“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[peacegirl]

One Eyed Jack staring with his one remaining eye (it is clouding over and he is scheduled to go blind) at the Yellow Smilie Ball that moves of its own accord (I have seen this happen!)

So now you believe your cat has telekinesis? This explains a lot.

Yeah, right, the eyes aren’t a sense organ. Has anything stupider ever been said, apart from the claim that we see instantly even though it takes light time to get to the eyes?

That is why it would take 8.5 minutes for the Sun, turned on at noon, to reach the eyes. He never disputed this. You're all mixed up.

View attachment 53835

 

[steve_bank]

Right now my friends’ cat, One Eyed Jack, is recognizing me quite fine, even though he has only one eye. I tried to do a drawing of him lying on the bed but he would not pose. Instead he got up and rubbed against me and trampled over my drawing paper and played with my pencils. I Jack!

That's not proof. I had a friend who had 3 cats, Gamma, Beta, and George. You could be across the house and pretend to be crying and Gamma (the female of the three) would run to the person crying, jump on their stomach, and start kneading to try to bring comfort. She was responding to a distress call. This was proof of a cat's empathy, but it has nothing to do with eyes being a sense organ.

Cats can knead without any cause, except that it makes them feel good. Tey will kned a pillow.

That is no proof of any kind.

Yes, cats frequently knead pillows, blankets, and other soft surfaces, often referred to as "Making Biscuits YouTube." This instinctual behavior stems from kittenhood, used to stimulate milk flow, and persists in adults as a sign of comfort, safety, contentment, and territory marking, as they have scent glands in their paws.

As I said experiments in animal and human behavior can be difficult, you have to separate out different possible causes for a behavior.

Even good animal experiments can be criticized for readng too much into it, and for experntal control.


Go back to what I posted on the horse Clever Hans who appeased to understand human speech.s.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

I see your new world as a utopian vision. Nothing to do with the bible.

In your utopian vision of no crime, war, or hurt it is not lions laying with lambs, it is Arabs and Persians and Jews in the Mid East getting along. The real world.

I understand that.

A grandmother of mine who was a lifelong Catholic once told me 'people want heaven onEartho and they are not going to get it'.

The author never used the word "heaven" in regard to the removal of "evil" or "hurt." I think the word heaven brings forth images of angels with wings and harps.

Premium Photo | A painting of an angel playing a harp.

Found on Bing from www.freepik.com

sl.bing.net

You have a warm fuzzy soothing vision of a painless future but no idea of the scope and practicalities involved. Like extreme progressives.

Being progressive doesn't automatically make you wrong or fail to see reality for what it is. The very foundation of this knowledge is its practical application.

You believe in Lessans like Christians believe in Jesus and the gospels. An unshakable belief in the resurrection and an eternal glorious existence in a heaven.

There is no comparison. You won't let me go further. I give a few excerpts of Chapter 6, and all I get are naysayers who won't let me continue.

In our chaotic and uncertain worked I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs.

That being said you came here to convince people on the forum of your beliefs

You get what you get, and you are unable to make your case.

Your arguments are on the level of arguing that Earth goes around the Sun is a theory not fact.

You say inconvenient science is a theory not a fact, yet claim Lessans is absolutely true without any excremental proof. Oh the irony ......

I am not here to argue with all of science, just one aspect that has been accepted as fact. Lessans challenged this one aspect. Isn't this supposed to be how science works?

 

[pood]

I am not here to argue with all of science, just one aspect that has been accepted as fact. Lessans challenged this one aspect. Isn't this supposed to be how science works?

The claim that the eye is not a sense organ and that we see instantly even though it takes light time to get to the eye would invalidate all of science and logic itself dating to Aristotle. This has been explained to you, but you are uneducable. You are desperate and angry that your world view is being challenged. Maybe you should move on because this discussion is not for you.

 

[peacegirl]

Right now my friends’ cat, One Eyed Jack, is recognizing me quite fine, even though he has only one eye. I tried to do a drawing of him lying on the bed but he would not pose. Instead he got up and rubbed against me and trampled over my drawing paper and played with my pencils. I Jack!

