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

[peacegirl]

When I say the object's wavelength/frequency, I mean the light that has the potential to bring to the eye the image of the object.

OK. That's meaningless; So you are talking gibberish.

Good to know.

I did explain in some detail what "wavelength/frequency" means, and that it applies not to objects, but to individual photons of light.

However, it is interesting that you say "the light that has the potential to bring to the eye the image of the object". That light would be travelling at c when it "brings to the eye the image of the object", no?

So we would see the object only once the light arrives, and we would therefore see it as it was when the light departed, right?

We would see the image of the object as it was in the past. Right?

Or is "the light that has the potential to bring to the eye the image of the object" also meaningless gibberish that you take to mean something it does not in fact mean?

Pg

So you say Lessans was a mathematician and a contemporary of Einstein?

I guess he was up there with Heisenberg, Bohr, and Planck.

Gauss, Fourier, Maxwell.

Lessans was one of greatest if not the greatest thinker of all time.

Too bad all those dogmatic scientists like Einstein never gave him a chance.

For the eleven-billionth goddamn time, science does not say that an “image” travels to the eye. LIGHT travels to the eye.

Can you actually comprehend anything?

You know that's bullshit. It is the light that supposedly brings to the eye the wavelength/frequency that turns into an image in the brain. Without that wavelength/frequency, the brain could not turn that light into an image of the object. Again, that wavelength/frequency bounces off the object, taking that wavelength/frequency with it through space/time, according to the present belief. I am allowed to use the word "image" as a shortcut. It also makes my point clearer, which you obviously don't want.

I was never interested in the theatrical, I liked to tinker, buiid things, and splve problems. I was well pai9d for it.

My tinkering goes back to when I was I kid, taking things apart to see what is inside.

I am grounded ion in measurement and experiment. Causality rules.

Experiment counts, and so does empirical proof. They both hold important places in Lessans' observations.

I did forensic analysts, IOW troubleshooting. Dev elope a causal chain that led to a failure

Switch on a light and there is a physical mensurable testable causal chain from the light turning on to seeing an image of an object.

Switching on a light can be measured from the moment that light is turned on to seeing an image on a screen, but the problem is that this light has been assumed to work in the same way when thinking about sight. It's the biggest blunder ever because it is based on logic (which can be valid but not sound), not fact.

There are no gaps or questions regrinding vision.

It's not that there are gaps. It's that the explanation is not foolproof.

What you call something does not change te phsycal causality. You can argue the eye is not a sense organ but the causality does not change.

Physical causality is not being broken just because the brain and eyes work differently than previously thought.

Lessans performed no repeatable tests, other than his subjective observations and impressions.

There was nothing subjective about his observations.

His dog experiments are laughable.

If the eyes are a sense organ, dogs should be able to recognize their masters in the light that is barreling toward them at breakneck speed. Show me why this is laughable.

Yes I was jesting but you elevated Lessans to a peer with Einstein.

He never compared himself to anyone. He was not a show-off. Sharing what I believe is true is my only reason for being here. You have not shown me where he was wrong. It's laughable that you think you have.

Yes. science can get things wrong, but bod ideas fade. That science can get things wrong does not validate Lessans. You are rationalizing.

I'm not rationalizing. He was either right or wrong, but so far, no one has proven him wrong; they only think they have.

The book is more like a diary or personal journal, he is making notes and talking to himself. Telling himself how great is his doc very.

This is crazy altogether. You didn't read his back story, obviously. He was the most analytical thinker you would want to know. For those who read nothing, here is the beginning of the Introduction.

Who… in his right mind or with knowledge of history, would believe it possible that the 20th century will be the time when all war, crime, and every form of evil or hurt in human relations must come to a permanent end? [Note: This is a reminder that the author lived in the 20th century (1918-1991). Though we are well into the 21st century, this discovery has yet to be given a thorough investigation by our world’s leading scientists.] When I first heard this prophecy, shortly after Hitler had slaughtered 6 million Jews, I laughed with contempt because nothing appeared more ridiculous than such a statement. But after 15 years (8 hours a day) of extensive reading and thinking, my dissatisfaction with a certain theory that had gotten a dogmatic hold on the mind compelled me to spend nine strenuous months in the deepest analysis, and I made a finding that was so difficult to believe it took me two years to thoroughly understand its full significance for all mankind and three additional years to put it into the kind of language others could comprehend. It is the purpose of this book to reveal this finding — a scientific discovery about the nature of man whose life, as a direct consequence of this mathematical revelation, will be completely revolutionized in every way for his benefit, bringing about a transition so utterly amazing that if I were to tell you of all the changes soon to unfold, without demonstrating the cause as to why these must come about, your skepticism would be aroused sufficiently to consider this a work of science fiction, for who would believe it possible that all evil (every bit of hurt that exists in human relations) must decline and fall the very moment this discovery is thoroughly understood.

