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

[peacegirl]

Light does what light does, bilby. It travels at 186,000 miles a second. In the absence of light, we cannot see that thing. He never said we could.

Great. So therefore:

How is it possible for light to be at the eye instantly even as you concede that it takes light time to get to the eye?

Because you don’t get it. It’s not Lessans’ fault!

 

[DBT]

It was a fair question. A question that has not yet been explained.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg ha painted herself into a corner.

 

[peacegirl]

Light does what light does, bilby. It travels at 186,000 miles a second. In the absence of light, we cannot see that thing. He never said we could.

Great. So therefore:

How is it possible for light to be at the eye instantly even as you concede that it takes light time to get to the eye?

Efferent vision.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg ha painted herself into a corner.

i'm not in any corner.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

By acknowledging light is required for vision and light travels with a finite speed you have refuted the idea of instant vision without delay.

You painted yourself into a corner.

Both light and brain functions tale time.

If light does not convey the image of an object and the image i already at the eye, how does this image you refer to interact with the rods and cones in the retina?

 

[peacegirl]

It was a fair question. A question that has not yet been explained.

I did not paint myself into a corner because there is no conflict between light traveling and seeing in real time. Brain function, as he described it, does not take time for light to reach the eye when we are focused, not on the light, but on the object. The light interacts with the rods and cones necessarily or the object would not be in view.

[/PRE[/

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
there is no conflict between light traveling and seeing in real time. Brain function, as he described it, does not take time for light to reach the eye

Do you really not see that is a contraction?

As he observed it? Where is the experimental prof? The models of how the eye and brain work ares experimentally demonstrated and measured.

Did he use xray vision to see inside the brain?\

Not focused on the li9ght but on the object? Nonsense.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
there is no conflict between light traveling and seeing in real time. Brain function, as he described it, does not take time for light to reach the eye

Do you really not see that is a contraction?

There is none.

As he observed it? Where is the experimental prof? The models of how the eye and brain work ares experimentally demonstrated and measured.

Again, you are assuming that all claims have to be proven through experiment. His knowledge was based on astute observation and sound reasoning. At first, it doesn't seem possible that we could see an object that isn't sent to us in the light, but if you analyze it carefully, it is very possible.

Did he use xray vision to see inside the brain?\

It wasn't necessary. Can we identify free will or determinism in the brain? Can we identify consciousness in the brain? Seeing inside the brain is not a requirement for every claim.

Not focused on the li9ght but on the object? Nonsense.

It isn't nonsense. You didn't understand his demonstration of how words can accurately or inaccurately symbolize reality, depending on the word. Read this again.
---------------------------------------------------------

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.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
Again, you are assuming that all claims have to be proven through experiment. His knowledge was based on astute observation and sound reasoning. At first, it doesn't seem possible that we could see an object that isn't sent to us in the light, but if you analyze it carefully, it is very possible.

And that is why he never got anywhere.

He claimed he was true with mathematical and scientific certainty, yet offered no mathematical and scientific proof.

I say I observe the Sun and the stars revolve around the Earth. I amcertain my observation is correct. You will say scientific evince says otherwise, right?

 

[bilby]

Light as a condition of sight was the conclusion, hence the reason why light and its workings were mentioned only once.

It's not a conclusion, as it does not follow from the other things he says.

If you didn't follow me this whole time, then you will keep insisting that he was wrong because he didn't explain how light works.

I followed. He makes no such explanation, hence my question.

Light does what light does, bilby. It travels at 186,000 miles a second. In the absence of light, we cannot see that thing. He never said we could.

Then it is undeniable that we cannot see that thing until the light has travelled to us; And that therefore his claim that we see in real time is false, because such a claim contradicts "In the absence of light, we cannot see that thing".

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
Again, you are assuming that all claims have to be proven through experiment. His knowledge was based on astute observation and sound reasoning. At first, it doesn't seem possible that we could see an object that isn't sent to us in the light, but if you analyze it carefully, it is very possible.

