A revolution in thought

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Given the chance I would guess that Peacegirl will claim that the film, like the brain, somehow looks out through the lens and is in direct contact with the object once the lens is focused on it. Just wild speculation but it seems to fit with the other things she has been saying.

I think that's pretty much what she is saying. It makes even less sense in the context of a film camera, of course.

[davidm]

The point is utterly moot, since, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in by now literally hundreds of different ways, we do not see in real time. Therefore her stupid and self-contradictory explanations for how we see in real time are non-models applying to a fictitious world.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I think that's pretty much what she is saying. It makes even less sense in the context of a film camera, of course.

That it does not make sense does not seem to be a concern to Peacegirl, and I don't think she understands enough to know if it made sense or not. But it does fit with the book, whether she can understand that or not, I don't know.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Given the chance I would guess that Peacegirl will claim that the film, like the brain, somehow looks out through the lens and is in direct contact with the object once the lens is focused on it. Just wild speculation but it seems to fit with the other things she has been saying.

What you describe sounds like a schizophrenic hallucination.

[LadyShea]

Well peacegirl. You have now refuted Lessans by claiming that we don't see light instantly, in real time, as he stated, but that we can only see it when it has arrived. If Lessans was right, we see stars (and supernova) instantly and if you're right we don't see them until their light has arrived on Earth

And no, you cannot see the mass of stars. If we could see due to mass we could see black holes. We can't see black holes, even though they have great mass and are illuminated by nearby stars.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I think that's pretty much what she is saying. It makes even less sense in the context of a film camera, of course.

It really doesn't make less sense if you understand how it works.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Makes sense for someone with no functioning memory, I guess.

You got that right.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Ten: Our Posterity p. 488

As we have learned in Chapter Four, our brain is divided into
compartments, and in the memory section are innumerable word
slides on which are recorded our experiences. A second ago, yesterday,
last week, last month, two years ago, two thousand years ago, are slides
in our brain projector through which we see the number of times, or
what portion of one time, the earth revolves on its axis; but if we were
not able to remember (store away these slides), the word past would
never have come into existence because we are born, grow old, and die
all in the present. In reality, everything that we can possibly do from
the time we get up to the time we go to bed, and even our sleep, is
done in the present, as is the shining of the sun.

“Are you saying
that if man wasn’t able to remember what he did, there would be no
such thing as the past?”

If I said to you, “What did you do yesterday?” and you were
unable to understand my words, only the present would exist for you.
The recollection of the various things you did in your life or, to put it
another way, the recollection of your past is a word relation that is
part of your memory, but to think that anybody ever lived in the past
is inaccurate. Animals cannot think in terms of past and future
because they don’t have the ability to store away these word slides. We
use words like beginning and end, apply this to the universe and think
we perceive mathematical relations. We say God is the first cause, and
we reason from here as if we are discussing reality.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It really doesn't make less sense if you understand how it works.

I understand pretty well how a camera works, and it operates by detecting light and light alone.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It really doesn't make less sense if you understand how it works.

So tell us how it works.

How do photons get to be located at the surface of camera film and where did those specific photons come from, and where were they a fraction of a second prior to being becoming located on the surface of camera film?

[LadyShea]

Our individual experience of time doesn't negate the existence of prior times.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Of course they apply. Photography works based on the detection of light and light alone, yet somehow cameras see the same thing as people do.

For real time vision to be true, either our entire understanding of photography is false, or there's somehow a mechanism which allows a camera to "see" in real time.

Spacemonkey and LadyShea are trying to pin you down on a mechanism, because it's the least unlikely of the two options.

We all know why you weasel on the answers, because whenever you make a clear statement, a contradiction becomes apparent. Any answer you give, which assumes real time vision is true, will generate a contraction. I think you understand that, deep down, which is why you avoid being "trapped" into giving actual answers.

Would you like to try your hand at dismantling the 100s of years of science behind light photography? It may be the easier way for you.

There is nothing about the science behind photography that is dismantled. The only thing that changes is the denial that the object has to be present in some form.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Our individual experience of time doesn't negate the existence of prior times.

Obviously you didn't understand what he wrote, or you just want to argue because Lessans said it, which, according to you, makes it automatically wrong.

If we were
not able to remember (store away these slides), the word past would
never have come into existence because we are born, grow old, and die
all in the present.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously you didn't understand what he wrote, or you just want to argue because Lessans said it, which, according to you, makes it automatically wrong.

If we were
not able to remember (store away these slides), the word past would
never have come into existence because we are born, grow old, and die
all in the present.

The word past did come into existence however, because we do have those memories so what was his point? And what did he mean by the bolded below?

The recollection of the various things you did in your life or, to put it another way, the recollection of your past is a word relation that is part of your memory, but to think that anybody ever lived in the past is inaccurate.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing about the science behind photograph that is dismantled. The only thing that changes is the denial that the object has to be present in some form.

Nobody has denied that.

We are asking you about the prior locations of the photons located on the surface of camera film at the moment a photograph is taken. You refuse to answer questions about them, however.

Please answer the questions.

In your model, what was the location of those specific photons a fraction of a second prior to them being located on the surface of the camera film?

They have to be somewhere just before they are on the surface of camera film. Where is it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well peacegirl. You have now refuted Lessans by claiming that we don't see light instantly, in real time, as he stated, but that we can only see it when it has arrived. If Lessans was right, we see stars (and supernova) instantly and if you're right we don't see them until their light has arrived on Earth

I'm really not contradicting Lessans. He never talked about seeing light instantly. He talked about light being a necessary a condition in which to see the external world.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And no, you cannot see the mass of stars. If we could see due to mass we could see black holes. We can't see black holes, even though they have great mass and are illuminated by nearby stars.

