A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Sure we can. If it weren't for Lessans ideas casting unwarranted doubt into your mind, what holes do you think are found in optics? What evidence in optics is any less convincing then the evidence found in bacteriology or embryology, or conversely what evidence in those is so overwhelmingly conclusive yet has no counterpart in optics?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Your response here has nothing at all to do with my objection. There is no vision and no Earth involved in the refutation I presented, and you haven't explained how you are handling the problem I describe. If the first nonabsorbed red photons are moving forward from the newly red object at light speed as they get replaced, then they CANNOT also be instantly forming a red mirror image at the distant camera film. You can't have the same photons in two places at once. Therefore real-time vision and photography are refuted.

[Spacemonkey]

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.

What?

(i) This post was not to you.

(ii) What we would both like to know is what direction you meant by "forwards" with respect to the direction the nonabsorbed photons move in they get replaced.

(iii) Please explain how the inverse square law proves that light moves in the angle of reflection. Modern science says no such thing, and neither have we.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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]

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, here's a very simple disproof of efferent vision and real-time photography. Both require a camera to be able to record the color change of a distant object in real-time. So when a distant ball changes from blue to red, a camera must be able to photograph it as red as soon as it has become red. But if the camera is inside the range where the traveling non-absorbed light has yet to return to 'white full-spectrum' light, then all that light will be blue before the color change. And at the very moment the ball changes to red (i.e. has turned into a ball that absorbs all but red photons) there are no red photons at the camera. They were previously all being absorbed by the ball, and are only now free to bounce off the ball and begin traveling towards the camera. So none of them can be at the camera yet. But the camera cannot produce a red image on film without any red photons there to chemically interact with the film. So the camera cannot produce a real-time image of the newly red ball, and real-time photgraphy and efferent vision are thereby disproved. QED.

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

It's really quite difficult to compare a Criminal Jury Trial and a Scientific Investagition. The trial is an adversarial presentation to sway the opinion of 12 individuals who may or may not have expertise in the issue involved. Science requires emperical evidence that can be tested, and examined for accuracy. Most scientists are happy to be a part of discovering new knowledge, even if it means reversing work they had done before. Educated scientists will readily admit when they make a mistake, something that is beyond Peacegirl/Lessans understanding.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure we can. If it weren't for Lessans ideas casting unwarranted doubt into your mind, what holes do you think are found in optics? What evidence in optics is any less convincing then the evidence found in bacteriology or embryology, or conversely what evidence in those is so overwhelmingly conclusive yet has no counterpart in optics?

Efferent vision doesn't change optics. I never said there were holes in optics.

We can grow cultures to determine whether something is bacterial, fungal, or viral.

Throat cultures are taken using a swab to find a bacterial or fungal infection in the throat. A throat culture test can help indicate whether the infection is: Candida albicans (a fungus that causes thrush in the throat or mouth), Group A streptococcus (which causes strep throat, scarlet fever, and rheumatic fever), or Neisseria meningitides (a bacteria that can cause meningitis

Culture Testing: Detect and identify infections with our culture testing.




We can observe how embryos develop.

Embryology (from Greek ἔμβρυον, embryon, "the unborn, embryo"; and -λογία, -logia) is a science which is about the development of an embryo from the fertilization of the ovum to the fetus stage.

Embryology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, here's a very simple disproof of efferent vision and real-time photography. Both require a camera to be able to record the color change of a distant object in real-time. So when a distant ball changes from blue to red, a camera must be able to photograph it as red as soon as it has become red. But if the camera is inside the range where the traveling non-absorbed light has yet to return to 'white full-spectrum' light, then all that light will be blue before the color change. And at the very moment the ball changes to red (i.e. has turned into a ball that absorbs all but red photons) there are no red photons at the camera. They were previously all being absorbed by the ball, and are only now free to bounce off the ball and begin traveling towards the camera. So none of them can be at the camera yet. But the camera cannot produce a red image on film without any red photons there to chemically interact with the film. So the camera cannot produce a real-time image of the newly red ball, and real-time photgraphy and efferent vision are thereby disproved. QED.

This whole thing is false. Remember when I said that the space between the moon and the eye, or a candle and the eye, are the same because they both meet the requirements of efferent vision? If my eyes are seeing the moon and as I back up from the moon, it gets smaller and smaller, that light is not traveling where the blue photons would strike my retina first. I am seeing the moon (this piece of substance) due to the inverse square law. The inverse square law works no matter how far away something is, or how close it is. Both the candle and the moon are in my field of view, so the principle works the same way. How can a single blue photon traveling by itself land on my retina before seeing the object as it turns red when --- and this is what you're forgetting --- light is a condition of sight, not a cause. According to this model, we don't interpret images from light. We see objects through light, which is why we are able to see in real time.