This natural law, which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no wonder the development of our present age was required to find it. By discovering this well-concealed law and demonstrating its power, a catalyst, so to speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing what will be called miracles though they do not transcend the laws of nature. The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes and all the other evils of human relations is going to veer so sharply in a different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible. If this is difficult to conceive, does it mean you have a desire to dismiss what I have to say as nonsense? If it does, then you have done what I tried to prevent, that is, jumped to a premature conclusion. And the reason must be that you judged such a permanent solution as impossible and therefore not deserving of further consideration, which is a normal reaction, if anything, when my claims are analyzed and compared to our present understanding of human nature. War seems to be an inescapable feature of the human condition that can only be subdued, not eradicated. But we must insert a question mark between the empirical fact that a feature is characteristic of human life as we know it and the empirical claim that this feature is a sociological inevitability.

I had the usual math classes and used all of it, but I would never call myself a mathematician. How is it Lessans was a mathematician?

He wasn't a theoretical mathematician, but he was able to figure out very difficult math problems without the crutch of a preset formula. It's unfortunate that you have come to this conclusion. Ironically, he would be the first person to claim causality, yet you have failed to understand both his knowledge of determinism and his knowledge regarding the eyes. I suggest you keep trying or move to another thread.

 

[peacegirl]

When I say the object's wavelength/frequency, I mean the light that has the potential to bring to the eye the image of the object.

OK. That's meaningless; So you are talking gibberish.

Good to know.

I did explain in some detail what "wavelength/frequency" means, and that it applies not to objects, but to individual photons of light.

I get that, but you are making a huge assumption that the light that has bounced off that object carries the object's wavelength/frequency beyond the object's reflective property. It's as if the light from the object can now travel far and wide through space/time independent of the object itself. It doesn't work that way. This does not mean individual photons of light don't travel. They do.

However, it is interesting that you say "the light that has the potential to bring to the eye the image of the object". That light would be travelling at c when it "brings to the eye the image of the object", no?

No. Light travels at c, but it does not bring to the eye the image of the object. That's the whole disputation in a nutshell.

So we would see the object only once the light arrives, and we would therefore see it as it was when the light departed, right?

This account has nothing to do with photons arriving, even though light travels. Consequently, we are not seeing the object as it was when the light departed. We are seeing it in real time because the object's wavelength/frequency does not travel. We see the object through that wavelength/frequency if the object is bright enough, close enough, or large enough to be seen with our eyes or with a telescope.

We would see the image of the object as it was in the past. Right?

Wrong. I hope you're not humoring me, because I don't like games.

Or is "the light that has the potential to bring to the eye the image of the object" also meaningless gibberish that you take to mean something it does not in fact mean?

The whole explanation is meaningless if it's wrong.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

As ha been said Lessans made claims without any supporting evidence.

Without that everything you say is hot air and had waving..

The book you keep quoting really is laughable. He called it the greatest book ever written, right?

When you say the mage is not carried to eye by light bouncing off an object, that is a glaring conflict with optical science.

When you say the image is already at the eye I simply ask how does that work? here is nothing in the book.

'The image is already at the eye' is an hypothesis. The next step is to demonstrate and test the hypothesis such that others can repeat and verify.

Lessans did not know what he was doing.

A mix of pseudoscience and psycho-babble.

You talk about about seeing reality as it is, well there is the reality.

 

[pood]

When I say the object's wavelength/frequency, I mean the light that has the potential to bring to the eye the image of the object.

OK. That's meaningless; So you are talking gibberish.

Good to know.

I did explain in some detail what "wavelength/frequency" means, and that it applies not to objects, but to individual photons of light.

I get that, but you are making a huge assumption that the light that has bounced off that object carries the object's wavelength/frequency beyond the object's reflective property.