That's not proof. I had a friend who had 3 cats, Gamma, Beta, and George. You could be across the house and pretend to be crying and Gamma (the female of the three) would run to the person crying, jump on their stomach, and start kneading to try to bring comfort. She was responding to a distress call. This was proof of a cat's empathy, but it has nothing to do with eyes being a sense organ.

Cats can knead without any cause, except that it makes them feel good. Tey will kned a pillow.

I know that, Steve. I had cats all my childhood. I had one cat who would sit on the windowsill when he wanted to come inside. As soon as he saw one of us (not a specific person), he would let out a meow, knowing we were going to let him in. Still, this female cat sensed distress and came running to help. It seemed as if she had a motherly instinct.

That is no proof of any kind.

Yes, cats frequently knead pillows, blankets, and other soft surfaces, often referred to as "Making Biscuits YouTube." This instinctual behavior stems from kittenhood, used to stimulate milk flow, and persists in adults as a sign of comfort, safety, contentment, and territory marking, as they have scent glands in their paws.

As I said experiments in animal and human behavior can be difficult, you have to separate out different possible causes for a behavior.

Even good animal experiments can be criticized for readng too much into it, and for experntal control.


Go back to what I posted on the horse Clever Hans who appeased to understand human speech.s.

I agree with you. That is why, when people say that bees can recognize their beekeepers from sight alone, I am in serious doubt.

 

[peacegirl]

I am not here to argue with all of science, just one aspect that has been accepted as fact. Lessans challenged this one aspect. Isn't this supposed to be how science works?

The claim that the eye is not a sense organ and that we see instantly even though it takes light time to get to the eye would invalidate all of science and logic itself dating to Aristotle. This has been explained to you, but you are uneducable. You are desperate and angry that your world view is being challenged. Maybe you should move on because this discussion is not for you.

Please stop mimicking me. It is not becoming. You are constantly thinking in terms of light, not how the brain and eyes work. This whole thread tells me more about the participants than anything that the author had to say.

 

[pood]

One Eyed Jack staring with his one remaining eye (it is clouding over and he is scheduled to go blind) at the Yellow Smilie Ball that moves of its own accord (I have seen this happen!)

So now you believe your cat has telekinesis? This explains a lot.

First, it is not my cat. Can you read?

Second, what does anything have to do with telekenisis?

If you are referring to the moving ball, I think it has a battery inside it.

Yeah, right, the eyes aren’t a sense organ. Has anything stupider ever been said, apart from the claim that we see instantly even though it takes light time to get to the eyes?

That is why it would take 8.5 minutes for the Sun, turned on at noon, to reach the eyes. He never disputed this. You're all mixed up.

So it takes the light from the sun 8.5 minutes to arrive at the eye but we see the sun without any temporal delay?

Can you explain, for the first time in 25 years, how that is supposed to work, being that it violates physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, cosmology and logic itself?

No, of course you can’t.

But I can sense your anger.

 

[pood]

I am not here to argue with all of science, just one aspect that has been accepted as fact. Lessans challenged this one aspect. Isn't this supposed to be how science works?

The claim that the eye is not a sense organ and that we see instantly even though it takes light time to get to the eye would invalidate all of science and logic itself dating to Aristotle. This has been explained to you, but you are uneducable. You are desperate and angry that your world view is being challenged. Maybe you should move on because this discussion is not for you.

Please stop mimicking me. It is not becoming. You are constantly thinking in terms of light, not how the brain and eyes work. This whole thread tells me more about the participants than anything that the author had to say.

Peacegirl, we sense your anger. It must be hard to have a world view that you have clung to for at least a quarter century overturned.

But look at it this way: the past does not exist! So how can a nonexistent past possibly influence your present? Let your anger go, and move in the direction of greater satisfaction!

As to the future, let us study the word of the musical bard:

I woke up this morning and I got myself a beer
I woke up this morning and I got myself a beer
The future’s uncertain and the end is always near

I, myself, have been drinking Greyhounds (vodka with grapefruit juice) since 8 this morning. The future looks pretty good!

 

[peacegirl]

One Eyed Jack staring with his one remaining eye (it is clouding over and he is scheduled to go blind) at the Yellow Smilie Ball that moves of its own accord (I have seen this happen!)

