From peacegirl's voluminous writings on the topic of light and sight, I believe we now have the tools in place to explicate this discovery. Allow me to do so.
Spacemonkey and others get confused because they constantly come at this from the afferent account, which scientists assume to be true, but this is the very account that Lessans disputed. Under the efferent account, the brain looks out through the windows of the eyes, and projects slides onto an undeniable screen of substance. Because of this, if God turned on the sun at noon, then the wavelength would immediately be at the retina, where it would form a mirror image in a closed system. We see that this is true because of the inverse square law. Of course it would still take the photons eight and a half minutes to reach the earth so that we could see our neighbors, but this is because there is a difference between (N) photons and ( P ) photons. Consequently, we see that the scientific account in which images are carried on wings of light to the eye cannot be correct, since nothing impinges on the optic nerve, owing to the fact that the eye is not a sense organ. Under the efferent account, objects are reflected by light, which means that we see the object itself. As a result, there is no distance between the object and the eye, though of course the light travels until it diminishes and peters out because of a lack of energy. It must be remembered that to be seen, an object must be big enough, and bright enough, to be seen. From this we may conclude that no object can be seen, which is not within our optical range. But if an object is big enough and bright enough to be seen, then we will see it with no time delay because in the efferent account, distance does not matter. In conclusion, then, under this account, once all the conditions for sight are met, voila, we see. It is important to remember that light is a condition, and not a cause, of sight.
This is the funniest thing I've heard yet. You sure do know how to twist things to make me look ridiculous. You have twisted everything he wrote…
No, this is what YOU WROTE.
All of this is taken from stuff YOU WROTE at FF. Do you not even recall your own posts?
So if this is twisting what Lessans wrote, I did not twist what he wrote. YOU did!
It really is amazing, isn't it?
Yep, you're twisting
Lessans by posting
her words. Shame on you!
But she's got things sorted now! No more stupidity! She's finally made sense of it all by claiming distance is not dependent on distance, and the photons get to the retina in the SAME WAY as they do on our account (only without the travel, distance, and time bits). Derp!
It really is amazing, isn't it?
Yep, you're twisting
Lessans by posting
her words. Shame on you!
But she's got things sorted now! No more stupidity! She's finally made sense of it all by claiming distance is not dependent on distance, and the photons get to the retina in the SAME WAY as they do on our account (only without the travel, distance, and time bits). Derp!
I know, distance not depending on distance and the SAME WAY stuff are brand new derperisms I don't believe we ever encountered at FF. :coolsmile:
What's going to happen, I think, is that Spacemonkey and Breakup will keep discussing this topic, because they are entertained by it. But they, I, and many others know that if the goal is to teach peacegirl anything and free of her delusions, it's a hopeless undertaking. Trying to teach peacegirl about reality is like trying to teach a pig to sing: it wastes your time, and annoys the pig.
You are the one that has confused fantasy with reality as you talk about block universes, the bending of time, 4th dimensions, wormholes, and time machines as if they are real possibilities. Will the true deluded one please stand up? :lol:
From peacegirl's voluminous writings on the topic of light and sight, I believe we now have the tools in place to explicate this discovery. Allow me to do so.
Spacemonkey and others get confused because they constantly come at this from the afferent account, which scientists assume to be true, but this is the very account that Lessans disputed. Under the efferent account, the brain looks out through the windows of the eyes, and projects slides onto an undeniable screen of substance. Because of this, if God turned on the sun at noon, then the wavelength would immediately be at the retina, where it would form a mirror image in a closed system. We see that this is true because of the inverse square law. Of course it would still take the photons eight and a half minutes to reach the earth so that we could see our neighbors, but this is because there is a difference between (N) photons and ( P ) photons. Consequently, we see that the scientific account in which images are carried on wings of light to the eye cannot be correct, since nothing impinges on the optic nerve, owing to the fact that the eye is not a sense organ. Under the efferent account, objects are reflected by light, which means that we see the object itself. As a result, there is no distance between the object and the eye, though of course the light travels until it diminishes and peters out because of a lack of energy. It must be remembered that to be seen, an object must be big enough, and bright enough, to be seen. From this we may conclude that no object can be seen, which is not within our optical range. But if an object is big enough and bright enough to be seen, then we will see it with no time delay because in the efferent account, distance does not matter. In conclusion, then, under this account, once all the conditions for sight are met, voila, we see. It is important to remember that light is a condition, and not a cause, of sight.
