A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I think you misunderstood peacegirl on this. She agreed that the non-absorbed photons move forward. I don't think that she has agreed that they move toward the camera. I don't know where she thinks they go when they are moving forward and I don't think she knows what she thinks either.

Yes, I thought of that while answering, but was hoping she might reply by explaining what she means by "forwards". However, I doubt she has any clear idea at all of what she was saying. The photons certainly can't keep going in the same direction that was forwards for them before they hit the object, because the object that they have just hit is in the way. So they have to bounce off in some other direction. And unless she is prepared to reject the laws determining the angle of reflection, I can just stipulate that the light I'm asking about is that which struck the object from a direction such that the angle of reflection will be in the direction of the camera.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's because his 'observations' are neither plausible, credible, nor observations.

So if you're so positive that his observations are not plausible or credible, why are we talking? What is your purpose for being here? To show how smart you are and how wrong Lessans was? I really don't get it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is because they are not plausible in the normal sense of the word. They may be (L) plausible, but that has little to do with what the rest of the world understands the term to be.

Your problem is that you treat whatever your father wrote as gospel: you assume it to be true first, and then go looking for any possible way you can shoe-horn this belief into reality. It does not fit, which is why your attempts makes you look nuts.

But that's only because you are not understanding the concept. This has nothing to do with me shoehorning this belief into reality, although that's probably what you all think.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So then you were wrong to appeal to a difference between taking two steps forward and sprinting, and I was right to say that photons "moving forwards" requires them to be traveling.

Agreed. The movement of photons is always occurring, but the pattern of light that is present at the film/retina is at issue here.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you agreeing now that I am not making afferent assumptions? If you still disagree, then what afferent assumptions do you think I am making?

You are not taking into account that the object is present. This is key. You are acting as if all that is necessary is light, with or without the object, because you're afferent assumption is that the eyes are just light detectors. This is only partly true because there's more to it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Wrong. The questions I have been asking you allow that the object is always present at all times.

No it does not, and this goes back to your weaseling out of answering my questions adequately, and then when I tell you your answers are inadequate, you fail to address my concerns.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't believe you are correct about this needing to be the case, but it is not a point challenged by my scenario or my questions, so this cannot be an afferent assumption preventing you from answering those questions.

But your answers are based on the afferent model Spacemonkey, which is why you don't get the concept AT ALL. You cannot separate light from the object if sight is efferent, but that's what you're doing. It's no wonder you don't see the plausibility of this concept the way we're going.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You also didn't answer my questions satisfactorily yet you blame me for forgetting, which is not the case.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've answered all of your questions satisfactorily. You asked me before to repeat my earlier answers, which I did, but then all you did was assert that they were unsatisfactory without explaining why. When I pointed this out, you dropped the subject.

You have not answered my questions satisfactorily. You repeated the same answers which did not help me. I told you that there has never been a case where the pattern of light strikes the retina when the OBJECT is not in range. You keep going back to the inverse square law, but this is not an adequate explanation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, you keep dishonestly claiming that these questions are based upon afferent assumptions. So I am instead going to build up to them from simpler questions so that you can see this is not the case.

1) On your efferent model, are some of the photons that hit an object not absorbed? [Y/N]

Yes

2) On your efferent model, are there photons at the camera film (interacting with it and responsible for the color of the resulting image) at the time the photograph is taken? [Y/N]

Yes, but you're still on the wrong track.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Because 1) there is no evidence that he was right, or even a reason to believe that he was, and 2) there is evidence that he was wrong. It is that simple.

Your problem is that you argue that 1) is no reason to assume he was wrong, and then treat that as a reason to assume he was right, and that you argue that 2) does not exist because none of the evidence is "absolute"

As I pointed out, we have no way to absolutely prove that bacteria cause infections, that eating makes us fat and that babies are generated the way we believe they are generated. We can merely show that it is extremely likely that it is so.