So now you believe your cat has telekinesis? This explains a lot.

First, it is not my cat. Can you read?

Okay, so it's not your cat. How does that change anything?

Second, what does anything have to do with telekenisis?

If you are referring to the moving ball, I think it has a battery inside it.

What does this have to do with the eyes? The cat could still see the Smilie ball, even with low vision.

Yeah, right, the eyes aren’t a sense organ. Has anything stupider ever been said, apart from the claim that we see instantly even though it takes light time to get to the eyes?

That is why it would take 8.5 minutes for the Sun, turned on at noon, to reach the eyes. He never disputed this. You're all mixed up.

So it takes the light from the sun 8.5 minutes to arrive at the eye but we see the sun without any temporal delay?

Can you explain, for the first time in 25 years, how that is supposed to work, being that it violates physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, cosmology and logic itself?

No, of course you can’t.

But I can sense your anger.

I'm not angry. I'm frustrated. I have explained this many times, but you won't hear of it. These were observations. I'm not sure how he could have explained them any better. You don't have to believe him if you don't. Here it is again.

At a very early age, our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but also photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation, whereas a dog is incapable of this. When he sees the features of his master without any accompanying sound or smell, he cannot identify them because no photograph was taken. A dog identifies through his sense of sound and smell, and what he sees in relation to these sense experiences, just as we identify most of the differences that exist through words and names. If the negative plate on which the relation is formed is temporarily disconnected — in man’s case the words and names and in a dog’s case the sounds and smells — both would have a case of amnesia. This gives conclusive evidence as to why an animal cannot identify too well with his eyes.

As we have seen, if a vicious dog accustomed to attacking any person who should open the fence at night were to have two senses, hearing and smell, temporarily disconnected, and assuming that no relation was developed as to the way in which an individual walked, he would actually have amnesia, and even though he saw with his eyes his master come through the gate, he would have no way of recognizing him, and would attack. But a baby, having already developed negatives of relations that act as a slide in a movie projector, can recognize at a very early age. The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts as a tape recorder through our ears and the other three senses and a camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as a movie projector.

As sense experiences become related or recorded, they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since the eyes are the binoculars of the brain, all words that are placed in front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world, and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses, man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and if words correctly describe, then he will be made conscious of actual differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for those who do not know the words.

 

[peacegirl]

I am not here to argue with all of science, just one aspect that has been accepted as fact. Lessans challenged this one aspect. Isn't this supposed to be how science works?

The claim that the eye is not a sense organ and that we see instantly even though it takes light time to get to the eye would invalidate all of science and logic itself dating to Aristotle. This has been explained to you, but you are uneducable. You are desperate and angry that your world view is being challenged. Maybe you should move on because this discussion is not for you.

Please stop mimicking me. It is not becoming. You are constantly thinking in terms of light, not how the brain and eyes work. This whole thread tells me more about the participants than anything that the author had to say.

Peacegirl, we sense your anger. It must be hard to have a world view that you have clung to for at least a quarter century overturned.

Nothing was overturned. His observations were never examined. Any other theory related to real-time seeing had nothing to do with his claim and why he made it.

But look at it this way: the past does not exist! So how can a nonexistent past possibly influence your present? Let your anger go, and move in the direction of greater satisfaction!

I am moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, or I wouldn't be here. The past does not exist. What happened a minute ago or a year ago is stored in memory to be retrieved when needed. That is why losing our memory is so devastating. It is our connection to reality.

As to the future, let us study the word of the musical bard:

I woke up this morning and I got myself a beer
I woke up this morning and I got myself a beer
The future’s uncertain and the end is always near

I, myself, have been drinking Greyhounds (vodka with grapefruit juice) since 8 this morning. The future looks pretty good!

 

[pood]

Dear @peacegirl,

We regret to inform you that your precious world view has been overturned,

We understand the hurt, rage, and fear this must cause you. You have our thoughts and prayers.

Nevertheless, things being what they are, we have no choice but to abolish your silly illusions,

Your reality check is in the mail. Cash it and spend it wisely. We suggest buying some nice textbooks on science.

