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

[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.

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.

Let's pretend that's true.....how then is the image of an object acquired by the eyes without the information that light provides?

 

[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.

Let's pretend that's true.....how then is the image of an object acquired by the eyes without the information that light provides?

The object is seen by the eyes because the light emanating from the object is AT THE RETINA. The light is necessary because it allows us to see and integrate the information (e.g., that which is within our field of view) in the same way we would integrate that same information if it were interpreted as a virtual image within the brain.

 

[pood]

The object is seen by the eyes because the light emanating from the object is AT THE RETINA.

How is it at the retina instantly when you also say it takes time to get there?

 

[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.

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.

Let's pretend that's true.....how then is the image of an object acquired by the eyes without the information that light provides?

The object is seen by the eyes because the light emanating from the object is AT THE RETINA. The light is necessary because it allows us to see and integrate the information (e.g., that which is within our field of view) in the same way we would integrate that same information if it were interpreted as a virtual image within the brain.

But you have acknowledged that light has travel time. So without light providing information, instant seeing, where does the information come from?

 

[peacegirl]

The object is seen by the eyes because the light emanating from the object is AT THE RETINA.

How is it at the retina instantly when you also say it takes time to get there?

Ohhhh my goddddddd!! I need a break!

 

[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.

Let's pretend that's true.....how then is the image of an object acquired by the eyes without the information that light provides?

The object is seen by the eyes because the light emanating from the object is AT THE RETINA. The light is necessary because it allows us to see and integrate the information (e.g., that which is within our field of view) in the same way we would integrate that same information if it were interpreted as a virtual image within the brain.

But you have acknowledged that light has travel time. So without light providing information, instant seeing, where does the information come from?

Between you and Pood, I need an aspirin. Just remember light is not sending us an image. We are seeing the object due to light's presence.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
Between you and Pood, I need an aspirin. Just remember light is not sending us an image. We are seeing the object due to light's presence.

Humm .. if light doe mot bring the image how do eyeglasses improve vision?

Actually that the image is formed by light interacting with an object is observable. Theory describes a causal chain from light source to object to eye to brain.

What were the details of Lessans' observations? Can I repeat them?

I van physically measure the time form a light being switched on and arriving at the eye. JHv ae somebody 'focus' and the object and repeat the exertion and the arrival delay time will not change.

I worked on RADAR systems. Not visible light, 'light' in the L band 1-2 gigahertz.

I don't know what the test equipment costs today, but the experiment would be pretty simple.

 

[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.

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.

Let's pretend that's true.....how then is the image of an object acquired by the eyes without the information that light provides?

The object is seen by the eyes because the light emanating from the object is AT THE RETINA. The light is necessary because it allows us to see and integrate the information (e.g., that which is within our field of view) in the same way we would integrate that same information if it were interpreted as a virtual image within the brain.

But you have acknowledged that light has travel time. So without light providing information, instant seeing, where does the information come from?

Between you and Pood, I need an aspirin. Just remember light is not sending us an image. We are seeing the object due to light's presence.

I don't remember anything of the sort. Images are not sent, information is, patterns, wavelength, etc.. The brain uses that information to generate sight.

You acknowledge that we are seeing an object due to the presence of light, that light has a speed and time travel, then insist that the eyes somehow bypass the process and we see instantly.

How does that make sense?

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
Between you and Pood, I need an aspirin. Just remember light is not sending us an image. We are seeing the object due to light's presence.

Humm .. if light doe mot bring the image how do eyeglasses improve vision?

By bending light so it focuses properly on the retina.

Actually that the image is formed by light interacting with an object is observable. Theory describes a causal chain from light source to object to eye to brain.

He is not disputing that light interacts with an object. We know it takes time for light to reach the moon. I did say that we use light speed in many practical applications, but it doesn't prove the direction we see, and it doesn't prove that a causal chain exists from a light source to object to eye to brain. If light has traveled from the light source (for example, the sun), we will see the external world because light has arrived. The requirement for sight has been met (light has to be surrounding the object or event, which is why he said we could see the Sun turned on before we could see each other), but that doesn't mean the light, once it is here, is interpreted by the brain as sight.

What were the details of Lessans' observations? Can I repeat them?

I van physically measure the time form a light being switched on and arriving at the eye. JHv ae somebody 'focus' and the object and repeat the exertion and the arrival delay time will not change.

I worked on RADAR systems. Not visible light, 'light' in the L band 1-2 gigahertz.

I don't know what the test equipment costs today, but the experiment would be pretty simple.

You need to separate Lessans' claim from the fact that he was not disputing the speed of light. You keep conflating the two. No one has actually proven that normal vision occurs in the brain. It is a scientific theory, and scientists believe they have explained the exact mechanism, but is it true? No one has actually proven that this is how we see. Where are these images identified? Why can't they pinpoint these images through MRIs or CT scans? They may see activity in the visual cortex by it lighting up, but that's not proof. People may see shadows when data collection bypasses the photoreceptors that no longer work, but so far, it has not shown success. Whether more data collection will give people true sight is yet to be seen. The latest technology to help the totally blind by sending impulses directly to the visual cortex has, once again, not shown real promise. People are helped when they are not completely blind. Their remaining vision can be improved upon by visual aids, but nothing as yet proves that we receive impulses through the optic nerve that are transduced in the brain as true vision.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

The question is if light does not carry the image how do corrective glasses improve vision ?

