A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have made positive claims about photography in your attempts to explain your model, which means you need to be able to support those claims.

We know exactly how camera film works ; The photochemical reaction that occurs during film photography requires the absorption of photons at the surface of the camera film. Photons that are not physically touching the surface of the camera film cannot be absorbed.

What is the mechanism by which photons come to be located at the surface of camera film in your model?

I already told you, it's the ability of the brain to see through the eyes. You are basing everything on the idea of light traveling through space and time to bring the image. The twain shall never meet.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you, it's the ability of the brain to see through the eyes.

Was that the response of a sane mind, Peacegirl?

Photons get to the camera film due to the ability of the brain to see through the eyes?

Does that make any sense even to you?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that's how you feel, and I also understand the anger you feel for upsetting the apple cart, but what am I supposed to do specious, give up what I know to be true? Tell me what should I do?

We are exposed. However we are not angry, we are (P) angry.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just stop it Spacemonkey. You are trying to add logic to something that is not proof. That's the reason you are so discombobulated. I see it and I feel sad because not only are you going to be confused, but no one else is going to get if you don't, at least not at the moment.

Yeah Spacemonkey, you got your logic mixed in with peacegirls (P) logic. Cut it out. You are peacegirls only hope.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are basing everything on the idea of light traveling through space and time to bring the image.

No-one is basing anything on that, Peacegirl. The afferent model does not say that light brings an image. You've been told this countless times.

But forget about images for a moment and just think about color. You've agreed that (i) The color of a photograph depends upon the color (i.e. wavelength) of the photons that make contact with the camera film; and that (ii) photons (i.e. light) must always travel. Given those two points, YOU have made traveling light a critical part of YOUR account.

If a red photograph requires red photons hitting the film, then those photons have to get to the film, and the only way they can get to the film instantly is to teleport there. The only other option is for traveling photons of a different wavelength to change their wavelength as they arrive. Neither of these options are physically possible, as both contradict the laws of physics, yet your model requires one or the other to be the case.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Yeah Spacemonkey, you got your logic mixed in with peacegirls (P) logic. Cut it out. You are peacegirls only hope.

Peacegirl's only hope was intervention by her family members. Short of that, there is no hope for her, as she will never seek treatment herself. She is condemned by her condition to continue this tragic farce until she loses the capacity to operate a keyboard.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you, it's the ability of the brain to see through the eyes.

As it is possible to set up up cameras on a timer, or with motion control, etc. such that it can take photographs without human eyes or brains anywhere in the vicinity, and since the photochemical reaction that occurs during film photography requires the absorption of photons at the surface of the camera film, as well as the fact that it offers no physical mechanism at all, your response "it's the ability of the brain to see through the eyes" does not answer or even address the question "What is the mechanism by which photons come to be located at the surface of camera film in your model?"

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl's only hope was intervention by her family members. Short of that, there is no hope for her, as she will never seek treatment herself. She is condemned by her condition to continue this tragic farce until she loses the capacity to operate a keyboard.

Yes, but Spacemonkey, you must realize that all of us who continue to respond to peacegirl are enabling her tragic behavior.

[davidm]

The indignant, professorial, and eastern screech owl advises a certain message board poster to “go fuck a duck.”


NEWS ABOUT NATURE
Eastern Screech Owl to Peacegirl: ‘STFU, Already.’

FREETHOUGHT-FORUM.COM (Internet News Service) -- An eastern screech owl has this bit of advice for a certain message board poster: “STFU, already, you make me sick.”

The owl, Otis Asio, a resident of Evanston, Ill., said he has “had it up to here” with peacegirl, a regular poster at the Freethought-Forum message board.

“Just give me a fucking break already and stuff a mouse in your mouth,” Asio, 7, said in haunting tremolo with a descending, whinny-like quality.

“You are flat-out nucking futz, if you’ll pardon my owl French.”

For the last year, across two threads spanning more than a thousand pages, peacegirl has been arguing in favor of some really stupid shit that has no support whatever and does not even make logical sense. Her persistence, coupled with her cluelessness, has really ruffled Asio’s feathers.