[LadyShea]

Efferent vision doesn't change optics. I never said there were holes in optics.

Your statements regarding instant mirror images and interaction at a physical distance directly contradict the principles of optics. As you are still unable to understand the explanation provided by optics as to why we are not able to resolve images when the object is too small/far away also indicates you find there to be holes.

[Vivisectus]

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

But there is lots of proof: the fact that the moons of jupiter are where we think they are for a start. The fact that we can stimulate the optic nerve and trigger images in the brain. Etc etc etc - enormous piles of proof, and it all fits together.

Your denials do not change that.

Nor is the efferent model plausible: the only reason to believe it is true is that fact that it was your fathers opinion that it was so. Apart from that, there is not one jot of evidence, nor even anything to suggest it is possible. Funnily enough neither you nor Lessans seem to have noticed this.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

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

No, it is pretty obvious you have no clue at all.

Why don't you admit you have grabbed words you don't unstandard and tried to use them to support your argument and ended up making a fool of yourself? Again.

Or please, do explain how the inverse square law 'proves light moves in the angle of reflection'!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This whole thing is false.

You'll have to be more specific than that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember when I said that the space between the moon and the eye, or a candle and the eye, are the same because they both meet the requirements of efferent vision?

Yes, that was a very silly thing to say. Obviously the actual distances are not the same. Nor does this address my refutation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If my eyes are seeing the moon and as I back up from the moon, it gets smaller and smaller, that light is not traveling...

Sorry, but you've already agreed that the nonabsorbed photons I am asking you about ARE indeed traveling, so this doesn't work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would be the same distance between a candle and my eye because both objects are in my field of view.

Your model doesn't get to change actual distances. Nor does this address my objection.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way a single blue photon traveling by itself would strike my eye before seeing red because you are forgetting that light is a condition of sight, not a cause. How could we see red when the premise is that we don't see images from light. We see objects through light.

There is no seeing in my example, so you are again failing to address the actual objection. You need to explain how the camera can record a real-time red image at the exact moment when the ball first turns red. There were no red photons anywhere between the ball and the camera before this moment. When the ball turns red, red photons are only just beginning to travel away from the ball (i.e. moving forwards as they get replaced) instead of being absorbed by it. But a real-time red photograph requires red photons to be at the camera film at this time. How is this possible? (You need to answer in terms of the actual location and movement of RED PHOTONS, and you CANNOT answer in terms of eyes or vision.)

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, but it's not conclusive evidence Vivisectus.

You have decided not to think of it as conclusive, for personal reasons. However, since in the mean time we just keep going on assuming sight works the way we think it does, and things keep working! Every test confirms that it indeed does work the afferent way. If efferent vision is correct, it works in such a way as to make it completely indistinguishable from afferent vision in every possible way.

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

You and your father seem to think that you merely have to claim a certain thing to make a point. This is not the case: you have to back it up. Please explain why it is that I cannot, and I will show you that you are mistaken.

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.

Then it opens the door for an alternate explanation of bacterial infection, procreation and corpulence too. There is merely overwhelming proof for them too, not an absolute knowledge that it is so.

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.

You seem to be under the impression that this supports your point. I do not see how though.

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.

I know: you require no evidence to believe they had merit. The fact that there is none does not bother you in the slightest! In fact, no evidence in the world can convince you that they did not have merit, and the fact that you cannot explain many things we observe does not even slow you down.

If I wanted to, I could deny that the evidence in favour of bacterial infection is sufficient to make it conclusive. Something else could be going on! Further testing might reveal that we are wrong about it! I, for one, would like to see a bacterium through a telescope, as I distrust evidence from microscopes in the same way you distrust evidence from outer space. There is no conclusive proof for it - it is just a theory based on what scientists think is going on!

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.

There should not be anything at all, is the point, as no information is supposed to be travelling that way. You are simply moving the goalpost.

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.

It is always so gratifying when you completely fail to see that you have just proven my point for me. It is very naughty of me to enjoy it, but I must confess I do. A personality flaw, no doubt.

So we create images just by redirecting light?

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.

Science is not like the justice system. If you were to actually proffer some evidence, I know for a fact that boatloads of physicists would love it. My son is an astro-physicist and he keeps telling me that he wishes you could understand how incredibly awesome it would be to him: it would completely overthrow so much of what we think we know. Think of all the exciting new physics it would lead us to!

Scientists LIVE for things like that.