You are playing semantic games, and I can't deal with it. We KNOW that bacteria causes infections; we KNOW that babies how babies are born; and we KNOW that metabolism and calories affect weight.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Just like we can show that it is extremely likely sight is not instant by aiming a laser at the moon and measuring how long it takes for the little dot to show up.

There's a huge difference between this theory and the absolute FACT of how babies are conceived.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's only because you are not understanding the concept. This has nothing to do with me shoehorning this belief into reality, although that's probably what you all think.

Just repeating your beliefs does not make them true, or even plausible. Simply equating disagreement with lack of understanding does not make you any less wrong. If you are correct, then demonstrate it: support your statements. If you cannot, then have the grace to admit that you are wrong. Anything else is dishonourable.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1057657]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Because 1) there is no evidence that he was right, or even a reason to believe that he was, and 2) there is evidence that he was wrong. It is that simple.

Your problem is that you argue that 1) is no reason to assume he was wrong, and then treat that as a reason to assume he was right, and that you argue that 2) does not exist because none of the evidence is "absolute"

As I pointed out, we have no way to absolutely prove that bacteria cause infections, that eating makes us fat and that babies are generated the way we believe they are generated. We can merely show that it is extremely likely that it is so.

You are playing semantic games, and I can't deal with it. We KNOW that bacteria causes infections; we KNOW that babies how babies are born; and we KNOW that metabolism and calories affect weight.

No, this is not a semantic game: I am merely explaining the nature of scientific truth to you. You are the one who demands absolute evidence for optics, claiming that since there is none, Lessans ideas cannot be ruled out.

You say we KNOW that bacteria can cause infections. We also KNOW that sight is the eyes detecting light and sending impulses to the brain. The level of evidence we have for both is the same.

It is not absolute in either case: some evidence may pop up later that proves that it is caused by fairies or something.

But the balance of evidence lies so heavily on the side of this not being the case that for all intents and purposes we can assume bacterial infection, procreation and metabolism, as well as sight, work the way we think it works.

There's a huge difference between this theory and the absolute FACT of how babies are conceived.

Not really. We have performed such experiments in many different forms and observed the outcome. Because we have observed the delay, because it is consistent with what we know of the speed of light and the distance between us and the moon, all pieces of data that we have confirmed separately and that fit together perfectly, the balance of evidence lies overwhelmingly in favour of normal sight.

Just like all the observations and facts about bacterial infection, metabolism and procreation are so consistent and coherent that the balance of evidence is such that we can treat them as facts in stead of likelihood.

And yet - the evidence is not absolute. It is this lack of absolute proof that YOU invoke and claim to be a reason to think Lessans ideas are plausible. My response is that we would have to call that (L) plausible so we do not confuse it with what the rest of the world thinks "plausible" means.

I also point out that since you do not think that the evidence for bacterial infection is insufficient, you only demand this special treatment for your fathers ideas: it is not required to wait for further testing on baby creation or metabolism in your mind.

However - the level of evidence for the way the eyes work is just about the same. Whenever we perform a new test, the results keep indicating that sight works the way we think it does. When we tried to create images in the brain by stimulating the optic nerve, we were able to do so. This should not have worked if sight works the way you claim it does, as it is supposed to work the other way around. We fire a probe at one of the moons of Jupiter, and aim for where we would expect them to be if there is a delay in sight - and we succeed. We create a hologram by manipulating light alone - and lo and behold! We see an object that is not really there. We should not be able to do so if sight works the way you say it does.

So like in all the other cases I mentioned, the balance of evidence leans so strongly towards afferent sight that we can treat it as a fact for all intents and purposes.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So if you're so positive that his observations are not plausible or credible, why are we talking? What is your purpose for being here? To show how smart you are and how wrong Lessans was? I really don't get it.

You are demonstrating your memory impairment again, Peacegirl. You've asked this before and I've answered it before. I refer you back to post #8885 in the previous thread. You've repeated the exact same question about ten times since then, seemingly having forgotten my answer every single time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Agreed. The movement of photons is always occurring, but the pattern of light that is present at the film/retina is at issue here.