Regards,

The Reality Society

 

[bilby]

When I was in high school, there was an actual course on philosophy. My impression is that such courses are not standard in high school, at least not in the nation of idiots that I live in. Anyway, the teacher, a nerdish guy in thick glasses, was telling us that animals are mindless automatons that act by instinct alone, with no internal life. Even then I knew that was bullshit, because I had pets at home.

That bizarre idea seems to come from Christianity, which has a doctrinal belief that non-human animals lack souls.

Presumably that's an effort to reconcile our eating of meat, with the idea that humans are required by God to be good.

Animals lack souls, and therefore lack an inner life, desires, hopes, and wants, so we can abuse them in any way with impunity. They're just meat robots provided by God for our convenience.

It's a shithouse philosophy, and observably and obviously wrong, but it's more fun than vegetarianism.

 

[peacegirl]

Dear Mr. Pood of IIDB,

We regret to inform you that your precious worldview has been overturned,

We understand the hurt, rage, and fear this must cause you. You have our thoughts and prayers.

Nevertheless, things being what they are, we have no choice but to abolish your silly illusions,

Your reality check is in the mail. Cash it and spend it wisely. We suggest buying some nice textbooks on science.

Regards,

The Reality Society

 

[bilby]

I'm not angry. I'm frustrated. I have explained this many times, but you won't hear of it. These were observations. I'm not sure how he could have explained them any better. You don't have to believe him if you don't. Here it is again.

At a very early age, our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but also photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation, whereas a dog is incapable of this.

That's not only NOT an observation (it's an assertion, and it's a conjecture); It's also completely false in literally every respect.

The brain does not photograph objects.

Developing a negative is a complex chemical process specific to early photography. Not only do brains not do this, but nor do modern cameras.

There is no fundamental difference between dogs and humans; Both have similar eyes and similar brains, that work in the same way at the cellular level. The differences that do exist are quantitative, not qualitative.

Nothing that follows from the unevidenced and frankly stupid belief that the brain takes photographs can possibly be of any worth whatsoever.

Before you can interest me in any of the remaining text, you must therefore explain both what exactly is meant by "photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation" (which from a plain English reading is just nonsense); And you must then show that this is an actual thing that actually happens.

And then you have to show that whatever it is doesn't happen in a dog's brain, and why not. That is, you need to demonstrate (not assume) the qualitative differences between a dog's brain and a human brain, that makes a dog "incapable"; And then you need to explain how and why this capability evolved only in the primates, or only in the great apes, or only in Hom. Sap., or whatever cutoff you are proposing - and you need to provide a mechanism by which it could have arisen, and an environmental selection pressure that would have caused this capability to completely dominate the human population.

If you can do all of the above, then there might be something useful to discuss. Until you do, you have got nothing. Just some guy's guesses, based on a familiarity with a technology he found impressive, but failed to grasp was about to be replaced.

His mistake there is completely understandable; When I grew up, photographic film and the facilities to develop it were completely ubiquitous and omnipresent. The idea that you could walk down a street in any town or city and not see a sign for "Kodak" or "Fuji Film" was unthinkable. Like most intelligent and inquisitive kids, I had a dark-room and developed film myself, and marvelled at the process of making a negative, and then 'printing' it onto photographic paper.

And now it has all gone. Like with airships, A tiny number of enthusiasts are the only people left who care.

Had he been writing a few decades earlier, would he have suggested that images are tethered to the human brain just as Zeppelins are tethered to their mooring masts, and that dogs are incapable of such tethering? It makes exactly as much sense as "At a very early age, our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but also photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation".

 

[pood]

When I was in high school, there was an actual course on philosophy. My impression is that such courses are not standard in high school, at least not in the nation of idiots that I live in. Anyway, the teacher, a nerdish guy in thick glasses, was telling us that animals are mindless automatons that act by instinct alone, with no internal life. Even then I knew that was bullshit, because I had pets at home.

That bizarre idea seems to come from Christianity, which has a doctrinal belief that non-human animals lack souls.

Presumably that's an effort to reconcile our eating of meat, with the idea that humans are required by God to be good.