“While roosting in a natural cavity in a large tree after a hard night’s hunting, I naturally like to unwind by surfing the net,” explained Asio, who has a large round head with prominent ear tufts, yellow eyes and a yellowish bill, as well as a Mac PowerBook. “And what do I get but this stupid shit about real-time seeing and how some seventh-grade dropout has a plan to end all evil and discord in the world.”

“Honestly, I’m just a goddamned screech owl, and even I can see how fucked up this shit is,” Asio trilled. “My hearing is so acute that it can even locate mammals under heavy vegetation or snow, but from this it does NOT follow that my ears are sense organs but my incredibly cute yellow eyes aren’t.”

[The Lone Ranger]

The most recent genetic/morphological analyses indicate that Eastern Screech Owls belong to the genus Megascops, not Otus. So it should really be Megascops asio.


/pedant


Cool factoid: a screech owl's ears are asymmetrical; one is higher than the other. This means that they hear in "3-D." That is, unlike a human, whose ears are both on the same plane, and so can only reliably locate a sound's direction in the horizontal plane*, a screech owl can pinpoint the sound source in both the horizontal and the vertical plane. Handy for a nocturnal hunter who hunts by homing in on the sounds made by its prey.

*A human can do this too, by cocking the head so that one ear is higher than the other. This is why dogs (and humans) tend to cock their heads when trying to pinpoint a sound source.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The most recent genetic/morphological analyses indicate that Eastern Screech Owls belong to the genus Megascops, not Otus. So it should really be Megascops asio.


/pedant

Actually I noticed that too, but decided Otus Asio sounded more like someone's real name.

[The Lone Ranger]

While on the subject of cool owl-related stuff ...

Experiments with Barn Owls showed that the auditory cortex of a barn owl's brain has a 3-D "map" of its surroundings. That is, the auditory cortex is laid out so that a sound coming in from a specific location always triggers activity in a specific portion of the auditory cortex. So, just from watching the activity in the owl's auditory cortex, you can tell the direction of an incoming sound relative to the owl's head.


Our brains do the same thing in the visual cortex. Based upon which part(s) of the visual cortex light(s) up, you can tell where in the person's visual field (s)he is seeing something.

[davidm]

Incredible animal abilities.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I'm not angry at all. You'd like me to be, but at this point, I'm just really sad for you. Seriously, it's like listening to my Grandma tell me that my dead Grandpa's just stepped out for a while, but will be back soon.

My mother was like that toward the end. Also we could go in, in the morning and visit awhile, go for lunch, and when we came back she didn't remember and it was like another visit. It was a 3 hour drive and every 15 or 20 minutes her memory would reset and we would start over again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Was that the response of a sane mind, Peacegirl?

Photons get to the camera film due to the ability of the brain to see through the eyes?

Does that make any sense even to you?

Yes, it makes a lot of sense. Photons come to be located at the film because of how the eyes work. The knowledge of efferent vision can be extended to cameras because light works in the same exact way whether it's film or the retina. I've said this so many times it should make sense to you by now. I guess not.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it makes a lot of sense. Photons come to be located at the film because of how the eyes work. The knowledge of efferent vision can be extended to cameras because light works in the same exact way whether it's film or the retina. I've said this so many times it should make sense to you by now. I guess not.

Then you are utterly insane. Something that does not exist in a given scenario cannot provide the explanation for anything in that scenario.

Saying that light behaves the same way in both cases is not the same as saying that how the eyes work explains photography.

You can say that the light gets to the film in photography in the same way as it gets to the retina in vision, but then you still owe us an explanation for what this mechanism is in each case.

And the explanation cannot rely upon anything (such as eyes) that do not exist in both scenarios.

If the explanation for how light gets to the film and retina is the same in both cases, then that explanation cannot involve the eyes, and it is something you have yet to provide.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No-one is basing anything on that, Peacegirl. The afferent model does not say that light brings an image. You've been told this countless times.