This is the funniest thing I've heard yet. You sure do know how to twist things to make me look ridiculous...
None of it is twisted. These are all exactly what YOU have said. They are reproduced more or less verbatim from your own posts. So if it looks ridiculous guess whose fault that is? Not Pec's!
You have twisted everything he wrote...
None of this is what Lessans said! It's all what YOU wrote. So if there is any twisting going on, it's yours!
It is not what I wrote verbatim. You introduced P and N in order for me to try to explain the concept in terms of photons. It was a complete failure. I admit to that. Now you want to use this against me by making fun of my efforts? >:(
FYI, I did not write this verbatim. The way he wrote it is funny, I admit that. It makes me laugh too. But this is at my expense, so it's not funny after all.
Do you want to do this discussion exclusively over there? I can practically guarantee that this thread will be permanently mucked up with peacegirl's light and sight idiocy, to the detriment of any meaningful discussion on free will and determnism.
I quite agree that Peacegirl's involvement in a thread will only muck it up and I would hope that there would be a meaningful discussion of free will and determinism in another thread without Peacegirl. My point in moving the discussion to light and sight was to point up the absurdity of Lessans ideas as expressed in the book, many of his other ideas are just as bad, but I doubt Peacegirl will follow and comment on them. To be clear My opinion is that Lessans explanation of free will vs. determinism is just as flawed as his explanation of light and sight, however my own opinion is that humans have a degree of free will and the determining of which influences negate free will and which do not is the crux of the debate. That being said, I am willing to let the debate to those better versed in the philosophical language of that debate.
peacegirl,
Who said it would take 8.5 seconds to see your neighbor? You mean minutes?
I gave you the benefit of doubt. Oops, rereading my post I also discovered I misplaced a few commas. My bad.
The longer you say it takes, the more wrong you would be.
But tell me peacegirl, if the sun were turned on @ noon, when would you feel the warmth of the sunlight? Would that be instantaneous or would you have to wait 8 1/2 minutes?
No, the sunlight would have to travel to Earth to actually penetrate your skin for you to feel its warmth.
No, it is not inconsistent when you are viewing it from the new understanding of vision. Light has to be at the object for us to see it [in the efferent version). It does not have to travel to Earth first because we are not getting the image from the light which would require travel time. We are seeing the object itself. The light is at the eye...
That is inconsistent. How can light be at the eye on Earth if it has not yet traveled to Earth? How can it be there before it has had time to get there?
I have gone over this and over this with you, but you have a block.
You are all failing to grasp even the most basic understanding of this account.
Then so are you. We are all failing to grasp how light is meant to be somewhere before it can get there.
Because of the phenomenon of efferent vision which you can't grasp. I understand why you can't even contemplate this since you have lived your whole life with a different belief on what is occurring. It's hard to let it go, which is why you keep referring to traveling photons. This has nothing to do with it even though photons travel.
You can laugh all you want...
We will. Because the things you keep saying are unbelievably stupid.
So why don't you, BreakUp, and David find another person to be entertained by? It would be much more pleasant in here.
From peacegirl's voluminous writings on the topic of light and sight, I believe we now have the tools in place to explicate this discovery. Allow me to do so.
Spacemonkey and others get confused because they constantly come at this from the afferent account, which scientists assume to be true, but this is the very account that Lessans disputed. Under the efferent account, the brain looks out through the windows of the eyes, and projects slides onto an undeniable screen of substance. Because of this, if God turned on the sun at noon, then the wavelength would immediately be at the retina, where it would form a mirror image in a closed system. We see that this is true because of the inverse square law. Of course it would still take the photons eight and a half minutes to reach the earth so that we could see our neighbors, but this is because there is a difference between (N) photons and ( P ) photons. Consequently, we see that the scientific account in which images are carried on wings of light to the eye cannot be correct, since nothing impinges on the optic nerve, owing to the fact that the eye is not a sense organ. Under the efferent account, objects are reflected by light, which means that we see the object itself. As a result, there is no distance between the object and the eye, though of course the light travels until it diminishes and peters out because of a lack of energy. It must be remembered that to be seen, an object must be big enough, and bright enough, to be seen. From this we may conclude that no object can be seen, which is not within our optical range. But if an object is big enough and bright enough to be seen, then we will see it with no time delay because in the efferent account, distance does not matter. In conclusion, then, under this account, once all the conditions for sight are met, voila, we see. It is important to remember that light is a condition, and not a cause, of sight.
