A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do these words of Lessans mean, then? Why were they included in the sentence?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's very true. Name a single seeming mistake in the book that has been pointed out to you that you didn't immediately respond was definitely NOT a case of Lessans being wrong? You won't even entertain the idea that he could have been wrong about anything.

Case in point:

Lessans said there are no afferent nerve endings in the eyes

Do you deny the eyes contain rods and cones?
Do you deny that the rods and cones are nerve endings?
Do you deny that rods and cones are afferent?

Exactly what is it that Lessans was denying that you agree with? Do you even know?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, it's not wrong, merely stupid, to appeal to evidence that does not exist and may not ever exist.

You don't have any actual empirical evidence...only the empirical evidence that exists in your imagination.

I do not hold any belief that science cannot be mistaken. Where do you come up with this shit. LOL

Anyway, hows about you answer the question instead of being a weasel.

Please name the two things that you do not think make "direct contact" according to Lessans. What was Lessans referring to when he said "direct contact"? Do you have the slightest clue?

Nobody here has claimed otherwise. We are discussing the claims Lessans made about the anatomy of the eye. Anatomy is best studied by direct observation...which often includes dissection out of necessity.

Lessans made assertions about anatomy and structure. You refuse to discuss these claims because you know what he said is completely false. Your refusal is noted.

Tests are run with the specific goal of falsifying the hypothesis. There's a good reason for that, but you don't give a shit about science or bias...you want people to devise tests to attempt to confirm Lessans ideas.

If his claims are true, then light physics, and all the technologies based on the known properties of light, are false. Physics cannot be as they are known to be and allow for real time seeing

This is pretty much a slam dunk falsification of Lessans, but again you don't understand the physics at all...so you keep opening your mouth and having stupid fall out.

Your wording and order are just so odd.

Images are the last step in the process, but you put it first.

See The Lone Rangers essay, or read this site Visual System

Unsupported assertion. Back that up with some evidence.

Circular circles are circular. LOL

LOL, your conclusion does not follow from your nonsensical premises.

Light travels in a straight line at the angle of reflection unless/until it is absorbed, or reflected again. What would preclude it from traveling in a pattern based on the angle and direction after reflection or emission?

Anyway, you are weaseling again.

Light is something from the outside world. Light is the external stimuli. It does impinge on the optic nerve.

This demonstrates that Lessans statement, as expressed by you "he said that nothing from the external world is impinging on the optic nerve to cause sight as is the case with the other senses where the brain is interpreting external stimuli." is false.

I can't understand something that has only been asserted but not explained or demonstrated. I can't understand something that is total nonsense.

Anyway, you are weaseling again.

Light is the stimuli that gets a reaction from the eyes. Other sense organs react to other stimuli.

This demonstrates that Lessans statement as expressed by you, "He said that there is no stimuli that will get a reaction from the eyes as is the case with the other sense organs." is false.

Does the retina contain specialized receptors that react to light? If the answer is yes, then the eyes are similar to the other sense organs in this regard

The passage under discussion was all about how the eyes differ from the other sense organs. He wasn't talking about what the brain was doing at all in this section. Weasel.

He said there were no afferent nerve endings in the eye as there are in other sense rgans

He said there is no stimuli that will get a reaction from the eyes as the other sense organs will react to stimuli

He nothing from the external world is impinging on the optic nerve as happens in the other sense organs

These statements are about the structures found in the eye versus the structures found in the other sense organs. He mentions "specialized receptors" in his dictionary definition, but never mentions them again. Sensory receptors are what defines a sense! If he thought the eyes had photoreceptors, he could never say they weren't a sense organ

So you no longer maintain that they are anatomically different. Do you retract that statement, and do you admit that Lessans statement was wrong? We have the empirical evidence that the eyes contain sensory neurons, which are afferent, and we have empirical evidence that the optic nerve is afferent.

What obvious reason...because if there are photoreceptors Lessans was wrong and you are wrong?

You previously agreed that the eyes contain rods and cones...guess what, rods and cones are both types of photoreceptors.

So I ask again, do you believe the eyes contain photoreceptors? Yes or no

Who assumes that? Where is it assumed? You are just making shit up.

Jellyfish have no brain, but have chemosensors that help them identify prey. Are they not a sense organ?

Worms have all kinds of sensory neurons, but no brain. Are those senses not senses?