Animals lack souls, and therefore lack an inner life, desires, hopes, and wants, so we can abuse them in any way with impunity. They're just meat robots provided by God for our convenience.

It's a shithouse philosophy, and observably and obviously wrong, but it's more fun than vegetarianism.

I think this is correct.

This was a Catholic high school, which required tuition, My parents sent me there because they thought I would get a better education than at the public high school full of juvenile delinquents, I didn’t. Almost all of my education has been from reading on my own.

Nuns taught some of the classes. I was always amused how idiotic it all was.

Once I spoke out of turn in favor of abortion which caused great consternation among my classmates and the teacher. I remember classmates freaking out when the Roe v. Wade decision was announced. All the girls had to wear plaid skirts. School uniform, you know.

Jesus, as I think back on my life, how ridiculous and absurd almost everything has been. I think this is why one of my favorite texts is Notes From Underground.

 

[peacegirl]

I'm not angry. I'm frustrated. I have explained this many times, but you won't hear of it. These were observations. I'm not sure how he could have explained them any better. You don't have to believe him if you don't. Here it is again.

At a very early age, our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but also photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation, whereas a dog is incapable of this.

That's not only NOT an observation (it's an assertion, and it's a conjecture); It's also completely false in literally every respect.

The brain does not photograph objects.

Developing a negative is a complex chemical process specific to early photography. Not only do brains not do this, but nor do modern cameras.

A camera takes a picture of an object due to light. You cannot determine whether a camera is capturing the real object or an image of the object. Both would produce a picture.

There is no fundamental difference between dogs and humans; Both have similar eyes and similar brains, that work in the same way at the cellular level. The differences that do exist are quantitative, not qualitative.

It's not just quantitative; it's qualitative. Dogs cannot connect a face with an individual because they don't have the conceptual ability that humans have.

Nothing that follows from the unevidenced and frankly stupid belief that the brain takes photographs can possibly be of any worth whatsoever.

Sorry you feel that way.

Before you can interest me in any of the remaining text, you must therefore explain both what exactly is meant by "photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation" (which from a plain English reading is just nonsense); And you must then show that this is an actual thing that actually happens.

All I can do is share his observations and what he believed was occurring. He did not believe the muscles of the eye of an infant are what allowed that baby to focus. I cannot give you more than what he wrote. If you don't think it's enough, then you're entitled to believe what you want. I am not invested in convincing you. Here is that excerpt again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation of sense experience, such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes are the windows of the brain, through which experience is gained, not by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience. If a lion roared in that room, a newborn baby would hear the sound and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ.

The brain records various sounds, tastes, touches, and smells in relation to the objects from which these experiences are derived and then looks through the eyes to see these things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This desire is an electric current that turns on or focuses the eyes to see that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception — in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But in order to look, there must be a desire to see. The child becomes aware that something will soon follow something else, which then arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a potato a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called a sense organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an inaccurate observation that was never corrected.”

“Well, I say, what difference does it make whether we have four senses and a pair of eyes instead of five senses? I certainly don’t feel any different, and I still see you just as before.”

“Once it is understood that something existing in the external world makes contact with the brain through the four senses, but that the brain contacts the various objects by peering through the eyes, it makes a huge difference, and many things can be clarified.

And then you have to show that whatever it is doesn't happen in a dog's brain, and why not. That is, you need to demonstrate (not assume) the qualitative differences between a dog's brain and a human brain, that makes a dog "incapable"; And then you need to explain how and why this capability evolved only in the primates, or only in the great apes, or only in Hom. Sap., or whatever cutoff you are proposing - and you need to provide a mechanism by which it could have arisen, and an environmental selection pressure that would have caused this capability to completely dominate the human population.

I already explained this. It has to do with language and the ability of humans to connect names to individuals. Dogs can do this to a limited degree if they know the word/object association, but it's very limited. It would be much harder to identify nuances in people's facial features. That is why they cannot recognize their masters from sight alone. They need other cues.