If you are agreeing that the nonabsorbed photons at the object move forward at light speed, then you are admitting that real-time photography is impossible. When the object first turns red, the first nonabsorbed red photons cannot instantly interact with the film if they are only just beginning to travel towards the camera. And they can't be instantly forming a mirror image at the film if they are also moving forward from the object at light speed as they get replaced.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it does not, and this goes back to your weaseling out of answering my questions adequately, and then when I tell you your answers are inadequate, you fail to address my concerns.

In my questions about light and photography, in the scenario involving the Sun, a ball, and the camera, the ball is present and existing the whole time, so these questions do not make the light independent of the object.

And I haven't weaselled out of answering any of your questions. You refused to tell me what was allegedly inadequate about my answers. You never raised any concerns. You simply dropped the subject.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But your answers are based on the afferent model Spacemonkey, which is why you don't get the concept AT ALL. You cannot separate light from the object if sight is efferent, but that's what you're doing. It's no wonder you don't see the plausibility of this concept the way we're going.

You're now confusing two completely distinct discussions. Of course my answers to your questions are based upon the afferent model. They are supposed to be. They are the correct answers. But my questions to you concerning light and photography do not presuppose any of these afferent assumptions at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have not answered my questions satisfactorily. You repeated the same answers which did not help me. I told you that there has never been a case where the pattern of light strikes the retina when the OBJECT is not in range. You keep going back to the inverse square law, but this is not an adequate explanation.

Of course I repeated my answers. That's what you asked me to do. My answers distinguished three related questions. To the first two you did nothing but assert that they were unsatisfactory without any explanation as to why. And to the third you merely repeated your unsupported (and refuted) claim that the object must also be present in addition to the light. This is flatly disproved by the Hubble images, but even if it weren't you have no evidence at all that it is true, and our answers do not have to account for your own made up 'facts' in order to be satisfactory.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are demonstrating your memory impairment again, Peacegirl. You've asked this before and I've answered it before. I refer you back to post #8885 in the previous thread. You've repeated the exact same question about ten times since then, seemingly having forgotten my answer every single time.

All I have to say to this is BULLSHIT. I am getting to know who you are more and more, and this is not about understanding what's going on in reality. This is all about you and your amazing reasoning ability, which turns out to be nothing more than hot air.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes

Yes, but you're still on the wrong track.

I'm on the right track for showing you that my questions aren't based on any afferent assumptions. So far there are no afferent assumptions, right? You agree that there are photons which hit the object and are not absorbed, and you agree that there are photons at the camera film when the photograph is taken. Nothing else has been presupposed or assumed at this point. Next questions:

1) Are the nonabsorbed photons which have hit the object still in existence 0.0001sec after hitting the object? [Y/N]

2) Were the photons which are at the camera film when the photograph was taken also in existence 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Y/N]

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I have to say to this is BULLSHIT. I am getting to know who you are more and more, and this is not about understanding what's going on in reality. This is all about you and your amazing reasoning ability, which turns out to be nothing more than hot air.

Excuse me? I've told you why I'm here. I can't make you believe me, and you're free to make up your own rationalizations if you wish. But repeatedly asking me the same question isn't going to get me to change my answer. If you don't like my answer, stop asking me the question.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This doesn't answer my objection. You agree that the non-absorbed photons are traveling. Then you say that because I am saying they travel, that I am assuming the afferent account. That makes no sense. I am assuming only what YOU just agreed with.

You then say that I am separating the light from the object, but my objection doesn't say anything at all about whether or not the object must still be present. The object IS still present at all points in the scenario my refutation describes, so this cannot be the problem with it.

You go on to say that a real-time mirror image must be present if your account is to work. I agree, but this is not possible given what you have just previously agreed to. If the newly non-absorbed red photons (at the object) do indeed travel away from the object towards the camera (as you just agreed) then they cannot also be instantly forming a mirror image at the camera film.