LOL, shit fit in this thread!

Answer please

You don't like the correct terms so you refuse to use them as if that is a valid argument. It's a funny kind of weasel.

But even according to you science is how the "knowledge" will be verified. It can never be tested unless you can embrace the requirements for scientists to even consider tests. Such as a testable hypothesis. Such as a hole in the current knowledge. Such as an empirical observation not explainable by other models. Such as a working model of any kind.

Bump

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weasel, you have nothing else to do, and it's basically one big question, and here it is: Explain how the mirror image is created, of what it is composed, and how that composition came to be at the location "on the retina". Do so in a way that does not violate any known laws of physics, and does not require light to have additional or different properties than it is known to have and you have yourself a plausible idea.

Just saying it exists is not an explanation. Just saying it works is not an explanation. Just saying it does not violate physics does not make it compliant..

Bump

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You just said that the light at the retina traveled to get there!

Your exact words were "Yes, they traveled to get there"

If you don't like being called a liar then quit lying through your teeth

HOW do the photons get to the retina in the efferent account? By what physical mechanism? Physics allows traveling to that location, or coming into existence at that location.

This has nothing to do with the afferent account. Your account puts photons at the retina per your own statements. The retina on Earth is a physical location. The laws of physics require a mechanism by which photons come to be located someplace, otherwise you are violating them . Specifically physics allows traveling to that location, or coming into existence at that location. Which is at play in the efferent account?

bump

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So brains can still create images using light from receptor neurons in efferent vision? How is that any different from the standard model?

What is the role of photoreceptors in efferent vision? How is the light used in efferent vision? Where does the light need to be in order to see in efferent vision?

Why not? What role do they play in efferent vision?

Why not? What do photoeceptors do in your model?

Cones and rods are neurons. Of course there is a link between them and the functions of the brain.

bump

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're just not understanding the efferent model which does not require light to travel to Earth. If the object is large enough and bright enough it creates the mirror image which is in keeping with optics. The light that is at the eye is in direct proportion to the size of the object.

No, this dusty old beat up strawman is not part of my arguments at all, and not under discussion

Light can be located on the retina because of efferent vision. There is no travel time when it comes to vision even though light travels at 186,000 miles a second. These are two different phenomena.

You said "light can impinge on the retina even if that same light has not reached Earth". That statement puts the same light in two locations

Location 1: On the retina, on Earth
Location 2: Someplace other than on Earth, so it can't be on the retina since the retina is on Earth

It's physically impossible for light to be at a specific location without coming to be at that location through a physical mechanism.

But it is not what light is doing; it is what the eyes are capable of doing. If the eyes can see an object as long as it is within one's visual range, and it is bright enough to be seen, then that means the light is already present at the eye otherwise you couldn't see said object. Light is a necessary condition. You have to work this backwards from the eye, not from light. Just because we see objects in real time does not mean photons aren't traveling. Again, these are two different phenomenons, and Spacemonkey is clumping the two accounts together as if they are one and the same.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As you've never once explained this mechanism that would make it physically possible for light that is not on Earth to be located on a retina on Earth, it remains physically impossible...ie magic.

It is not magic if you understand the mechanism. It would not make sense if the eyes were afferent, for then we would have to wait for light to travel and strike the retina. But in this account we're getting a mirror image which means it's instantaneous. It is true that light is constantly traveling so the photons are being replaced, but that does not change the fact that we are seeing the actual object in real time. Light is only a condition; it is not traveling and bringing us the pattern through space/time apart from the actual object.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If light has a specific location in your account, you must provide the physical mechanism by which it came to be located there in your model, otherwise your idea is disproven by the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The physical mechanism involves the eye's ability to see the physical world in real time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is merely a statement of your belief, not an explanation of a physical mechanism making bi-location of light possible in opposition o the known laws of physics.

This does not defy the laws of physics. Light still travels. It is what the eyes do that makes all the difference, and you are failing to see this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The actual distance to Earth has nothing to do with it if the object is in the physical space of someone's field of view.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The actual distance has everything to do with the location of light photons. Light has properties and behaves according to the laws of physics and filed of view does not effect the properties of light or the laws of physics.

