAN see, contradicting what your father said.

It's not a matter of seeing; it's a matter of focusing, and the reasons for it are not in agreement with what science states.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

They cannot change their focus. They are focused appropriately for seeing at close range, such as looking at the face of a parent who is holding them.They can see: we have tested this. The book says otherwise, and uses it as support for efferent vision. The book, however, is wrong

Um, from firsthand experience, my infants were cross eyed at birth. Their eyes turned inward. Babies probably begin focusing a few feet away first, as they become more and more stimulated by the other senses of touch, sound, taste, and smell. BTW, most of these videos showing babies mimicing their parents are not newborns.

Lessans said nothing about infants needing to be conditioned in order to see. He said they need other sense experience in order to focus the eyes to see what it is they are experiencing.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And he was wrong. They can mimic expressions without any other senses indicating that anything is going on.

By the time they are able to mimic, they have been held, coddled, cooed at, bounced around, diapered, fed, hugged and kissed. This is a lot of stimulation. If they were left in a crib with no interaction, they would not be stimulated and therefore would have problems focusing.

That does not explain why the neutrinos appear in the same timeframe as the image. They should be lightyears apart. In fact, that is just you repeating your claim. No proof, no explanation how it works. Just you repeating the same tired old mantra.

I'm not sure where this conflicts at all.

Neutrinos are created as a result of certain types of radioactive decay, or nuclear reactions such as those that take place in the Sun, in nuclear reactors, or when cosmic rays hit atoms.

Neutrino - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[quote]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This makes no sense, and does not explain the neutrinos. This is another very strong piece of evidence that show that efferent vision is incorrect: we should not be seeing these things happen. We should detect streams of neutrinos LONG after the supernova has dissipated.

Not necessarily.

-How do the photons interact with film at a distance in the scenario where the sun has just been turned on? This is commonly thought to be impossible and a breach of the laws of physics. How do the eyes manage it anyway? Please actually demonstrate.

That's what I've been trying to explain. If we see the actual Sun as it is turned on, we are seeing this because the brain, looking through the eyes, can see it due to the conditions that allow it to occur. The Sun is large enough to be seen, and bright enough, and that light that is emitted becomes the condition, not the cause. This doesn't contradict any thing else regarding how light works, if you carefully think about it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Again - this does not explain how photons can interact with film from enormous distances. Nor does it explain why we see neutrinos in the same timeframe. It is merely you repeating the very thing those two facts prove wrong.

Maybe neutrinos showing up in the same timeframe as a Supernova means that we could be seeing the Supernova as it is happening. As far as your other objection, I just explained in my last post why efferent vision allows a mirror image to occur but unless you understand why this is so, you will keep going back to the afferent perspective, which is why you don't get it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is not an explanation at all. You are saying "If efferent vision is correct, then we see things the way they are explained by efferent vision." Nothing else. You do not explain how photons interact with film at a distance, but merely claim THAT it happens. That this is impossible is perhaps the strongest piece of evidence that shows that efferent vision is not correct.

I'm saying if efferent vision is correct, because I don't want to be presumptive. I'm saying it that way for your benefit, not mine.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The point is that it explains nothing. You are merely saying "If efferent vision is correct, then it is not wrong".

I'm trying to give you a description. I know that Lessans explained how we become conditioned, but if that isn't good enough, empirical testing is the next step.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So - to sum it up:
Evidence in favour of efferent vision: 0
Observations that contradict efferent vision explained: 0
Gloriously idiotic statements to keep Vivisectus entertained: 1

I will never forget that just because I have never tried to kiss a picture of my wife, thinking it was her, I cannot recognize her face on a photograph. Awesome!

I can honestly say that if a dog loves his owner and he was able to recognize him from a picture, he would respond, especially if he hadn't seen his owner for a period of time. My son's dog loves him so much because he rescued her. She loves everyone in the family, but nobody comes close to him. When he talked to her from America on Skype (she was in Israel), she recognized his voice but was looking for him. His face was right in front of her. She kept cocking her head sideways in total confusion. That indicates to me that there was no recognition of his face whatsoever, and she is one of the smarter breeds (she is a mixture of pitbull and doberman, I believe).

[The Lone Ranger]

I have never -- not even once -- seen a person run up to a photograph of a loved-one, hug it, kiss it, and attempt to have a conversation with it.

By peacegirl's alleged "logic," this therefore demonstrates that humans cannot recognize loved-ones in photographs.

Q. Frakkin' E. D.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Laugh now while you have the chance.

Not me. I didn't say that. How on earth did you manage to add my name in there?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION HERE EITHER! Weasel!

I'm not asking you about vision or eyes, and I'm not asking you to tell me about my reasoning. I'm asking you a simple question about your own claim. You've said that when the photograph is taken, there will be a mirror image at the film consisting of photons. How... did... they... get... there...? Did they travel there? Did they teleport there? If neither, then how did they get 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?

It is a mind-bogglingly simple question, and you still HAVEN'T answered it at all.

This is the last time I'm going to answer this question. The light didn't have to travel to get there. In efferent vision the eyes were able to see the object, which means a snapshot of the object was due to light's presence. This light has to be a mirror image at the film/retina for us to see the object in real time. It's a requirement. Sorry Spacemonkey if you don't understand, but I'm tired of trying to show you that the object, having to be in the field of view of the eyes or camera, is what allows this phenomenon to occur and this has nothing whatever to do with teleportation, or the need to travel to Earth first. Why do you think he wrote this:

If I couldn’t see you standing right
next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had
not yet been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very
moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8
minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a
large star; the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have
light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that
their light diminishes before it gets to us.