WTF are you talking about? NO ONE says light carries “the object’s wavelength/frequency” whatever that is supposed to mean. You have been REPEATEDLY corrected on this misstatement. You really can’t comprehend what you allegedly read, can you?

It's as if the light from the object can now travel far and wide through space/time independent of the object itself.

That’s exactly what it does.

It doesn't work that way.

That is exactly how it works.

This does not mean individual photons of light don't travel. They do.

Oh, dear. So if we see in real time, how did we measure the velocity of light in the first place?

However, it is interesting that you say "the light that has the potential to bring to the eye the image of the object". That light would be travelling at c when it "brings to the eye the image of the object", no?

No. Light travels at c, but it does not bring to the eye the image of the object. That's the whole disputation in a nutshell.

There is no disputation. No one says light brings an image to the eye! Light brings ITSELF to the eye.

So we would see the object only once the light arrives, and we would therefore see it as it was when the light departed, right?

This account has nothing to do with photons arriving, even though light travels. Consequently, we are not seeing the object as it was when the light departed.

Of course we are.

We are seeing it in real time because the object's wavelength/frequency does not travel.

NO ONE says the object’s wavelength/frequency travels. Are you daft? How many times has this been explained to you?

We see the object through that wavelength/frequency if the object is bright enough, close enough, or large enough to be seen with our eyes or with a telescope.

Gibberish.

We would see the image of the object as it was in the past. Right?

Wrong. I hope you're not humoring me, because I don't like games.

We see everything as it was in the past.

Or is "the light that has the potential to bring to the eye the image of the object" also meaningless gibberish that you take to mean something it does not in fact mean?

The whole explanation is meaningless if it's wrong.

Everything your author wrote is wrong.

 

[peacegirl]

The only flaw is with the idea that the object's wavelength/frequency (IMAGE) travels to the brain rather than the brain looking through the eye to see the object itself. That's it.

Nope, that's not it. That's not anything, because literally nobody is saying that "the object's wavelength/frequency (IMAGE) travels to the brain", and the parenthetical "(IMAGE)" is a bizarre non-sequitur.

It is not a non-sequitur. It is central to this discussion. When I say the object's wavelength/frequency, I mean the light that has the potential to bring to the eye the image of the object. It might not be the words you use, but you should know what I mean by now.

Light reflects off objects, and travels to the brain.

Okay.

Light consists of a number of photons; Each has a frequency that, for visible light, we call colour (in the US, "color").

Got it.

As photons are constrained to travel at c, the frequency and wavelength of light become interchangeable; A photon of known frequency has a known wavelength and vice-versa.

So far so good.

Unless the object in question has a pure colour, or is illuminated by a pure colour source (such as a laser), the photons that reflect from it will have a wide range of individual frequencies, the average of which we call the colour(s) of the object's surface.

Right.

The pattern formed by these photons can be resolved into an image of the object. An image is a pattern on a plane through the straight-line path that light takes from object to that plane; By focussing the light through a lens, the pattern can be made to match the suface pattern of the object, and such a matching pattern is called an image of the object.

This is where we part ways. By focusing the light through the lens, we see the object through the pattern, which is called seeing in real time.

When a retina lies exactly on the focal plane of the lens, the pattern of light on the retinal cells matches the pattern of light on the surface of the object. If the retina is offset from the focal plane, then the image formed will be blurry, and will not match the pattern of the surface of the object - this can be corrected by interposing additional lenses to bring the focal plane more accurately onto the retina.

Correct.

This is what you are denying. (It is also how spectacles and contact lenses work).

Not at all. Corrective lenses work when the retina is offset from the focal plane, which can be corrected by bringing the focal plane more accurately on the retina. I'm not sure where you think this disproves efferent vision.

Now, please provide your similarly detailed description of what you are claiming.

How does "the brain [look] through the eye to see the object itself"? What role does light play in this, exactly?

I can only give you what he wrote because I can't say it any better, especially when I'm under a microscope. I am sure this won't satisfy you, but I'll keep trying.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

How do spectacles or contact lenses enable the brain to look through the eye to see the object clearly, when it could not be seen clearly without them, and without light taking time to travel the (short but non-zero) distance from retina to lens?

Light travels to the lens, but this doesn't explain how the brain and eyes see. They are two different things.

In order for the mechanism you claim to supplant the mechanism you are denying, it must explain all of the things that we observe, including such phenomena as correcting vision with spectacles; And it must explain them as well as, or better than, our existing explanation, while also explaining something else that the existing explanation does not.