Stop playing these semantic word games with me Spacemonkey. You know what I mean.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But forget about images for a moment and just think about color. You've agreed that (i) The color of a photograph depends upon the color (i.e. wavelength) of the photons that make contact with the camera film; and that (ii) photons (i.e. light) must always travel. Given those two points, YOU have made traveling light a critical part of YOUR account.

No, because you're missing the main part of all of this: the object. If the camera is aimed at the object, and if the light that is present at the film does not have to travel to Earth, then the photons that are showing up on film are not the red photons. They have joined with the other colors of the visual spectrum. The non-absorbed light that is at the film is blue because the camera is capturing the blue photons that the object has just reflected.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If a red photograph requires red photons hitting the film, then those photons have to get to the film, and the only way they can get to the film instantly is to teleport there. The only other option is for traveling photons of a different wavelength to change their wavelength as they arrive. Neither of these options are physically possible, as both contradict the laws of physics, yet your model requires one or the other to be the case.

It really doesn't have to be one or the other. The only thing that changes is how we actually see. You are acting like real time vision isn't even plausible, but you're 100% wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then you are utterly insane. Something that does not exist in a given scenario cannot provide the explanation for anything in that scenario.

Saying that light behaves the same way in both cases is not the same as saying that how the eyes work explains photography.

You can say that the light gets to the film in photography in the same way as it gets to the retina in vision, but then you still owe us an explanation for what this mechanism is in each case.

And the explanation cannot rely upon anything (such as eyes) that do not exist in both scenarios.

If the explanation for how light gets to the film and retina is the same in both cases, then that explanation cannot involve the eyes, and it is something you have yet to provide.

But it takes eyes to see what exists and it takes eyes to see the image on film. If there were no objects in the world, there would be no images of anything. It would just be light from the Sun which has no color.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

All the two questions below are asking you for is the locations of these two sets of photons at the times concerned. You have agreed that both sets of photons exist at these times, and that they must have locations at these times. And that is all the questions presuppose. They say nothing at all about whether or not an object has to be present, what brains or lenses do, what else other than light may be necessary, changing distances, or instant mirror images. For the purposes of these two questions you can assume that your own answers concerning such matters are all accepted. All I'm asking for is the location of these photons at the times concerned according to your own model. That's it. Nothing else. You can take all the rest of your model as a given, and use it to provide the answers which you have agreed these two questions must have. No more excuses. Stop being such a big baby and just answer the questions already.

Bump.

Remember how you said that you are answering my questions and that you never weasel?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

How do red photons get to be at the camera film when at the immediately preceding moment there were no red photons anywhere near the camera?

Bump.

Remember how you said that you are answering my questions and that you never weasel?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl's only hope was intervention by her family members. Short of that, there is no hope for her, as she will never seek treatment herself. She is condemned by her condition to continue this tragic farce until she loses the capacity to operate a keyboard.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it takes eyes to see what exists and it takes eyes to see the image on film. If there were no objects in the world, there would be no images of anything. It would just be light from the Sun which has no color.

No, Peacegirl. The EYES are absolutely not a necessary part of creating a PHOTOGRAPHIC image.

So you need to stop trying to explain photography in terms of things like EYES that don't even exist in the scenario you are being asked about.

You need to explain how the photons get to the camera film, and you can't appeal to anything in your explanation that doesn't exist in the scenario you are being asked to explain.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not a joke, Peacegirl. It is not a laughing matter at all.

You seriously need help.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Remember how you said that you are answering my questions and that you never weasel?

If the preceding red photons were being reflected at the time a photograph was taken, those red photons would be captured on film and be a mirror image of the object. You're separating the photons from the object. You can't do that in this model. If I saw a fire and it looked blue, then the blue photons would be striking my retina. If the flames started to spread out and become red, then the red photons would be striking my retina. But I would be seeing these changes in real time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is not a joke, Peacegirl. It is not a laughing matter at all.

You seriously need help.