Field of view has everything to do with efferent vision because we don't get an image from light alone. That's the big fallacy.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said "light can impinge on the retina even if that same light has not reached Earth". That statement puts the same light in two locations

Location 1: On the retina, on Earth
Location 2: Someplace other than on Earth, so it can't be on the retina since the retina is on Earth

Bi-location is not physically possible

No it does not. It only means that because of the direction the eyes see, we can get an image on the retina without light having to reach Earth first, as long as it meets the requirements necessary.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light plays a completely different role if this claim is true (which I believe it is), but you're not seeing it because you don't understand how this mirror image is able to be created on the retina in this model.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am talking about the behavior and locations of light in your model, specifically in the scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon but it is 12:02.

If the Sun was turned on at 12 noon, we would see it because it is large enough and bright enough. We would get a mirror image on the retina but we would not see anything else unless it met the same requirements. Once the light got to earth we would be able to see each other.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are supposed to be explaining how the mirror image is created, of what it is composed, and how that composition came to be at the location "on the retina".

It is composed of photons LadyShea. I already said that this model does not change physics. We will get new photons on the retina, but we will see the object because the light is not traveling toward the retina and bringing us the image. We see the image directly. When the object is too far away or too small to be seen, full spectrum light is at the retina. We never ever get an image from light when there is no object present.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

An object being present is not a physical mechanism by which light can come to be located on Earth and not on Earth at the same time...let alone "allow" it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

An object being present in one's field of view creates the mechanism by which the eye can create a mirror image, regardless of how far away that object is.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And what is the mechanism? Explain how the mirror image is created, of what it is composed, and how that composition came to be at the location "on the retina".

The mirror image is composed of photons that are traveling, but you cannot separate the photon from its source in efferent vision. That's what Spacemonkey is trying to do, separate red photons from blue, as if to compare it to drops of water that come down a stream. That's not how it works.

I cannot go through this entire post and make this thread revolve around your confusion. Give me one question at a time and I will answer. That's all I have to say.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weasel, you have nothing else to do, and it's basically one big question, and here it is: Explain how the mirror image is created, of what it is composed, and how that composition came to be at the location "on the retina". Do so in a way that does not violate any known laws of physics, and does not require light to have additional or different properties than it is known to have and you have yourself a plausible idea.

Just saying it exists is not an explanation. Just saying it works is not an explanation. Just saying it does not violate physics does not make it compliant..

I just explained it for the 100th time. I don't know if you will ever be able to grasp how this works until you think OPPOSITE of what is thought to be occurring. The brain looking out through the eyes allows for this phenomenon to occur. This has nothing to do with the speed of light or any technologies that are due to light itself.

[Spacemonkey]

You're completely insane. How do the traveling photons from the object get to be at the distant retina instantaneously without teleporting or traveling faster than light? We all know that they have to be there, but the problem is that you keep stopping at that point and saying that therefore they are there but without offering any explanation for how this actually gets to be the case. If we can see the sun instantaneously at the very moment it is turned on, due to a mirror image at the retina consisting of photons, how can they be photons that traveled to get there? That makes no sense at all! Did they travel there in zero time? Were they previously traveling towards the retina on Earth before the Sun had even emitted them? What on Earth are you even trying to say here? Do you even know?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're completely insane. How do the traveling photons from the object get to be at the distant retina instantaneously without teleporting or traveling faster than light? We all know that they have to be there, but the problem is that you keep stopping at that point and saying that therefore they are there but without offering any explanation for how this actually gets to be the case. If we can see the sun instantaneously at the very moment it is turned on, due to a mirror image at the retina consisting of photons, how can they be photons that traveled to get there? That makes no sense at all! Did they travel there in zero time? Were they previously traveling towards the retina on Earth before the Sun had even emitted them? What on Earth are you even trying to say here? Do you even know?

You cannot get away from the afferent position Spacemonkey. You are so stuck in your narrow way of thinking, you will never see how the direction the eyes see creates this phenomenon. And because you don't get it, you feel justified to call me names. Thats playing dirty.

[LadyShea]

You said "light can impinge on the retina even if that same light has not reached Earth". That statement of YOURS puts the same light in two locations

Location 1: On the retina, on Earth
Location 2: Someplace other than on Earth, so it can't be on the retina since the retina is on Earth

It's physically impossible for light to be at a specific location without coming to be at that location through a physical mechanism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it is not what light is doing; it is what the eyes are capable of doing

.
We are talking about the location of light photons as per your statements. The eyes cannot change the properties of light nor the laws of physics so are currently irrelevant in this discussion except as a physical location as per your previous statements.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes can see an object as long as it is within one's visual range, and it is bright enough to be seen, then that means the light is already present at the eye otherwise you couldn't see said object.