At no point have you said anything to counter my refutation. You've simply agreed with me by saying that the nonabsorbed photons travel, and then contradicted this agreement by saying they must also be instantly at the film - when the whole point of the objection is that this can't be the case if they are instead traveling.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You need to stop doing that. There are no eyes in my scenario. None at all.

So if the light does not travel independently, then what happens to traveling nonabsorbed blue light (that has come from a previously blue object) at the very moment when that now distant blue object first becomes red? Does this traveling light magically change frequency while in transit to match that distant object?

(When I asked you this just before, you tried to deny that this light had any travel time. You can't say that now because you've just agreed that the nonabsorbed light travels.)

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, I thought of that while answering, but was hoping she might reply by explaining what she means by "forwards". However, I doubt she has any clear idea at all of what she was saying. The photons certainly can't keep going in the same direction that was forwards for them before they hit the object, because the object that they have just hit is in the way. So they have to bounce off in some other direction. And unless she is prepared to reject the laws determining the angle of reflection, I can just stipulate that the light I'm asking about is that which struck the object from a direction such that the angle of reflection will be in the direction of the camera.

There is no argument here. The inverse square law proves that light moves in the angle of reflection, but you believe that this somehow proves afferent vision, although it does nothing of the sort.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This doesn't answer my objection. You agree that the non-absorbed photons are traveling. Then you say that because I am saying they travel, that I am assuming the afferent account. That makes no sense. I am assuming only what YOU just agreed with.

You then say that I am separating the light from the object, but my objection doesn't say anything at all about whether or not the object must still be present. The object IS still present at all points in the scenario my refutation describes, so this cannot be the problem with it.

You go on to say that a real-time mirror image must be present if your account is to work. I agree, but this is not possible given what you have just previously agreed to. If the newly non-absorbed red photons (at the object) do indeed travel away from the object towards the camera (as you just agreed) then they cannot also be instantly forming a mirror image at the camera film.

At no point have you said anything to counter my refutation. You've simply agreed with me by saying that the nonabsorbed photons travel, and then contradicted this agreement by saying they must also be instantly at the film - when the whole point of the objection is that this can't be the case if they are instead traveling.

But that's not true because it's through light that we are able to see the object in real time, but that does not mean the light has to travel to Earth in order for this to happen.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no argument here. The inverse square law proves that light moves in the angle of reflection, but you believe that this somehow proves afferent vision, although it does nothing of the sort.

Remember when The Lone Ranger took you to school of using words you don't understand, drawing completely insane conclusions from it to support your position, and making a fool of yourself?

Do you remember that, peacegirl?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The inverse square law proves that light moves in the angle of reflection.

The 'Inverse Square Law' and the 'Angle of Reflection' are seperate issues and one does not prove the other even though both may apply to the same light, one is not dependent on the other nor does one prove the other.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Just repeating your beliefs does not make them true, or even plausible. Simply equating disagreement with lack of understanding does not make you any less wrong. If you are correct, then demonstrate it: support your statements. If you cannot, then have the grace to admit that you are wrong. Anything else is dishonourable.

This is just as plausible as the afferent model. There is no proof that the afferent account is correct. It's just another theory based on what scientists believe is occurring.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Remember when The Lone Ranger took you to school of using words you don't understand, drawing completely insane conclusions from it to support your position, and making a fool of yourself?

Do you remember that, peacegirl?

The word 'direct' and 'optic nerve'? I understand what "angle of reflection" means.

Angle of Reflection -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is just as plausible as the afferent model. There is no proof that the afferent account is correct. It's just another theory based on what scientists believe is occurring.

Peacegirl couldn't be more wrong if she tried, but here she's just wrong thru lack of understanding. The afferent model is plausible and the efferent model is not. There is significant proof of the afferent model and none for the efferent model. Scientists base the theory on extensive observation, testing, and experimentation, which all support afferent vision and none that support efferent vision. The afferent model fits reality and the efferent model is a product of Lessans fevered imagination due to a total lack of understanding of reality.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand what "angle of reflection" means.

