Literally nobody has to trust anyone on anything. Doing so is a good way to get scammed, or brainwashed, or both.
You are so off the beaten track, Steve, I have nothing more to say to you. I was not raised reciting stuff just because he was my father. How many more times do I have to repeat this?
That is true, but I am not a newcomer here. I would hope, at the very least, you would give him the benefit of the doubt, but no, you won't do that. You have already made up your mind. How is that being an objective scientist? You have assumed he was wrong from first hearing of his claim. That biases you which then taints his entire proof.
How can a person check for themselves? The examples you gave cannot be disputed, but how can one see for themselves how the direction one's brain/eyes work? How did science make the claim of afferent vision other than a logical assumption?
He knew what he was up against. That didn't stop him. What can I say?
There have been cases where someone was rejected, and they turned out to be right. All I can do is keep his work in print and hope that one day his knowledge will be confirmed valid and sound.
By that reckoning, nothing seen by the eyes informs the brain before the word(s) necessary for categorization are learned. And, yet, there is this:
In order for the relation between the word and an object to be established, it is necessary that the object be seen initially by/through the eyes so that information about the seen object can then get relayed to the brain in order that the categorizing might take place.
You shouldn't trust blindly until it's earned.
How can you check the direction you see? I've asked this before. Scientific theory seems logical, but logic isn't always right. Lessans had a different take on how we see due to conditioning that could not occur any other way than through the projection of words that can be mistaken for reality. The present scientific theory says light bounces off of objects rather than revealing those objects (because of the belief that we are seeing a delayed image --- due to light speed --- which Lessans disputes. There is nothing about Lessans' claim that is impossible, or any more impossible than light with a particular wavelength/frequency traveling for eons before it reaches the eye or a telescope.
What I am offering is not subjective.
This is making me upset. You didn't read the book. You didn't see how this discovery plays out. You are just talking out of the side of your mouth. You can't answer one question: Do you know why man's will is not free? Do you know the other side of the equation? Do you know anything about the new economic system that gives security to everyone? How will income be determined? How will the tax structure work? Do you know how the Great Transition will take place? What will happen to weapons when there is no more war? Who will be the first citizens of this new world? What is the guarantee, and how does it work? Do you know how the medical profession changes so that profit will never be an overriding motive at the expense of patients? Why will carelessness and negligence be virtually eliminated? Do you know how children will be raised? What will dating look like? Why will couples want to stay together until death do they part? Do you know what the educational system will look like?
As I said earlier, you can't prove determinism through an experiment or by finding it in the brain. The fact that will is not free can be proven empirically since, under the new conditions, a person cannot choose B (to hurt someone) when choice A (not to hurt someone) is the more satisfying or preferable option. If will were free, he could choose to hurt someone despite the prevailing conditions, but it becomes impossible when "greater satisfaction" can take us in only one direction. To repeat: We are checkmated because we cannot choose what is less satisfying when something more satisfying is available, and under the new conditions, it becomes dissatisfying to strike a first blow than not to strike it when there is no justification to strike it. Our conscience won't allow it. This is an invariable law, which means there are no exceptions. The ultimate proof is that each step of the proof is without flaw; therefore, the practical application can't help but work once it is applied on a global scale. Delayed vision has not been proven, even though it appears airtight. It is a theory, and Lessans challenged it.
You have a block, Pood. Once again, this is not about distance or time in this version of sight.
Do you know how it is logically possible for light to be at the eye instantly even as you concede it takes light time to get to the eye?
You are not saying anything new Michael. You are just repeating the afferent version of sight. Nothing in Lessans' account disputes that we need light to see, and we have to first see before we can conceptualize or categorize what is seen.
Enculturation and other experienced environmental factors affect how we are conditioned to see what is not part of reality. It is a conditioning that only the projection of words (whether true or false) can accomplish, regardless of the culture we're in. The brain and eyes are one entity, so when he said the brain peers out through the eyes, it's not like the brain is separate from the eyes. This new perspective changes everything, and it is absolutely worthy of consideration.
There is no need to frame the issue in terms of "see" and "projection" - as if the issue at hand is necessarily related to the nature of light as efferent or afferent and as if only vision among the senses is relevant to human conditioning.
But "seeing" and "projection" are central to this issue of conditioning.
I'm not sure where that helps when you add "to respond to what is not part of reality." The last sentence I could have made: We are conditioned due to the projection of words that do not always symbolize reality, because the brain cannot tell the difference.
I'm always open to better sentence structures that don't change the concept.