If it can't, it would be unreasonable to adopt a new explanation or to give credence to a new mechanism.

Seeing in real time does not disrupt the way lenses work to correct vision. It has nothing to do with it. It has other important implications, but does not dispute any of the applications that use light in their technologies that are proven to work.

Memory function doesn't store information in the form of photographs. Light does not transmit information in the form of photographs.

How do you know what the brain is doing that proves that a photograph is not taken that forms a memory? Light is not what transmits information in the form of photographs. Light is a condition of sight, not a cause that transmits information (which claim you're entirely ignoring).

The brain does not take photographs. Memory is not stored in the form of photographs.

It's the connection between the word and the object. It's not an actual photograph DBT. You're not following him.

When we see something, we are not looking at photographs.

No, we're not. He never said we are.

Our experience is being generated by the brain using information detected/acquired by the eyes, with the information integrated with memory, which enables recognition .

Saying "information detected/acquired by the eyes" could be used in the afferent version of vision as well. In both accounts, whether we interpret an image or see the thing in real time doesn't change how our memories work or what the brain does with the information. Our experience is generated by the brain using what it sees, through the eyes, which is then integrated with memory, enabling recognition.

That is shown when memory function breaks down and the patient can no longer recognize what they see. There eyes are functioning, the information is transmitted to the visual cortex, but memory function fails to integrate the information in order to enable recognition.

This is true. It's called aphasia, I believe. Memory is essential. I don't know where you got the idea that vision is all that is needed without other parts of the brain to make sense of what is seen. Obviously, the memory portion of our brain that recognizes, categorizes, and integrates what is seen (whether in delayed or real time) is essential for a functioning human being to respond to his environment.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

You are in a dark room and switch on a light source.

According to Lessans when and where in the process shown does the image appear to us after light is turned on?

t0 immediately when light is turned on?
t1 when light reaches object?
t2 when light leaves object>
t3 when light reaches eye?
t4 when nerve signals reaches brain?
t5 after delay for brain to work?

Not presentation quaiity but good enough to talk to.

View attachment 53669
t0 when light is swi

That is a pretty good map of light traveling and the present belief as to how sight works, but nothing in that diagram explains how the eyes work. There is no proof that nerve signals reach the brain and become images, which is the main argument.

How the eyes and brain work together is perfectly understood. The Lone Ranger, who has dissected eyes, explained all of this down to the atomic level in a paper you admitted you did not read. Shall I try to fetch up the paper from you at FF?

By contrast, the claim that the brain is a “movie” projector that looks out through the “windows of the eyes” and “projects” something or other onto a “screen of undeniable substance” is not only unevidenced, it is idiot nonsense babble.

Sooo what exactly happens when the optic nerve is damaged, according to whatever their nonsense babble argument is?

If the optic nerve (the connection between the eyes and the brain) is damaged, we go blind.

The optic nerve is like a cable that carries visual information from the eye to the brain. It consists of millions of nerve fibers that transmit electrical signals from the retina to the brain, functioning similarly to a cable that transmits data. The optic nerve is a crucial part of the visual system, enabling the brain to process and interpret the images we see.

clevelandclinic.org+4

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
It's as if the light from the object can now travel far and wide through space/time independent of the object itself.

Yes that is what the models say and have been demonstrated.

In some wavelength bands outside of the visible spectrum we call that radio!

Imagine a tall vertical radio transmitter antenna. You can't see it, but imagine the radio waves as light from a tall light source. The radio waves 'illuminate' the area around the antenna.

A directional parabolic radio antenna is analogous to a visible spotlight or a flashlight.

At high enough frequencies radio uses optical techniques.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Peacegirl

You are in a dark room and switch on a light source.

According to Lessans when and where in the process shown does the image appear to us after light is turned on?

t0 immediately when light is turned on?
t1 when light reaches object?
t2 when light leaves object>
t3 when light reaches eye?
t4 when nerve signals reaches brain?
t5 after delay for brain to work?

Not presentation quaiity but good enough to talk to.

View attachment 53669
t0 when light is swi

That is a pretty good map of light traveling and the present belief as to how sight works, but nothing in that diagram explains how the eyes work. There is no proof that nerve signals reach the brain and become images, which is the main argument.