I am asking how the light came to be present (located) at the eye in Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon. The eye is on Earth. The light hasn't reached Earth yet as per Lessans very own statements. So how do light photons come to be located on Earth at an eye if there are no light photons located on Earth at an eye?

Quit being a weasel and answer the question. You know what we are asking yet you keep mealy mouthing around any answers with completely irrelevant and incoherent nonsense.

You've stated light is someplace, explain how it got there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is a necessary condition.

That does not explain how light could be located at an eye on Earth at noon when no light has reached Earth from the newly ignited Sun yet and won't do so until 12:08. Quit weaseling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to work this backwards from the eye, not from light.

I am trying to get clarification as to statements you yourself have made so quit changing the subject. If light exists in your model, and if light maintains the properties it is known and proven to have in your model, and if the laws of physics hold in your model, then your model needs to explain how light photons come to be at certain locations and when. If you can't account for this, you are talking about magic.

In Lessans scenario of the newly ignited Sun at noon, is light impinging on the retina of eyes on Earth at noon or not? Do you know what impinging means?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because we see objects in real time does not mean photons aren't traveling. Again, these are two different phenomenons

I am not asking about seeing, I am asking about how light comes to be located at specific locations you've stated it is, and when it comes to be located there, using the scenario Lessans posited about the Sun being turned on at noon.

In that scenario is any light impinging on any retina at noon when we can see the Sun? Yes or no?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not magic if you understand the mechanism.

You've not explained a mechanism, you've only stated necessary conditions. Conditions are not mechanisms

So my statement is not refuted, because you've still not explained any mechanism at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This does not defy the laws of physics. Light still travels.

Traveling is only one physical property of light, there are others. We are talking about the physical law that states that light cannot be in two places at once, and cannot come to be located somewhere physically without traveling there or coming into existence there.

You have stated light is present at the eye, and that light is impinging on the retina, when in the Sun turned on at noon scenario no light photons have traveled to Earth to get to be located on the retina or at the eye via the mechanism of traveling. So does light come into existence on the retina or at the eye?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it does not. It only means that because of the direction the eyes see, we can get an image on the retina without light having to reach Earth first, as long as it meets the requirements necessary.

You previously said "light can impinge on the retina even if that same light has not reached Earth". Now you are backpedaling and weaseling, and being dishonest, by saying an image forms on the retina because of the direction we see and avoiding explaining your previous statement? Fucking really?

Does light impinge on the retina at 12 or not until 12:08 in Lessans scenario?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It (the mirror image) is composed of photons LadyShea. I already said that this model does not change physics. We will get new photons on the retina, but we will see the object because the light is not traveling toward the retina and bringing us the image. We see the image directly.

Where is the mirror image, which is made of photons, located at 12:00 in the newly ignited Sun scenario?

If it is located on the retina or at the eye, you've violated the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The mirror image is composed of photons that are traveling, but you cannot separate the photon from its source in efferent vision. That's what Spacemonkey is trying to do, separate red photons from blue, as if to compare it to drops of water that come down a stream. That's not how it works.

That's how light works, so unless you are changing the properties of light or the laws of physics, you need to try again.

It might be simpler to simply admit your model requires changes in light physics for it to work.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot get away from the afferent position Spacemonkey. You are so stuck in your narrow way of thinking, you will never see how the direction the eyes see creates this phenomenon. And because you don't get it, you feel justified to call me names. Thats playing dirty.

The problem I just pointed out concerns only the inconsistent nature of YOUR OWN claims that YOU just made. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the afferent model. And as you still can't see that, even after having the point explained a thousand times, you truly are mentally ill.

[koan]

I think I've figured it out. Lessans' strange ideas about afferent vs efferent vision stem from his belief in Emission Theory: "the proposal that visual perception is accomplished by rays of light emitted by the eyes. "

Winer et al. (2002) have found recent evidence that as many as 50% of American college students believe in emission theory.

Plato supported emission theory and Lessans mentions Plato five times in his book.