And that is why he never got anywhere.

That's not why he didn't get anywhere. The book was hardly distributed. You can't imagine the difficulty of making a genuine discovery at that time without the means to get it carefully reviewed. He typed 7 books on a manual typewriter and justified the margins himself. He paid for printing and tried to contact people who he thought could help him bring his discovery to light. When he was on his deathbed, he said, "My day will come." Even if it were peer-reviewed, they probably would reject him, all due to his claim regarding the eyes. Look what is happening here. People are immediately turned off by his claim and refuse to read any further, if at all.

He claimed he was true with mathematical and scientific certainty, yet offered no mathematical and scientific proof.

He offered proof, but he couldn't offer the kind that starts with a hypothesis. That is not how he came to these findings. His observations were correct, but you're turning your back (like many others), probably because you can't believe that science may have gotten it wrong.

I say I observe the Sun and the stars revolve around the Earth. I amcertain my observation is correct. You will say scientific evince says otherwise, right?

Yes, there have been mistakes made through the centuries; people had all kinds of beliefs that turned out to be false. They just assumed certain things were true because they couldn't prove it until science caught up. Science is the key to understanding our world. He was a behavioral scientist, not an astronomer, but this didn't make his knowledge any less accurate.

He wrote: Mankind has been slowly developing and if you go back far enough in history you will find that we believed pregnancy was caused by the bite of an enamored snake, which prevented many girls from bathing at certain times but never prevented them from mating.

 

[peacegirl]

Light as a condition of sight was the conclusion, hence the reason why light and its workings were mentioned only once.

It's not a conclusion, as it does not follow from the other things he says.

NoIf you didn't follow me this whole time, then you will keep insisting that he was wrong because he didn't explain how light works.

I followed. He makes no such explanation, hence my question.

Light does what light does, bilby. It travels at 186,000 miles a second. In the absence of light, we cannot see that thing. He never said we could.

Then it is undeniable that we cannot see that thing until the light has travelled to us; And that therefore his claim that we see in real time is false, because such a claim contradicts "In the absence of light, we cannot see that thing".

No bilby, there is no absence of light in this version because there is no time element. You are thinking that light has to travel to us, or there would be no light in which to see the object. But you're just restating the afferent version of sight, which is the very version he challenged.

 

[bilby]

Light as a condition of sight was the conclusion, hence the reason why light and its workings were mentioned only once.

It's not a conclusion, as it does not follow from the other things he says.

NoIf you didn't follow me this whole time, then you will keep insisting that he was wrong because he didn't explain how light works.

I followed. He makes no such explanation, hence my question.

Light does what light does, bilby. It travels at 186,000 miles a second. In the absence of light, we cannot see that thing. He never said we could.

Then it is undeniable that we cannot see that thing until the light has travelled to us; And that therefore his claim that we see in real time is false, because such a claim contradicts "In the absence of light, we cannot see that thing".

No bilby, there is no absence of light in this version

Yes, there is. I literally just quoted you saying that there is. "In the absence of light, we cannot see that thing".

because

There can be no "because" when you contradict yourself.

there is no time element.

Doesn't matter. "In the absence of light, we cannot see that thing". No mention of time here.

You are thinking that light has to travel to us, or there would be no light in which to see the object.

I am only thinking that because YOU say so:
"Light does what light does, bilby. It travels at 186,000 miles a second. In the absence of light, we cannot see that thing. He never said we could."

But you're just restating the afferent version of sight, which is the very version he challenged.

No, I am repeating your very own words.

You are contradicting yourself. I am just pointing it out. If you don't like the fact that your position is contradictory, take it up with @peacegirl, she's the one who is making claims that contradict each other.

 

[pood]

This is actually ludicrous. How can anyone have a sane conversation with someone who claims to believe in an obvious logical contradiction that even a kindergartner could spot?

 

[peacegirl]

Light as a condition of sight was the conclusion, hence the reason why light and its workings were mentioned only once.