But they follow the evidence. And there is none for efferent sight! Everything we observe confirms afferent sight. Show me an observation that contradicts it, and we have something to work on. Show me something that should work or not work if afferent sight was false.

If you had anything else than the unsupported claims of your father we would have something to examine, but there is nothing!

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can grow cultures to determine whether something is bacterial, fungal, or viral.

<snip>

We can observe how embryos develop.

Guess what? We can also observe phototransduction by photoreceptor cells in the retina, their subsequent activation of the ganglionic cells, and those cells' transmission of impulses to the visual cortex of the brain via the optic nerve. We can even map -- in real time -- the activation of the specific cells of the visual cortex as they receive and then process these impulses.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Efferent vision doesn't change optics. I never said there were holes in optics.

Efferent vision is completely undetectable, and everything works exactly as if there was no such thing as efferent vision, yes. It is a good reason not to believe in it.

We can grow cultures to determine whether something is bacterial, fungal, or viral.

I never said efferent infection changed bacteriology. It works the same way in every sense, only bacteria are the condition for infection, not the cause. Just because we can see bacteria in a culture does not mean our current theory is anything but the way scientists think things work based on their ideas, peacegirl!

We can observe how embryos develop.

Development works the same way even though it is done by fairies, peacegirl. I never said anything worked differently. I am just saying that contrary to what scientists believe, all the work is done by fairies. We just cannot see the fairies - but that does not mean they are not there. There is no absolute proof that this is not the case!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What?

(i) This post was not to you.

(ii) What we would both like to know is what direction you meant by "forwards" with respect to the direction the nonabsorbed photons move in they get replaced.

It depends on the angle of reflection.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

(iii) Please explain how the inverse square law proves that light moves in the angle of reflection. Modern science says no such thing, and neither have we.

Never mind. The two don't relate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Guess what? We can also observe phototransduction by photoreceptor cells in the retina, their subsequent activation of the ganglionic cells, and those cells' transmission of impulses to the visual cortex of the brain via the optic nerve. We can even map -- in real time -- the activation of the specific cells of the visual cortex as they receive and then process these impulses.

That's all well and good. I said before that there has to be a connecting link from the optic nerve to the visual cortex, but there is a leap of faith when it comes to what the brain is doing when it receives these impulses. I believe it is an electric current that activates the brain to see, not to interpret. And I still believe that when Lessans said there are no direct afferent nerve endings, he was right. The optic nerve is not impinging directly on receptors as in touch, for example, such that the region of skin is directly innervated by the terminals of the receptor neuron.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You'll have to be more specific than that.

Yes, that was a very silly thing to say. Obviously the actual distances are not the same. Nor does this address my refutation.

It absolutely does. You just don't want to hear what I'm saying, or even consider what I'm saying. You have cotton in your ears.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If my eyes are seeing the moon and as I back up from the moon, it gets smaller and smaller, that light is not traveling...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sorry, but you've already agreed that the nonabsorbed photons I am asking you about ARE indeed traveling, so this doesn't work.

This doesn't remove the physics of light traveling. This has everything to do with the eyes and what it is they are seeing. You are still stuck in the afferent account, and you don't even realize it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would be the same distance between a candle and my eye because both objects are in my field of view.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your model doesn't get to change actual distances. Nor does this address my objection.

Actually it does.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way a single blue photon traveling by itself would strike my eye before seeing red because you are forgetting that light is a condition of sight, not a cause. How could we see red when the premise is that we don't see images from light. We see objects through light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is no seeing in my example, so you are again failing to address the actual objection. You need to explain how the camera can record a real-time red image at the exact moment when the ball first turns red. There were no red photons anywhere between the ball and the camera before this moment. When the ball turns red, red photons are only just beginning to travel away from the ball (i.e. moving forwards as they get replaced) instead of being absorbed by it. But a real-time red photograph requires red photons to be at the camera film at this time. How is this possible? (You need to answer in terms of the actual location and movement of RED PHOTONS, and you CANNOT answer in terms of eyes or vision.)

You are ignoring my explanation. If there is a lens, camera or eye, the light works the same way because the object is the focus, not the light. If the object is present in any form, and it is bright enough to be seen or photographed, then it is not the light that is causing this. It is the object, and the light is only a bridge. You cannot see red before blue. It doesn't work that way Spacemonkey, if Lessans is right. If he wasn't right, then your account would be right. But in the efferent account, there is no way we can see images from light alone.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I still believe that when Lessans said there are no direct afferent nerve endings, he was right. The optic nerve is not impinging directly on receptors as in touch, for example, such that the region of skin is directly innervated by the terminals of the receptor neuron.