[koan]

I double checked that and, not only did 50% of college students believe in emission theory, they believed it after having a class on perception immediately prior to the study results.

read it and weep

[But]

Well, if I was confronted with inane questions like that, I would be tempted to give random answers. Especially after trying to figure out what on Earth "rays of energy" are and how they come into eyes.

[Dragar]

Everyone knows we see from rays of momentum entering our eyes.

[But]

Hmm. There are several possibilities what they could mean.

- bony or horny spines on a fish (sounds bad)
- half of a line (that means it can't enter an eye without exiting it again)
- this one. The article says that a ray is a line or curve, if it's a line, it enters the eye and exits again. It's not clear what happens when the line is a tangent to the eye, I think we won't see much in that case (gray?). The more general case of a curve could work, it could sort of go in there and circle around inside. But that would probably violate the laws of physics in some way, because Wikipedia says the curve has to be collinear with the wave vector.

So I pick answers 2 (Rays first coming into the eyes then going back out again allow us to see),
3 (Rays first going out of the eyes then coming back in allow us to see),
and 4 (Rays simultaneously going out and coming back into the eyes allow us to see).
However, I can't choose which one to take because now they confuse me with temporal concepts. What happens first? A ray is just a bloody line, it doesn't do anything or change over time.

I pick a random answer.

[But]

[LadyShea]

Lessans never explained any mechanism....he explained vision in very childlike terms...we open our eyes and we see. We can't see when it's dark because it must be bright enough to see. We can't see an object when it is too far away or too small to be seen. We see it in real time because we are seeing, not gathering light to be interpreted as images in the brain. Voila! We can see what we can see when we can see it and we can't see what we can't see.

peacegirl has tried and failed to propose a mechanism or model of how it works.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said "light can impinge on the retina even if that same light has not reached Earth". That statement of YOURS puts the same light in two locations

Location 1: On the retina, on Earth
Location 2: Someplace other than on Earth, so it can't be on the retina since the retina is on Earth

It's physically impossible for light to be at a specific location without coming to be at that location through a physical mechanism.

That is true, but we're talking about the eyes which can and do put light at the retina even though light has not reached Earth yet.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it is not what light is doing; it is what the eyes are capable of doing

.

Originally Posted by LadyShea"

We are talking about the location of light photons as per your statements. The eyes cannot change the properties of light nor the laws of physics so are currently irrelevant in this discussion except as a physical location as per your previous statements.

The eyes are not changing the properties of light, but they do change what is capable of being seen without light having to travel to Earth first. It is very relevant to the discussion; in fact, it is pivotal.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes can see an object as long as it is within one's visual range, and it is bright enough to be seen, then that means the light is already present at the eye otherwise you couldn't see said object.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am asking how the light came to be present (located) at the eye in Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon. The eye is on Earth. The light hasn't reached Earth yet as per Lessans very own statements. So how do light photons come to be located on Earth at an eye if there are no light photons located on Earth at an eye?

Although the light may not have reached Earth yet and therefore has not met the conditions for seeing each other, has met the conditions for seeing far away objects.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quit being a weasel and answer the question. You know what we are asking yet you keep mealy mouthing around any answers with completely irrelevant and incoherent nonsense.

Just because you don't get it does not make it nonsense.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've stated light is someplace, explain how it got there.

Light travels, but when it comes to sight, it's a different ballgame due to the fact that light does not have to travel to us for us to get a mirror image on the retina.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is a necessary condition.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That does not explain how light could be located at an eye on Earth at noon when no light has reached Earth from the newly ignited Sun yet and won't do so until 12:08. Quit weaseling.

Stop telling me I'm weaseling just because it's a difficult concept to explain. I already answered this to the best of my ability.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to work this backwards from the eye, not from light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am trying to get clarification as to statements you yourself have made so quit changing the subject. If light exists in your model, and if light maintains the properties it is known and proven to have in your model, and if the laws of physics hold in your model, then your model needs to explain how light photons come to be at certain locations and when. If you can't account for this, you are talking about magic.

Light is constantly traveling, but assuming that we see the world in real time places any object that we see in the optic range. It also means that the light has to be at the retina the moment we see anything in the material world. If we don't see an object, it just means that it's too small to be seen or too far away. This does not violate light physics.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In Lessans scenario of the newly ignited Sun at noon, is light impinging on the retina of eyes on Earth at noon or not? Do you know what impinging means?