I don't see where this discredits efferent vision.

How Do We Know Black Holes Exist If We Can't "See" Them?

Since light can not escape from the region around a black hole bound by the event horizon, it is not possible to directly "see" a black hole. However, it is possible to observe these objects by their effect on their surroundings.

Black holes that are near other objects will have a gravitational effect on them. Going back to the earlier example, suppose that our Sun became a black hole of one solar mass. An alien observer somewhere else in the galaxy studying our solar system would see the planets, comets and asteroids orbiting a central point. They would deduce that the planets and other objects were bound in their orbits by a one solar mass object. Since they would see no such star, the object would correctly be identified as a black hole.

Another way that we observe black holes is by utilizing another property of black holes, specifically that they, like all massive objects, will cause light to bend -- due to the intense gravity -- as it passes by. As stars behind the black hole move relative to it, the light emitted by them will appear distorted, or the stars will appear to move in an unusual way. From this information the position and mass of the black hole can be determined.

There is another type of black hole system, known as a microquasar. These dynamic objects consist of a stellar mass black hole in a binary system with another star, usually a large main sequence star. Due to the immense gravity of the black hole, matter from the companion star is funneled off onto a disk surrounding the black hole. This material then heats up as it begins to fall into the black hole through a process called accretion. The result is the creation of X-rays that we can detect using telescopes orbiting the Earth.

Black Holes - What Are Black Holes?

[davidm]

People are still catering to her delusions? Please!



How come she gets all the attention and Iacchus's numerology nutbaggery is completely ignored? It doesn't seem fair!

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by davidm

People are still catering to her delusions? Please!



How come she gets all the attention and Iacchus's numerology nutbaggery is completely ignored? It doesn't seem fair!

Iacchus's post are peacegirl, when she's not block-quoting Lessans or screwing up quote tags, is fairly readable.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It really doesn't make less sense if you understand how it works.

So if you understand how efferent vision is supposed to work, it doesn't make sense? That is pretty much what everyone else has been saying.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
“Are you saying
that if man wasn’t able to remember what he did, there would be no
such thing as the past?”

If I said to you, “What did you do yesterday?” and you were
unable to understand my words, only the present would exist for you.

Not understanding the question does not prove that a person has no memory of the past which is what Lessans tries to assert in the next line.

"The recollection of the various things you did in your life or, to put it
another way, the recollection of your past is a word relation that is
part of your memory, but to think that anybody ever lived in the past
is inaccurate."

This just illustrates his muddled thinking and how he tries to use unrelated ideas to prove each other.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by davidm

People are still catering to her delusions? Please!



How come she gets all the attention and Iacchus's numerology nutbaggery is completely ignored? It doesn't seem fair!

Iacchus admits he has been hospitalized for mental illness and stalked two women because the voices in his head told him to or whatever. I kinda steer clear when he is in a full on numerology mode.

When he is in asshole mode he is fair game.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm really not contradicting Lessans. He never talked about seeing light instantly. He talked about light being a necessary a condition in which to see the external world.

He talked about seeing distant stars instantly, which is what I was pointing out when I said "If Lessans was right, we see stars (and supernova) instantly and if you're right we don't see them until their light has arrived on Earth"

Could you weasel any harder?

Originally Posted by Lessans

The explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon —
although much larger — is because it is much much farther away,
which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a
planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the
distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no
relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic
nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see the moon, the sun and the distant stars.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where this discredits efferent vision.

I was preempting your bullshit "We can see the actual star, not the light" or "We can see the Sun because it is made of mass" or whatever nonsense weasel you cooked up next.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I understand pretty well how a camera works, and it operates by detecting light and light alone.

Of course it detects light, just like the retina does, but take away the object, or move it out of the field of view, and see what you get. Light alone will never resolve an image on film if the object is not present. Of course that is due to the inverse square law, which is consistent with efferent vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He talked about seeing distant stars instantly, which is what I was pointing out when I said "If Lessans was right, we see stars (and supernova) instantly and if you're right we don't see them until their light has arrived on Earth"

Could you weasel any harder?

He talked about seeing stars instantly if they are bright enough to be seen LadyShea.

Originally Posted by Lessans

The explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon —
although much larger — is because it is much much farther away,
which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a
planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the
distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no
relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic
nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see the moon, the sun and the distant stars.

There's no contradiction here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where this discredits efferent vision.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I was preempting your bullshit "We can see the actual star, not the light" or "We can see the Sun because it is made of mass" or whatever nonsense weasel you cooked up next.

If only it was nonsense.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He talked about seeing stars instantly if they are bright enough to be seen LadyShea.

If we can see them they are bright enough to be seen correct?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's no contradiction here.

According to Lessans, we see "distant stars" instantly, with no time involved at all.

According to YOU "We can't see light until it gets here"

Since all we can see of distant stars is their emitted light, your statement contradicts Lessans statement

[LadyShea]

Please answer the questions. You are taking a photograph of an object (object is here! Any object you want!), therefore there are photons on the surface of the camera film because that's how photographs are made.

In your model, what was the location of those specific photons a fraction of a second prior to them being located on the surface of the camera film?

They have to be somewhere just before they are on the surface of camera film. Where is it?