It's not a conclusion, as it does not follow from the other things he says.

NoIf you didn't follow me this whole time, then you will keep insisting that he was wrong because he didn't explain how light works.

I followed. He makes no such explanation, hence my question.

Light does what light does, bilby. It travels at 186,000 miles a second. In the absence of light, we cannot see that thing. He never said we could.

Then it is undeniable that we cannot see that thing until the light has travelled to us; And that therefore his claim that we see in real time is false, because such a claim contradicts "In the absence of light, we cannot see that thing".

No bilby, there is no absence of light in this version

Yes, there is. I literally just quoted you saying that there is. "In the absence of light, we cannot see that thing".

There is no absence of light in this version. If there were an absence of light, we could not see that thing, but there isn't a gap. It is the light that allows us to see said object, but in order to see said object --- in real time --- it must meet the requirements for sight, which are luminosity (there has to be light at the eye), and the object's size (too small or too distant, there will be no light in which to see said object.)

because

There can be no "because" when you contradict yourself.

I am not contradicting myself, though. Light travels at a finite speed. Photons continue to be replaced, but the image (the object's wavelength and frequency) does not travel away from the object over space/time. That's why he wrote the following:

“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.

Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted that five senses were equally scientific, made the statement (which my friend referred to and still exists in our encyclopedias) that if we could sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the earth, we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is not a scientific fact?”

Again, my reply was, “Are you positive because you were told this, or positive because you, yourself, saw the relations revealing this truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on the chopping block to show me how positive you really are?”

“I am not that positive, but this is what I was taught.”

Once again, certain facts have been confused, and all the reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed is completely fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a sense organ, it followed that light must reflect an electric image of everything it touches, which then travels through space and is received by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us, it would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a telescope?

there is no time element.

Doesn't matter. "In the absence of light, we cannot see that thing". No mention of time here.

To repeat: If there is no light, because the celestial object is too far away or too small to be seen with the naked eye or with a telescope, there will be no light and no luminosity, which is a requirement.

You are thinking that light has to travel to us, or there would be no light in which to see the object.

I am only thinking that because YOU say so:
"Light does what light does, bilby. It travels at 186,000 miles a second. In the absence of light, we cannot see that thing. He never said we could."

But you're just restating the afferent version of sight, which is the very version he challenged.

No, I am repeating your very own words.

You are contradicting yourself. I am just pointing it out. If you don't like the fact that your position is contradictory, take it up with @peacegirl, she's the one who is making claims that contradict each other.

My words are not contradictory. Photons travel in packets of electromagnetic energy, but these packets of energy do not bounce off objects and travel with an object's wavelength and frequency through eons. It's similar to a mirror image. A mirror image doesn't travel beyond the object's reflection, except in this case, the reflection is at the eye instantly as we focus on the object itself, which means we are not receiving the image from light through space/time, which is the present-day belief. That is what he meant when he said light is a condition of sight, not a cause.

 

[DBT]

It was a fair question. A question that has not yet been explained.

I did not paint myself into a corner because there is no conflict between light traveling and seeing in real time. Brain function, as he described it, does not take time for light to reach the eye when we are focused, not on the light, but on the object. The light interacts with the rods and cones necessarily or the object would not be in view.

[/PRE[/

There is more than just a conflict. There is a complete contradiction between light travel time and "real time vision/light at the eye.' Where if one is true, the other must be false.....and we already know which one is true.

So you sidestepped the question.

 

[peacegirl]

It was a fair question. A question that has not yet been explained.

I did not paint myself into a corner because there is no conflict between light traveling and seeing in real time. Brain function, as he described it, does not take time for light to reach the eye when we are focused, not on the light, but on the object. The light interacts with the rods and cones necessarily or the object would not be in view.

[/PRE[/

There is more than just a conflict. There is a complete contradiction between light travel time and "real time vision/light at the eye.' Where if one is true, the other must be false.....and we already know which one is true.

They are not contradictions.