Corrective glasses/lenses work on the fact that the image travels from object to eye via light. If light does not convey the image then Lessans' theory has a lot to explain.

No different in science. A new theory in one thing has to also account or other things.

I believe you aid when we are not focused on an object light takes time, when we focus on an object light arrives instantaneous. I said I could physically test for that.

I still want to know what his observation were to conclude instant vision without physical experimenter, so I can repeat the observation for myself.

 

[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.

Let's pretend that's true.....how then is the image of an object acquired by the eyes without the information that light provides?

The object is seen by the eyes because the light emanating from the object is AT THE RETINA. The light is necessary because it allows us to see and integrate the information (e.g., that which is within our field of view) in the same way we would integrate that same information if it were interpreted as a virtual image within the brain.

But you have acknowledged that light has travel time. So without light providing information, instant seeing, where does the information come from?

Between you and Pood, I need an aspirin. Just remember light is not sending us an image. We are seeing the object due to light's presence.

I don't remember anything of the sort. Images are not sent, information is, patterns, wavelength, etc.. The brain uses that information to generate sight.

You acknowledge that we are seeing an object due to the presence of light, that light has a speed and time travel, then insist that the eyes somehow bypass the process and we see instantly.

How does that make sense?

As I said, light travels, but it doesn't bounce off an object, traveling with that information to the eye through space/time and allowing the mind to generate an image. The reflection from the object is at the eye as long as the object is in view. If it can be seen, light has to be at the eye, or we wouldn't see it. If the object's reflected light was traveling, but the object itself had exploded and no longer existed, there would be no image to generate. Why? Because light was never traveling with the information apart from the object. The object has to be within view in this account. IOW, light reveals the external world. It is a condition of sight, not a cause. We are seeing the object through light. This doesn't mean photons stop traveling or that we bypass light. That's a false interpretation.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
As I said, light travels, but it doesn't bounce off an object, traveling with that information to the eye through space/time and allowing the mind to generate an image.g

And again experiments supporting optical theory show otherwise.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
As I said, light travels, but it doesn't bounce off an object, traveling with that information to the eye through space/time and allowing the mind to generate an image.g

And again experiments supporting optical theory show otherwise.

Optical theory does not contradict real-time vision.

Optical theory is the branch of physics that studies the behavior, manipulation, and detection of electromagnetic radiation, including its interactions with matter and instruments that use or detect it. It encompasses the study of visible, ultraviolet, and infrared light, and extends to other forms of electromagnetic radiation, including radio waves, microwaves, and X-rays. The term optics is also applied to technology for manipulating beams of elementary charged particles. Practical applications of optics are found in a variety of technologies and everyday objects, including mirrors, lenses, telescopes, microscopes, lasers, and fiber optics.

ico-optics.org

 

[steve_bank]

Pg can show no explicit observations, demonstrations, or experiments that show Lessans is right, but says that science of optics, eyes, and brain which do is wrong.

Very strange reasoning and logic.

'One experiment is worth a thousands words'

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
As I said, light travels, but it doesn't bounce off an object, traveling with that information to the eye through space/time and allowing the mind to generate an image.g

And again experiments supporting optical theory show otherwise.

Optical theory does not contradict real-time vision.

Optical theory is the branch of physics that studies the behavior, manipulation, and detection of electromagnetic radiation, including its interactions with matter and instruments that use or detect it. It encompasses the study of visible, ultraviolet, and infrared light, and extends to other forms of electromagnetic radiation, including radio waves, microwaves, and X-rays. The term optics is also applied to technology for manipulating beams of elementary charged particles. Practical applications of optics are found in a variety of technologies and everyday objects, including mirrors, lenses, telescopes, microscopes, lasers, and fiber optics.
ico-optics.org

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg can show no explicit observations, demonstrations, or experiments that show Lessans is right, but says that science of optics, eyes, and brain which do is wrong.

Very strange reasoning and logic.

'One experiment is worth a thousands words'

That is true, but the claim that we see in delayed time hasn't been proven through experiment. It is a narrative that seems logical, but many theories can appear logical but still be wrong. So why would you single Lessans out?

 

[bilby]

Pg can show no explicit observations, demonstrations, or experiments that show Lessans is right, but says that science of optics, eyes, and brain which do is wrong.

Very strange reasoning and logic.

'One experiment is worth a thousands words'

That is true, but the claim that we see in delayed time hasn't been proven through experiment.

Yes it has. You may not have done so, but that's because you refuse to, not because you can't.

Several simple experiments to prove that we see in delayed time have been presented to you in this thread; But you have either not done them, or not shared your results.

So why would you single Lessans out?

Nobody is singling Lessans out except you. You came here holding his ideas up for scrutiny; That doing so resulted in everyone laughing at his absurd, impossible, self-defeating nonsense should not have surprised you, but apparently it did - which suggests that 'thinking things through' is not a skill you have bothered to acquire.