How the eyes and brain work together is perfectly understood. The Lone Ranger, who has dissected eyes, explained all of this down to the atomic level in a paper you admitted you did not read. Shall I try to fetch up the paper from you at FF?

By contrast, the claim that the brain is a “movie” projector that looks out through the “windows of the eyes” and “projects” something or other onto a “screen of undeniable substance” is not only unevidenced, it is idiot nonsense babble.

Sooo what exactly happens when the optic nerve is damaged, according to whatever their nonsense babble argument is?

If the optic nerve (the connection between the eyes and the brain) is damaged, we go blind.

The optic nerve is like a cable that carries visual information from the eye to the brain. It consists of millions of nerve fibers that transmit electrical signals from the retina to the brain, functioning similarly to a cable that transmits data. The optic nerve is a crucial part of the visual system, enabling the brain to process and interpret the images we see.
clevelandclinic.org+4

Hey look you referenced the physicalist interpretation. Is that because it only makes sense in the physicalist interpretation?

 

[peacegirl]

It might not be the words you use,

clearly not

but you should know what I mean by now.

How?

How could I possibly know what you mean, when you have utterly failed to say what you mean, using words with their actual meanings as used by every English speaker other than you (and perhaps some of your cult followers)?

You are using well defined words to mean something (you won't say what) that under their plain meanings is gibberish. You have no need nor justification for this, unless you are deliberately trying to avoid being understood.

It is incumbent upon me to distinguish between the word "image" (the light that is reflected off the object) and photons (packets of electromagnetic energy) that travel through space/time, or you will never understand this concept.

 

[bilby]

It is the light that supposedly brings to the eye the wavelength/frequency that turns into an image in the brain. Without that wavelength/frequency, the brain could not turn that light into an image of the object. Again, that wavelength/frequency bounces off the object, taking that wavelength/frequency with it through space/time, according to the present belief.

Literally NOBODY believes that at present, nor has believed that at any time in the past, nor is likely to believe it at any time in the future.

You are arguing against your crazy fantasies. And your alternative is a crazy fantasy.

There's nothing sane in your position.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

You are in a dark room and switch on a light source.

According to Lessans when and where in the process shown does the image appear to us after light is turned on?

t0 immediately when light is turned on?
t1 when light reaches object?
t2 when light leaves object>
t3 when light reaches eye?
t4 when nerve signals reaches brain?
t5 after delay for brain to work?

Not presentation quaiity but good enough to talk to.

View attachment 53669
t0 when light is swi

That is a pretty good map of light traveling and the present belief as to how sight works, but nothing in that diagram explains how the eyes work. There is no proof that nerve signals reach the brain and become images, which is the main argument.

How the eyes and brain work together is perfectly understood. The Lone Ranger, who has dissected eyes, explained all of this down to the atomic level in a paper you admitted you did not read. Shall I try to fetch up the paper from you at FF?

By contrast, the claim that the brain is a “movie” projector that looks out through the “windows of the eyes” and “projects” something or other onto a “screen of undeniable substance” is not only unevidenced, it is idiot nonsense babble.

Sooo what exactly happens when the optic nerve is damaged, according to whatever their nonsense babble argument is?

If the optic nerve (the connection between the eyes and the brain) is damaged, we go blind.

The optic nerve is like a cable that carries visual information from the eye to the brain. It consists of millions of nerve fibers that transmit electrical signals from the retina to the brain, functioning similarly to a cable that transmits data. The optic nerve is a crucial part of the visual system, enabling the brain to process and interpret the images we see.
clevelandclinic.org+4

Hey look you referenced the physicalist interpretation. Is that because it only makes sense in the physicalist interpretation?

Why wouldn't I reference the physicalist interpretation? Seeing is a physical process, but the definition can't prove that the impulses connecting the outer world to the inner, through the optic nerve, are transduced into virtual images in delayed time, where we are seeing the past.

 

[bilby]

I am allowed to use the word "image" as a shortcut.

Not if you are using it in a way nobody else understands. Then you are not allowed to use it unless your intention is to avoid being understood.

It also makes my point clearer,

It does the precise opposite.

which you obviously don't want.

Are you kidding? People have spent this entire thread pleading with you to be clearer.

And you heve failed utterly.

 

[peacegirl]

It is the light that supposedly brings to the eye the wavelength/frequency that turns into an image in the brain. Without that wavelength/frequency, the brain could not turn that light into an image of the object. Again, that wavelength/frequency bounces off the object, taking that wavelength/frequency with it through space/time, according to the present belief.