So you sidestepped the question.

I did not sidestep. Light travels but light does not reflect images that would land on the retina over long distances where the object would be long gone. The object absorbs and reveals itself as we look at it. This does not cancel out the speed of light that is always traveling at C.

 

[pood]

It was a fair question. A question that has not yet been explained.

I did not paint myself into a corner because there is no conflict between light traveling and seeing in real time. Brain function, as he described it, does not take time for light to reach the eye when we are focused, not on the light, but on the object. The light interacts with the rods and cones necessarily or the object would not be in view.

[/PRE[/

There is more than just a conflict. There is a complete contradiction between light travel time and "real time vision/light at the eye.' Where if one is true, the other must be false.....and we already know which one is true.

They are not contradictions.

So you sidestepped the question.

I did not sidestep. Light travels but light does not reflect images that would land on the retina over long distances where the object would be long gone. The object absorbs and reveals itself as we look at it. This does not cancel out the speed of light that is always traveling at C.

Total drivel. And the same old crap from you — no one claims that “light reflects images.” Light is reflected by objects, and images are built in the mind. How many times has this elementary fact been explained to you over the years?

The claim that light takes time to get to the eye but is nevertheless is at the eye instantly is obviously a contradiction in logic. It is so stupid that it beggars belief that anyone could make this claim.

 

[peacegirl]

It was a fair question. A question that has not yet been explained.

I did not paint myself into a corner because there is no conflict between light traveling and seeing in real time. Brain function, as he described it, does not take time for light to reach the eye when we are focused, not on the light, but on the object. The light interacts with the rods and cones necessarily or the object would not be in view.

[/PRE[/

There is more than just a conflict. There is a complete contradiction between light travel time and "real time vision/light at the eye.' Where if one is true, the other must be false.....and we already know which one is true.

They are not contradictions.

So you sidestepped the question.

I did not sidestep. Light travels but light does not reflect images that would land on the retina over long distances where the object would be long gone. The object absorbs and reveals itself as we look at it. This does not cancel out the speed of light that is always traveling at C.

Total drivel. And the same old crap from you — no one claims that “light reflects images.” Light is reflected by objects, and images are built in the mind.

They are built in the mind, according to the present account of vision. But that's what he's disputing. What the $*s%&k

How many times has this elementary fact been explained to you over the years?

Be quiet, Pood. I don't have to follow your demands. I am allowed to say "images" in place of wavelengths/frequencies, which are not built in the mind. I can use the word "images" in place of wavelengths/frequencies, if I think it makes it clearer for the reader. I will repeat this excerpt for others, not you.

Once again, certain facts have been confused, and all the reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed is completely fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a sense organ, it followed that light must reflect an electric image of everything it touches, which then travels through space and is received by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us, it would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a telescope?

They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other respects, which is false, although it is true that the farther away we are from the source of sound, the fainter it becomes, as light becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound from a plane, even though we can’t see it on a clear day, tells us it is in the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We can’t see bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope. The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is enough light present, and it is large enough to be seen. The explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon, although much larger, is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a planet at the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking and the object seen has no relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light; therefore, it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant stars. To paraphrase this another way, if you could sit upon the star Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see me writing this very moment, you would see me at the exact same time that a person sitting right next to me would—which brings us to another very interesting point.

If I couldn’t see you standing right next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had not yet been turned on, but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12 noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8 minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a large star, the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that their light diminishes before it gets to us.

The claim that light takes time to get to the eye but is nevertheless is at the eye instantly is obviously a contradiction in logic.

And your logic is better? The idea that we can live in the future or past in a block universe and therefore never die because of a closed loop isn't just plain old imaginary gobbledegook? The logic may be valid in its construction, but it certainly isn't sound, so stop projecting your inability to prove your wackadoo theory onto me.

It is so stupid that it beggars belief that anyone could make this claim.

Your mind is shut. You could never entertain the possibility that he could be right, so I'm not surprised by anything you say surrounding this issue.