This is the funniest thing I've heard yet. You sure do know how to twist things to make me look ridiculous...
None of it is twisted. These are all exactly what YOU have said. They are reproduced more or less verbatim from your own posts. So if it looks ridiculous guess whose fault that is? Not Pec's!
You have twisted everything he wrote...
None of this is what
Lessans said! It's all what YOU wrote. So if there is any twisting going on, it's yours!
It really is amazing, isn't it? Everything I wrote there,
was written by her! It's practically verbatim. And she says it makes her look ridiculous!
This was not verbatim by me. I never wrote "voila, we see. You wrote that. I never wrote images are carried on wings of light to the object itself. I never wrote, as a result, there is no distance between the object and the eye, though of course the light travels until it diminishes and peters out because of a lack of energy. These are your words.
So, you now agree that your own arguments make you look ridiculous, peacegirl? :lol:
You're a damn liar.
I have gone over this and over this with you, but you have a block.
You've evaded and evaded but never once answered the question. The only block is you. Try answering: How can light be at the eye on Earth if it has not yet traveled to Earth? How can it be there before it has had time to get there?
Because of the phenomenon of efferent vision which you can't grasp. I understand why you can't even contemplate this since you have lived your whole life with a different belief on what is occurring. It's hard to let it go, which is why you keep referring to traveling photons. This has nothing to do with it even though photons travel.
'Because of the phenomenon' is not an answer. No part of efferent vision explains how light can be somewhere before it has had time to get there. So far efferent vision is just an empty label for the impossible. At no point does it explain how light can do what you need it to do. Where did the light at the retina at 12pm come from? How did it get there?
So why don't you, BreakUp, and David find another person to be entertained by? It would be much more pleasant in here.
Why don't you just try being reasonable?
Yes we are on a discussion board...
Then start discussing, instead of whining and complaining that you're being harassed whenever someone asks you a question.
Not someone...YOUUUUUU!! I REFUSE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT PHOTONS. IT DOESN'T WORK AND IT ONLY SERVES TO CONFUSE. YOU ARE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE SPACEMONKEY, AND YOU ARE BLIND TO SEE IT.
LOL @ CAPSLOCK HISSYFIT.
I know it doesn't work. That's the point. Efferent vision cannot be made to work because it requires flatly impossible things of photons. You know this, hence your evasion. You do have an option here though. You could try being honest and reasonable. For instance, you could have shown some basic integrity by answering the rest of my post instead of only the first sentence. See below:
If the wavelength is there then so is the light. Where did this light at the retina come from, and how did it get there?
So give us your alternative. How did the photons at the eye get there if they didn’t travel there?
No, it is not consistent. Either all photons travel, or some of them don’t. You can’t have it both ways. And you’ve just here claimed that distance is not dependent upon distance. How retarded is that? Do you have any idea what you are even saying?
We will never get anywhere so it's useless to discuss this with you. Keep believing this account is impossible, and stick with your beliefs. I have answered your posts for 3 years until I'm blue in the face. Your reasoning in regard to traveling photons is an afferent position and will never be able to determine whether this account is accurate. It just won't, as hard as this is for you to hear.
I wasn't even referring to this, but even here he is twisting what I said. I did not write this verbatim and the way he wrote it is funny. It makes me laugh too. I was referring to the way he took all of the book out of context. You know he did Spacemonkey.
He reproduced YOUR WORDS exactly as you wrote them at FF. And you think they twist Lessans and make him look ridiculous. Just stop and think about that for a moment.
peacegirl,
Who said it would take 8.5 seconds to see your neighbor? You mean minutes?
I gave you the benefit of doubt. Oops, rereading my post I also discovered I misplaced a few commas. My bad.
The longer you say it takes, the more wrong you would be.
But tell me peacegirl, if the sun were turned on @ noon, when would you feel the warmth of the sunlight? Would that be instantaneous or would you have to wait 8 1/2 minutes?
No, the sunlight would have to travel to Earth to actually penetrate your skin for you to feel its warmth.
So how can the same light penetrate the light detectors in the retina without first having to travel to Earth to hit them?
I know it doesn't work. That's the point. Efferent vision cannot be made to work because it requires flatly impossible things of photons. You know this, hence your evasion. You do have an option here though. You could try being honest and reasonable. For instance, you could have shown some basic integrity by answering the rest of my post instead of only the first sentence. See below:
If the wavelength is there then so is the light. Where did this light at the retina come from, and how did it get there?
So give us your alternative. How did the photons at the eye get there if they didn’t travel there?