Literally NOBODY believes that at present, nor has believed that at any time in the past, nor is likely to believe it at any time in the future.

You are arguing against your crazy fantasies. And your alternative is a crazy fantasy.

There's nothing sane in your position.

If my position is not sane, then explain what I'm missing at present that no one believes.

 

[bilby]

Light is a condition of sight, not a cause that transmits information (which claim you're entirely ignoring).

I am certainly not ignoring that claim. I have asked repeatedly what makes light necessary as a condition of sight, if not as the means by which information is transmitted from object to retina; So far your response has been <crickets>.

 

[peacegirl]

@peacegirl, how did we measure the speed of light in the first place, if we see in real time with no delay for light to arrive?

How can you say that Lessans denied the speed of light or the experiments that helped them to determine what the speed was? You're completely off track.

Because we can’t measure the speed of light if we saw with no time delay. Even a kindergartner could understand this.

Many applications are dependent on knowing the speed of light. But this has NOTHING to do with the speed of light. It has ONLY to do with efferent VISION.

What the hell does this even mean?

You are claiming we see in real time, yet concede light has a finite velocity.

You can't seem to square the idea of seeing in real time --- due to the functioning of the brain --- with the knowledge that light travels at a finite speed. They are not contradictory.

How did we measure that velocity, if we see instantly??

If we saw instantly, the speed of light would be measured to be infinite. Yet you concede it is some 186,000 miles per second.

No Pood. This is not about the speed of light being infinite. It has nothing to do with the speed of light at all.

How did we arrive at that calculation in a world of real-time seeing?

Again, light travels. They did experiments that were able to calculate lightspeed. There is nothing in this account of vision that disproves or violates physics.

 

[bilby]

Hey, peacegirl, remember this? It was first presented to you at least 15 years ago!

There is nothing here that conflicts with real-time vision because the speed of light has nothing to do with his claim. Back to the drawing board.

Sure there is. If he saw Io in real time, the discrepancy he noted could not have existed; Io would be seen at the same predicted point in its orbit regardless of how far from Earth it was.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

As ha been said Lessans made claims without any supporting evidence.

Well, his observations are evidence, and he said it can be scientifically tested. I'm not sure what else can back up his claims, but I'll guarantee that they can be backed up. No one has ever looked because the science was already settled.

Without that everything you say is hot air and had waving..

Again, he gave his reasoning as to why science got it wrong. What can I say? If no one wants to pursue his claim any further, then it will be lost, and the belief that we are seeing the past will continue to be printed in our science books.

The book you keep quoting really is laughable. He called it the greatest book ever written, right?

If this knowledge can prevent war and crime, I'd say it is the most important discovery of our times.

When you say the mage is not carried to eye by light bouncing off an object, that is a glaring conflict with optical science.

This is where there is a lot of confusion. Light travels and it takes time for that light to get from one spot to another. But when it comes to vision, it does not work that way. The requirements for sight are that there is enough light surrounding the object. That is why he said we would see the Sun turned on instantly (because it would have met the requirements for sight), but we would not see each other for 8.5 minutes later.

When you say the image is already at the eye I simply ask how does that work? here is nothing in the book.

It IS in the book. Remember, we are not seeing the light first. We are seeing the object first because there is enough light in which to see it. It works in reverse.

'The image is already at the eye' is an hypothesis. The next step is to demonstrate and test the hypothesis such that others can repeat and verify.

No one has yet explained why dogs cannot recognize their masters from a lineup, a picture, or any other representation, without other cues. He explained why they can't. Do you even know? In order to dispute something, you have to be able to know what it says and why.

Lessans did not know what he was doing.

A mix of pseudoscience and psycho-babble.

You talk about about seeing reality as it is, well there is the reality.

You really have no idea who he was or his intellectual ability. I would not say these things about him because they will one day come back to bite you.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
That is a pretty good map of light traveling and the present belief as to how sight works, but nothing in that diagram explains how the eyes work. There is no proof that nerve signals reach the brain and become images, which is the main argument.

Rods and cones on retina connected to nerves, nerves running to a region of the brain. Signals on the optic nerves run one way, eye to brain.Rods ad cones cones convert photons to electrons. You might just as well argue against photosynthesis in plants

We know damage in the area of the brain where optic nerves go causes vision problems.