His claim is not aimed at disproving optical theory. They can exist together.

No, they can't. They are contradictory. If one is true, the other logically must be false.

You don't care what is true; You just want to believe in your father's daft ideas, and to have others believe too. Sadly, nobody can stop you from believing nonsense. Fortunately, you seem sufficiently incompetent at persuasion that your idiocy is largely contained, and doesn't spread to others.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

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.)

The term luminosity in conventional usage regards radiated or emitted electromagnetic waves. In the context of this discussion about light, it is NOT luminosity that determines whether light is visible by humans; rather, it is the apparent brightness upon which visibility depends, and that brightness derives at least from luminosity and distance. This means necessarily that light travels, and you agree that light travels.

With regards to luminosity, the sun emits light. Does the moon emit light? If it is said that the moon emits light, then there is a distinction between sunlight and moonlight in that the light emitted by the moon is not light for which the moon is the source whereas the sun is the source of sunlight. Another way of depicting this difference is to say that the moon reflects light; moonlight is a reflection; moonlight is reflected light.

However, you apparently deny that the moon reflects light. You say:

light travels, but it doesn't bounce off an object, traveling with that information to the eye through space/time and allowing the mind to generate an image.

Light that is reflected is light that "bounces off". If you deny that the moon reflects light, do you regard the moon as the very source of its own light? Do you think that the sun generates its own light?

I will presume that you think that the sun is the source of its own light, and I will presume that you do not think of the moon as generating its own light.

If the moon is not the source of its own light and if the moon does not reflect light, then the moon always and utterly lacks luminosity and, therefore, brightness; hence, the moon can never be seen.

But the moon can be seen.

In the alternative, you might mean to say that the moon reflects light, and that light travels, but that light is devoid of anything that can serve as information regarding that from which the light travels. So, how is the moon seen, especially given the claim that the eyes are not (and are no part of) a sense organ - there being only the four other senses by which humans gather information about the world around them?

You claim that traveling light in no way contributes to images generated by the mind. Because vision is not one of the senses? So, does the mind use the other senses to generate an image of the mind? Does the mind use touch to see the moon? Does it use hearing to see the moon? How about taste? Does it smell the moon?

Because by your reckoning, nothing comes to the mind from the eyes to serve as information to be used in generating the image. And it does no good to say that there has to be "light at the eye", because, again by your reckoning, the light at the eye contains no information to be used in generating an image. Yet, the mind does generate an image, and it clearly is not generated on the basis of touch, hearing, taste, or smell, and it is supposedly not generated on the basis of input from vision.

At this point you might claim that "light at the eye" contains information that can be used for generating an image of that which is seen, but then you have the problem of how that light has such information if light traveling from the seen thing does not have that information.

The mind includes an ability to imagine. Does the mind simply imagine the moon? A baby duck peeping is real - not because it is imagined as seen - but, instead, since it can be heard? How does the mind distinguish between something imagined from something real if the imagined/imaged thing cannot be touched, heard, tasted, or smelled?

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

The question is if light does not carry the image how do corrective glasses improve vision ?

Corrective glasses/lenses work on the fact that the image travels from object to eye via light. If light does not convey the image then Lessans' theory has a lot to explain.

No different in science. A new theory in one thing has to also account or other things.

I believe you aid when we are not focused on an object light takes time, when we focus on an object light arrives instantaneous. I said I could physically test for that.

I still want to know what his observation were to conclude instant vision without physical experimenter, so I can repeat the observation for myself.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

The question is if light does not carry the image how do corrective glasses improve vision ?

Be bending the light rays to correct the focal point on the retina. This is not related to the direction we see. Light travels and the fact that refraction works, it is able to correct near or far-sightedness or astigmatism.

Corrective glasses/lenses work on the fact that the image travels from object to eye via light. If light does not convey the image then Lessans' theory has a lot to explain.

It’s not related.

No different in science. A new theory in one thing has to also account or other things.

If it relates, yes.

I believe you aid when we are not focused on an object light takes time, when we focus on an object light arrives instantaneous. I said I could physically test for that.

I still want to know what his observation were to conclude instant vision without physical experimenter, so I can repeat the observation for myself.

I’m not sure what kind of experiment could be done to prove that the eyes won’t focus without stimulation of the other senses. There has to be other ways to demonstrate he was right, though.

Pg

The question is if light does not carry the image how do corrective glasses improve vision ?

Corrective glasses/lenses work on the fact that the image travels from object to eye via light. If light does not convey the image then Lessans' theory has a lot to explain.

No different in science. A new theory in one thing has to also account or other things.

I believe you aid when we are not focused on an object light takes time, when we focus on an object light arrives instantaneous.

No, this has nothing to do with an object’s light arriving anywhere when the word “arriving” indicates time?

. I said I could physically test for that.

I still want to know what his observation were to conclude instant vision without physical experimenter, so I can repeat the observation for myself.

Optical biometers measure axial length, as well as autorefractors measure the refractive error. This has nothing to do with seeing in real time, nor does it disprove it.