No, it is not consistent. Either all photons travel, or some of them don’t. You can’t have it both ways. And you’ve just here claimed that distance is not dependent upon distance. How retarded is that? Do you have any idea what you are even saying?
We will never get anywhere so it's useless to discuss this with you.
You might get somewhere if you were to actually TRY discussing it with me. What you are doing now is not discussion. It is called evasion.
I have answered your posts for 3 years until I'm blue in the face.
Not once have you answered with an actual answer to what I'm asking. You have dishonestly evaded until you are blue in the face. So try something new. Try being reasonable.
Your reasoning in regard to traveling photons is an afferent position...
Nonsense. I'm not offering reasoning. I'm simply asking questions about your own account. And you. can't. answer.
I have gone over this and over this with you, but you have a block.
You've evaded and evaded but never once answered the question. The only block is you. Try answering: How can light be at the eye on Earth if it has not yet traveled to Earth? How can it be there before it has had time to get there?
Because of the phenomenon of efferent vision which you can't grasp. I understand why you can't even contemplate this since you have lived your whole life with a different belief on what is occurring. It's hard to let it go, which is why you keep referring to traveling photons. This has nothing to do with it even though photons travel.
'Because of the phenomenon' is not an answer. No part of efferent vision explains how light can be somewhere before it has had time to get there. So far efferent vision is just an empty label for the impossible. At no point does it explain how light can do what you need it to do. Where did the light at the retina at 12pm come from? How did it get there?
So why don't you, BreakUp, and David find another person to be entertained by? It would be much more pleasant in here.
Why don't you just try being reasonable?
You are a broken record Spacemonkey. There's no hope for any progress as long as you grill me on photons traveling instead of trying to understand the eyes and how they function. Once efferent vision is proven to be valid, we can discuss why this changes what we see.
You are a broken record Spacemonkey...
Yep. I keep asking you to be reasonable and you keep refusing.
I know it doesn't work. That's the point. Efferent vision cannot be made to work because it requires flatly impossible things of photons. You know this, hence your evasion. You do have an option here though. You could try being honest and reasonable. For instance, you could have shown some basic integrity by answering the rest of my post instead of only the first sentence. See below:
If the wavelength is there then so is the light. Where did this light at the retina come from, and how did it get there?
So give us your alternative. How did the photons at the eye get there if they didn’t travel there?
No, it is not consistent. Either all photons travel, or some of them don’t. You can’t have it both ways. And you’ve just here claimed that distance is not dependent upon distance. How retarded is that? Do you have any idea what you are even saying?
We will never get anywhere so it's useless to discuss this with you.
You might get somewhere if you were to actually TRY discussing it with me. What you are doing now is not discussion. It is called evasion.
I have answered your posts for 3 years until I'm blue in the face.
Not once have you answered with an actual answer to what I'm asking. You have dishonestly evaded until you are blue in the face. So try something new. Try being reasonable.
Your reasoning in regard to traveling photons is an afferent position...
Nonsense. I'm not offering reasoning. I'm simply asking questions about your own account. And you. can't. answer.
The whole N and P fiasco I tried didn't work because this is not about photons; it's about the eyes. You don't get it Spacemonkey. You are not asking me about my own account because if you were you would be interested in determining whether the claim about the EYES was accurate. You are not interested.
You are a broken record Spacemonkey...
Yep. I keep asking you to be reasonable and you keep refusing.
I guess your definition of reasonable is different than mine.
The whole N and P fiasco I tried didn't work because this is not about photons; it's about the eyes. You don't get it Spacemonkey. You are not asking me about my own account because if you were you would be interested in determining whether the claim about the EYES was accurate. You are not interested.
I
am asking you about your account. I'm asking about the bit that to any sane mind is clearly flat out impossible.
Your account requires photons at the retina at 12pm but cannot explain how they could possibly get to be there. Clearly YOU'RE not interested in being honest or reasonable. If you were at all interested in truth here, you'd be trying to address the photon issue to see if there is any way to salvage efferent vision. Instead you have given up in tacit acknowledgement that efferent vision cannot be saved.
You are a broken record Spacemonkey...
Yep. I keep asking you to be reasonable and you keep refusing.
I guess your definition of reasonable is different than mine.
Obviously. Your definition of 'reasonable' (aka '(P)reasonable') appears to include lying, evading, and weaseling whenever you feel like it. It certainly doesn't involve actually answering reasonable and relevant sincere questions.