I had a temporary speech aphasia from a subdural hematoma. Fluid acculturation put pressure on the speech enter of my brain.

You can search for specific studies. Fairly old news.

Imaging the brain's response to visual stimuli involves techniques like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) to map activation in the visual cortex and higher-order areas. Visual stimuli typically trigger responses in the primary visual cortex (V1), moving through areas V2-V4 for feature detection (color, orientation) and into the ventral stream for object recognition.

MRI can show which areas of the brain are invoked for different kinds of stimulus.

I watched a neuroscientist talk about an experiment. He ran MRIs on theists while contemplating god and paraying to see which areas of the brain increased activity.

 

[bilby]

When I say the object's wavelength/frequency, I mean the light that has the potential to bring to the eye the image of the object.

OK. That's meaningless; So you are talking gibberish.

Good to know.

I did explain in some detail what "wavelength/frequency" means, and that it applies not to objects, but to individual photons of light.

I get that, but you are making a huge assumption that the light that has bounced off that object carries the object's wavelength/frequency beyond the object's reflective property. It's as if the light from the object can now travel far and wide through space/time independent of the object itself. It doesn't work that way.

You are missing my point. I am setting out my position, not so you can critique it again*, but as an example of how a position is set out.

The response I want from you is a detailed setting out of your alterrnative.

This does not mean individual photons of light don't travel. They do.

Great. So what else do they DO?

What, in your way of thinking about sight, is the role played by light?

We agree that light is necessary. I have told you why I think that is; And you have said "nope". But you haven't explained why YOU think light is necessary. If light isn't carrying information from object to retina, how come we can't still see in its absence?

However, it is interesting that you say "the light that has the potential to bring to the eye the image of the object". That light would be travelling at c when it "brings to the eye the image of the object", no?

No. Light travels at c, but it does not bring to the eye the image of the object. That's the whole disputation in a nutshell.

No, it's half the disputation.

I have given a detailed explanation of what I think happens; You have NOT given yours, you've just said "Nuh-uh" to mine.

So we would see the object only once the light arrives, and we would therefore see it as it was when the light departed, right?

This account has nothing to do with photons arriving, even though light travels. Consequently, we are not seeing the object as it was when the light departed. We are seeing it in real time because

... yes? I wait with bated breath for a because...

the object's wavelength/frequency does not travel.

Oh. That's not a 'because'. You are back to saying what doesn't happen (and we already agree that "the object's wavelength/frequency does not travel", in my case because I grasp that there is no such thing).

A 'because' would be you explaining what you think DOES happen.

We see the object through that wavelength/frequency if the object is bright enough, close enough, or large enough to be seen with our eyes or with a telescope.

Yeah, let's just pretend I trashed this nonsense yet again; If you care about how exactly it is nonsensical, you can scroll up to the last time I did that.

I am amused to note that you have now sneakily added a third criterion to the two you earlier claimed were sufficient; "closeness" wasn't one of the original duo. Indeed, earlier you were adamant that distance was irrelevant, which of course would have to be the case if we saw in real time.

We would see the image of the object as it was in the past. Right?

Wrong. I hope you're not humoring me, because I don't like games.

FFS, I don't care what you HOPE; I am asking you to EXPLAIN. My statement follows logically from what came before; If you think otherwise, say WHY you think that. Nobody cares about how you FEEL about the likelihood that you are laughably wrong.

Or is "the light that has the potential to bring to the eye the image of the object" also meaningless gibberish that you take to mean something it does not in fact mean?

The whole explanation is meaningless if it's wrong.

Yes. And it's wrong if it is meaningless. And yet you are rejecting the invitation to show that it means anything at all.






* Very badly. Your "summary" of what you say is my position is nonsense, and is not my position at all. As I have repeatedly pointed out.

 

[bilby]

It is incumbent upon me to distinguish between the word "image" (the light that is reflected off the object)

The light that is recflected off the object is not an image.

and photons (packets of electromagnetic energy) that travel through space/time,

That - That right there - is the light that is reflected off the object.

or you will never understand this concept.

You are the one failing to understand. An image is not just light; it is the pattern of light that exists in the focal plane of a lens. The light at that plane is in the exact same pattern as the light as it reflected off the object, due to the simple fact that light travels at constant speed in a given medium, and in a straight line.