Angle of Reflection -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics

1. No, you do not. You don't understand any of the scientific terms you stumble upon via Google.

2. So there is an angle of reflection? But you said the photons aren't reflected!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl couldn't be more wrong if she tried, but here she's just wrong thru lack of understanding. The afferent model is plausible and the efferent model is not.

There is no efferent model, so this alleged "model" is so bad it's not even wrong. Whenever peacegirl tries to "explain" this "model," we see what happnes: she spews meaningless nonsense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, this is not a semantic game: I am merely explaining the nature of scientific truth to you. You are the one who demands absolute evidence for optics, claiming that since there is none, Lessans ideas cannot be ruled out.

You say we KNOW that bacteria can cause infections. We also KNOW that sight is the eyes detecting light and sending impulses to the brain. The level of evidence we have for both is the same.

It is not absolute in either case: some evidence may pop up later that proves that it is caused by fairies or something.

But the balance of evidence lies so heavily on the side of this not being the case that for all intents and purposes we can assume bacterial infection, procreation and metabolism, as well as sight, work the way we think it works.

Not really. We have performed such experiments in many different forms and observed the outcome. Because we have observed the delay, because it is consistent with what we know of the speed of light and the distance between us and the moon, all pieces of data that we have confirmed separately and that fit together perfectly, the balance of evidence lies overwhelmingly in favour of normal sight.

Yes, but it's not conclusive evidence Vivisectus.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Just like all the observations and facts about bacterial infection, metabolism and procreation are so consistent and coherent that the balance of evidence is such that we can treat them as facts in stead of likelihood.

You cannot treat our knowledge of procreation, or our knowledge regarding bacterial infections, in the same breath as this.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet - the evidence is not absolute. It is this lack of absolute proof that YOU invoke and claim to be a reason to think Lessans ideas are plausible.

If afferent vision was factual, then you're right, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that there is no conclusive proof opens the door for another interpretation.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

My response is that we would have to call that (L) plausible so we do not confuse it with what the rest of the world thinks "plausible" means.

Plausible does not mean factual. You can have a plausible theory but you are acting like it's an absolute fact. It's not right.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I also point out that since you do not think that the evidence for bacterial infection is insufficient, you only demand this special treatment for your fathers ideas: it is not required to wait for further testing on baby creation or metabolism in your mind.

We can't always identify the strain of bacteria that may be the source of an infection, but we do know that bacteria causes infections. That's a fact. The only reason I'm asking people to wait for further testing is because this is the only way they will be convinced that his claims had merit.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

However - the level of evidence for the way the eyes work is just about the same. Whenever we perform a new test, the results keep indicating that sight works the way we think it does. When we tried to create images in the brain by stimulating the optic nerve, we were able to do so. This should not have worked if sight works the way you claim it does, as it is supposed to work the other way around.

Not necessarily. Seeing shadows and patterns is not normal sight. You're assuming that with better technologies we will be able to recreate normal vision.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We fire a probe at one of the moons of Jupiter, and aim for where we would expect them to be if there is a delay in sight - and we succeed. We create a hologram by manipulating light alone - and lo and behold! We see an object that is not really there. We should not be able to do so if sight works the way you say it does.

A hologram is just another way of recording light that is scattered from an object or scene. There are many tricks that we can do with light. This doesn't prove the direction in which we see.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So like in all the other cases I mentioned, the balance of evidence leans so strongly towards afferent sight that we can treat it as a fact for all intents and purposes.

That's why we have an innocence project. In many cases the preponderance of evidence seems overwhelming, and the 'perpetrator' is sent to prison. Even when new evidence clearly shows that there was a miscarriage of justice, it's difficult for prosecutors to admit they made a mistake because of the guilt they would feel.