I want to add, for those who might think this is a contradiction. Light does travel, and it does take time to reach Earth, but this has nothing to do with efferent vision. These are two completely different things.
You are trying very hard to dismiss him because of a change in wording. Whether you say "lightwaves" or "images" doesn't matter in terms of his proof. You keep coming back to this to create doubt, and for no other reason. He was not an astronomer, but this only means he saw things from a different angle and may not have used the correct words typically used in scientific circles. But let me make it clear that this has nothing to do with whether his observations were accurate!
It was used as a going out to differentiate it from afferent, a going in. Due to language limitations, this word was the closest he could come to explaining how the brain and eyes work. No image is coming in. We see objects in real time that are then photographed by the brain with a word to identify it and then compartmentalized for later use.
Pood, I hope you eventually see that this account is not impossible when you understand that nothing is being violated. Let's look at it again: light takes time to reach Earth, which is why it would take 8 minutes to see each other, because it would NOT have met the necessary conditions for sight. We cannot see anything without light. But in this version of sight, we would be able to see a celestial body far away due to the fact that it would HAVE MET the conditions of size and brightness to be seen by an observer. The lightwave from that celestial body would be at the eye instantly if our eyes were focused on the real object. We would not be seeing an image in delayed time, we would be seeing the real deal. Remember: If he is right (I say "if" to show that it's not just about my daddy; it's about figuring out whether he was right, and I believe he was), light reveals the external world; it doesn't bring the external world to us through space/time.
Everything remains the same. There is an obvious connection between the retina, the optic nerve, and the brain. The only difference is whether we see the real object or event, or whether we see an image of it. If his account turns out to be right, it will change our relationship with reality.
No, I told you that this was a hypothetical example because the light is here and has been for 4 billion years; it's just on the other side of Earth as it rotates. He was just trying to demonstrate that if the Sun were suddenly turned on, we would see it instantly, but not see each other, which would take 8.5 minutes.
The Sun hasn't risen over the horizon yet, but daylight starts to appear as the Earth rotates in a 24-hour cycle. Light would appear before the Sun due to the scattering of sunlight. See below.
You will not like this book because he says right off the bat that the words scientific, undeniable, and mathematical are used synonymously in his writing. According to you, this disqualifies him from knowing anything because you will say he wasn't precise.
It doesn't make sense no matter what terminology you use; Using terminology incorrectly just makes it hard to pin down all of the many mistakes, because when you make a completely false statement, you can claim to have meant something else when called on it.
You mis-spelled "sorry bilby, but I can't actually explain it at all, so here are some words that don't mean anything relevant, which I hope you will accept in place of an explanation".
Thats true. When a supposed proof is pure nonsense, it makes zero difference what words you use. Precision is only necessary for rational claims; The irrational can be expressed using literally any words at all.
... only whether he could ever communicate those observations to anyone. I may not have used the word "airborne" in the correct way typically used in scientific circles earlier, but that in no way means that my observation that ostriches are not flightless is inaccurate. I see things from a different angle, and it is clear that ostriches are not flightless.
Duh. Whatever she needs to mean at any given moment. If you don't know what she means, she can't be wrong, obviously.
Yup. And in these things, I am 100% correct in every regard.
You are too much bilby. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You are good at making analogies, but they don't fit here. He did not define words with a different meaning. And I didn't do that either, but all you have done is mocked me. I wanted to give you time, but you have not met me halfway. I purposely posted Chapter Four for you, and you said that you didn't care if it wasn't in my own words, so I proceeded, and then you ghosted me. Now you want to read it? What has changed? The author defined those three words as synonymous, so people would not go off on tangents thinking, "This isn't math, or "this isn't the scientific method, or "this isn't undeniable" because I can deny whatever I want. That is what he wanted to avoid, not to change the meanings of words, so he could say he was right. That is what compatibilists do.