So, because there is a synapse between the receptor and the part of the cerebral cortex that receives the impulses means that "there are no afferent nerve endings" involved in vision? Guess what? The same is true for the sense of touch. And of smell. Etc. You couldn't come up with a more idiotic justification for your claim if you tried.

Once again, neither your nor Lessans' abject ignorance of the relative anatomy and physiology is evidence that Lessans was correct.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It absolutely does. You just don't want to hear what I'm saying, or even consider what I'm saying. You have cotton in your ears.

My scenario has nothing to do with relative distances, so this has nothing to do with my scenario at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This doesn't remove the physics of light traveling. This has everything to do with the eyes and what it is they are seeing. You are still stuck in the afferent account, and you don't even realize it.

Saying that the "light is not traveling" certainly does remove the physics of light traveling. And there are no eyes and no vision in my scenario, so this also has nothing to do with what I asked you about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are ignoring my explanation. If there is a lens, camera or eye, the light works the same way because the object is the focus, not the light. If the object is present in any form, and it is bright enough to be seen or photographed, then it is not the light that is causing this. It is the object, and the light is only a bridge. You cannot see red before blue. It doesn't work that way Spacemonkey, if Lessans is right. If he wasn't right, then your account would be right. But in the efferent account, there is no way we can see images from light alone.

You still aren't actually addressing my objection or answering my question. Telling me that it works the same way as something else that you can't explain doesn't help at all. A real-time photographic image requires red photons to be present at the camera film at the exact moment the ball turns red. How is that possible when at the immediately preceding moment the ball was blue and there were no red photons anywhere near the camera? This is the question that you need to answer instead of hand-waving away with vague claims about light being a condition rather than a cause, and things working the same as for vision. You need to explain things in terms of the position and motion of the RED PHOTONS. Can you do this?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Don't forget to answer this post, Peacegirl.

[The Lone Ranger]

By the way, in case it isn't clear why peacegirl's claim that vision is not like touch because there is no "direct innervation" by" the terminals of the receptor neuron" in vision is so spectacularly idiotic, let's look at the difference.

In vision, the part of the retina that receives the stimulus (light) is the [photo]receptors.

Is this true of touch? No it is not.. In fact, none of the nerve endings responsible for conveying touch impulses to the CNS are in the epidermis of the skin, where the stimuli impinge. If anything, vision is much more "direct" than is touch.

If anything, the retina of the eye is much more "directly innervated by the terminals of the receptor neurons" than is the skin, because the receptors in the retina are directly activated by the stimulus, unlike the skin, where there are several intervening layers of cells between the stimulus and the receptor cells.


And don't even get me started on all the stuff that lies between the stimulus and the receptors for your sense of hearing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, because there is a synapse between the receptor and the part of the cerebral cortex that receives the impulses means that "there are no afferent nerve endings" involved in vision? Guess what? The same is true for the sense of touch. And of smell. Etc. You couldn't come up with a more idiotic justification for your claim if you tried.

Once again, neither your nor Lessans' abject ignorance of the relative anatomy and physiology is evidence that Lessans was correct.

It's not idiotic at all Lone Ranger. But this is not how he came to his conclusions, so for you to use this as a way of determining whether he was right or not, is faulty.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

By the way, in case it isn't clear why peacegirl's claim that vision is not like touch because there is no "direct innervation" by" the terminals of the receptor neuron" in vision is so spectacularly idiotic, let's look at the difference.

In vision, the part of the retina that receives the stimulus (light) is the [photo]receptors.

Is this true of touch? No it is not.. In fact, none of the nerve endings responsible for conveying touch impulses to the CNS are in the epidermis of the skin, where the stimuli impinge. If anything, vision is much more "direct" than is touch.

If anything, the retina of the eye is much more "directly innervated by the terminals of the receptor neurons" than is the skin, because the receptors in the retina are directly activated by the stimulus, unlike the skin, where there are several intervening layers of cells between the stimulus and the receptor cells.

But what happens after that? The light has to be transduced. Where does that occur in the other sense organs?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And don't even get me started on all the stuff that lies between the stimulus and the receptors for your sense of hearing.

Than don't start.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Don't forget to answer this post, Peacegirl.

You don't even see where this is the afferent model because you refuse to start off with the eyes seeing the object and work backward from there. I'm so tired of going over this that I need a break. This discussion has gotten nowhere and it will continue to go nowhere until further empirical testing proves Lessans right or wrong, one way or another. This thread will never be able to prove him wrong, and therefore it's now gotten burdensome.