The dog that could pick out many objects by name is Rico, a border collie who demonstrated an exceptional ability to understand and remember the names of over 200 objects. Research conducted by animal psychologists showed that Rico could retrieve an average of 37 out of 40 items correctly and even remember the names of new objects after exposure. This phenomenon is known as label-learner dog syndrome, where dogs can learn the names of objects through a process similar to how children learn words. Rico's case has sparked interest in understanding the cognitive abilities of dogs and their ability to learn language-like skills.

Wikipedia+3

If you can do all of the above, then there might be something useful to discuss. Until you do, you have got nothing. Just some guy's guesses, based on a familiarity with a technology he found impressive, but failed to grasp was about to be replaced.

It has nothing to do with replacement. Whatever technology is used, it cannot replace what the eyes and brain do. You have not explained how we become conditioned. You passed right over it by saying it's culture. That is not an answer, that is a result of something. If it's not due to light bringing what people view as a standard of beauty and ugliness, WHAT DOES? You also never did any experiment to prove that your dogs can recognize you from sight alone. You could even videotape yourself on a computer screen without any movement or sound and let a family member put the dogs in front of that screen. Do they recognize you? They should if light with your image is traveling to their brain.

His mistake there is completely understandable; When I grew up, photographic film and the facilities to develop it were completely ubiquitous and omnipresent. The idea that you could walk down a street in any town or city and not see a sign for "Kodak" or "Fuji Film" was unthinkable. Like most intelligent and inquisitive kids, I had a dark-room and developed film myself, and marvelled at the process of making a negative, and then 'printing' it onto photographic paper.

And now it has all gone. Like with airships, A tiny number of enthusiasts are the only people left who care.

Had he been writing a few decades earlier, would he have suggested that images are tethered to the human brain just as Zeppelins are tethered to their mooring masts, and that dogs are incapable of such tethering? It makes exactly as much sense as "At a very early age, our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but also photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation".

But that is exactly what happens, and until you can prove him wrong (which you have not done), I will stick to his explanation because it makes much more sense than the present theory. Unfortunately, this theory of sight has caused lots of confusion as far as what we are actually seeing beyond our solar system.

 

[bilby]

A camera takes a picture of an object due to light. You cannot determine whether a camera is capturing the real object or an image of the object. Both would produce a picture.

Of course you can. If the camera captures the real object, then that object won't be there anymore; It will have been captured.

If you can't tell whether the cops have a picture of you, or have captured the real you, you are in serious trouble (or, possibly, not).

 

[bilby]

It's not just quantitative; it's qualitative. Dogs cannot connect a face with an individual because they don't have the conceptual ability that humans have.

How do you know this?

 

[bilby]

All I can do is share his observations and what he believed was occurring.

But you can't (or won't, or maybe just don't) share any observations.

ALL you share is "what he believed was occurring", and frankly, Nobody has any reason whatsoever to give a flying fuck what anybody else merely believes.

 

[bilby]

His mistake there is completely understandable; When I grew up, photographic film and the facilities to develop it were completely ubiquitous and omnipresent. The idea that you could walk down a street in any town or city and not see a sign for "Kodak" or "Fuji Film" was unthinkable. Like most intelligent and inquisitive kids, I had a dark-room and developed film myself, and marvelled at the process of making a negative, and then 'printing' it onto photographic paper.

And now it has all gone. Like with airships, A tiny number of enthusiasts are the only people left who care.

Had he been writing a few decades earlier, would he have suggested that images are tethered to the human brain just as Zeppelins are tethered to their mooring masts, and that dogs are incapable of such tethering? It makes exactly as much sense as "At a very early age, our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but also photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation".

But that is exactly what happens,

Really? Images are tethered to the brain just as Zeppelins are tethered to their mooring masts??

The more you know...

and until you can prove him wrong (which you have not done),

STOP.

NO.

The burden of proof always lies with the claimant.

He is wrong, until and unless someone proves him to be right.

I will stick to his explanation because it makes much more sense than the present theory.

Zeppelin tethers!

Unfortunately, this theory of sight has caused lots of confusion as far as what we are actually seeing beyond our solar system.

Nobody seems to be even slightly confused here, except you.

You and your father have, however, contributed one thing of value to humanity - The phrase "Zeppelin tethers!", as an epithet synonymous with "balderdash!", will, I feel confident, become a useful addition to the English language.