Yes LadyShea, but do you understand the 180 difference in efferent vs. afferent?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because we see objects in real time does not mean photons aren't traveling. Again, these are two different phenomenons

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not asking about seeing, I am asking about how light comes to be located at specific locations you've stated it is, and when it comes to be located there, using the scenario Lessans posited about the Sun being turned on at noon.

I'm trying to explain to you that if the conditions are such that it meets the requirements of efferent vision, light is already at the retina only because light is a condition of sight, not a cause (which afferent vision presupposes), therefore it is not necessary for photons to travel with the pattern (which is assumed in afferent vision) to Earth in order for a mirror image to show up on the retina.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In that scenario is any light impinging on any retina at noon when we can see the Sun? Yes or no?

Yes, light is at the retina. That is what classifies this as real time vision, otherwise there would be a delay.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light travels, but when it comes to sight, it's a different ballgame due to the fact that light does not have to travel to us for us to get a mirror image on the retina.

(emphasis mine)
There are no facts that support this. Lessans' "proof" in the text is confused, inadequate, and incorrect. It's more likely that the heat death of the universe will occur before Lessans' ideas will be proven true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not magic if you understand the mechanism.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've not explained a mechanism, you've only stated necessary conditions. Conditions are not mechanisms

So my statement is not refuted, because you've still not explained any mechanism at all.

I have tried to the best of my abiity, but it may never satisfy those who believe they are right. They won't even consider efferent vision so they will never be able to see why this works.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This does not defy the laws of physics. Light still travels.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Traveling is only one physical property of light, there are others. We are talking about the physical law that states that light cannot be in two places at once, and cannot come to be located somewhere physically without traveling there or coming into existence there.

No one is saying that light is in two places at once.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have stated light is present at the eye, and that light is impinging on the retina, when in the Sun turned on at noon scenario no light photons have traveled to Earth to get to be located on the retina or at the eye via the mechanism of traveling. So does light come into existence on the retina or at the eye?

If light is a mirror image, there IS no magic, no teleportation, nothing that makes this phenomenon impossible. Nothing at all. The reason you are so confused is due to your belief that light contains an image, or carries a pattern, without the actual object being present. That is it in a nutshell. Until you can resolve this in your mind you will fight me and tell me that seeing in real time is not possible

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

(emphasis mine)
There are no facts that support this. Lessans' "proof" in the text is confused, inadequate, and incorrect. It's more likely that the heat death of the universe will occur before Lessans' ideas will be proven true.

Maybe, maybe not. Your predictions are nothing more than hot air.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If light is a mirror image, there IS no magic, no teleportation, nothing that makes this phenomenon impossible. Nothing at all.

If the mirror image is made of photons, and this mirror image is located on the retina on Earth AND the light photons are still at the Sun 93 million miles away, you have magic.

Photons cannot "become" a mirror image located someplace other than where they are located.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reason you are so confused is due to your belief that light contains an image, or carries a pattern, without the actual object being present.

I am not talking about images or patterns or vision at all (which, stupid strawman again, you really need to stop using that idiotic terminology)

I am talking only about the physical locations of light photons, and when and how they come to be located there in the scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon.

No one is saying that light is in two places at once.

Yes, you are. The Sun is one location, the eye/retina is another location. The eyes cannot negate physical distance nor change the laws of physics, nor cause bilocation of photons

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by koan

I double checked that and, not only did 50% of college students believe in emission theory, they believed it after having a class on perception immediately prior to the study results.

read it and weep

It is interesting to note that in none of the choices, or scenarios, does the eye see the image instantly, the rays still travel at the speed of light, at least it was not stated otherwise. And this is the distinguishing feature of Peacegirls model of vision, and actually the one that is causing the most problems. Anyone, without careful analysis, could point at animal eyes and claim that because they glow in the dark when a light is shown on them, that there are beams coming out of the eyes. And indeed there are beams of light comeing back out of the eye, but as has been stated these have nothing to do with actual seeing once they have left the eye.

For anyone who doesn't already know, and are interested, animal eyes glow in a light because there is a reflective layer behind the retina so that the light entering the eye passes through the retina twice almost doubling the sensitivity of the eye. This is especially useful for nocturnal animals in low light situations.