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

[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.

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

Scientists have explained a mechanism that they believe to be correct because it all seems to fit, but it hasn't been proven 100%. Where have they shown what the brain is doing in this version?

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.

He gave his observations and his reasoning therefrom. You sidestepped them when I asked you to see if your dog can recognize you without other cues, and you never answered. What experiments (that I missed) prove we see in delayed time? Light travels, and that is a fact, but that alone doesn't tell us how the brain works.

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.

Well guess what? It will be you who will be running with your tail between your legs (if we're still living) when Lessans is proven to be right after all. What will you say then, Big Shot?

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.

That is not true. Optical theory works in its application. It has nothing to do with the direction the brain sees.

You don't care what is true; You just want to believe in your father's daft ideas, and to have others believe too.

It's not about getting others to believe it. It's about understanding the truth, which will have a major impact on the way we see ourselves and those around us.

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.

This is not about persuasion. It's about understanding where his observations came from (which he discovered working backwards) to see why the mind is not creating the image.

 

[bilby]

Well guess what? It will be you who will be running with your tail between your legs (if we're still living) when Lessans is proven to be right after all. What will you say then, Big Shot?

Are you eight years old?

 

[bilby]

What experiments (that I missed) prove we see in delayed time?

Have you suffered a recent blow to the head? Or have you been drinking to excess?

You should definitely seek medical help with your amnesia issues.

Articles don't prove anything. They can try to make something fit their narrative. The only proof that is worth its salt is to see the actual proof that we can see for ourselves. You have not provided this.

Well, I have.
Here it is again:

But they absolutely are. His "reasoning" contradicts itself, and his claims are demonstrably wrong in several ways.

I even gave you some simple experiments that you could perform for yourself, that proves that we don't see the Sun until the same time that the light from the Sun arrives here - some eight minutes after that light left the Sun.

No special equipment is required, just dawn on a clear morning. No special training is needed. Have you performed these experiments?

When we see the sunset, the light from the Sun is also illuminating the objects nearby. But if we were seeing those objects only after the eight and a half minutes needed for that light to arrive, but seeing the Sun in real time, then the light would still be illuminating our surroundings eight minutes after the last of the Sun's disk had fallen below the horizon.

Similarly, at sunrise, we would see the Sun well above the horizon*, before the first of the direct sunlight arrived to illuminate our surroundings. This is a prediction that is made by your model, and it is easy to test. Anyone can observe it to be false. No special equipment, and no qualifications, accreditations, or memberships are needed; Anyone can test it for themselves.

And anyone who does, will see that the direct light from the sun illuminates our surroundings at the same time that we first see its disk rise above the horizon. We see the Sun after the exact same delay required to see its light illuminate our surroundings. Therefore your model cannot be right.

Your claims:

1) That we see the Sun instantly, but
2) That our surroundings are not visible until the photons complete their eight and a half minute journey,

...cannot both be true. If they were, we would not see direct sunlight illuminate our surroundings until the Sun was some two degrees (four times it's own diameter) above the horizon.




* The Sun appears to travel it's own apparent diameter in about two minutes, so it would be seen to be four times it's own diameter above the horizon before the light illuminated our surroundings.

Well, we can do another simple experiment to test the same hypothesis. I call it "The Human Sundial Experiment".

Here's how it works:

At any time during the day, when the sun is unobscured by cloud and shadows are cast, we can see that the Sun appears to move across the sky at roughly four times its own diameter every eight minutes. The shadows it casts "move" across the ground at the same angular velocity. That's how a sundial works - a sundial shows how the Sun appears to move across the sky at a steady rate that matches the rotation of the Earth.

If you stand near a post, building or other structure, theres a spot you can be in where Sun can be 'hidden' behind that object, so that you can't see it. Lets pick a telegraph or power pole (you could use a tree or a shed, or whatever, if you prefer, as long as it's tall enough and thin enough that there's somewhere to stand where the Sun is only just hidden behind the pole).

Pick a spot to stand, facing the Sun, far enough back so that the Sun is only just blocked by the pole - so that if you move even the tiniest bit to either side, you will see the edge of the Sun.

Now, the ground at your feet is illuminated on either side by sunlight that left the Sun eight and a half minutes ago. The shadow is pointing directly at where the Sun was when that light left the Sun - if it wasn't, the shadow wouldn't be where it is*.

But the Sun has moved since that light left it. It is eight and a half minutes, or four solar diameters, further along its apparent path across the sky than it was when it sent out that light.

So, if we see the Sun instantly, with no delay, then we should see it, four 'pole widths' to one side of the pole, while we are standing in the shadow; And when we stand so that the Sun is exactly blocked by the pole, we should be in sunlight, with the shadow falling off to one side, four times it's own width counter-clockwise from where we are standing.

That's an unavoidable result, IF we see the Sun instantly, but see the light reflect off the ground only after that eight and a half minute delay. The spot where the Sun is completely obscured from view should, according to your hypothesis, be outside the shadow cast by the post.

This is an observation that is directly implied by your hypothesis. If you are right, then the above is exactly what we must see. It's also not what we actually observe, if and when we do the experiment. Don't take my word for it - do the experiment for yourself. Anyone can, on any sunny day.






*The Human Sundial Experiment is functionally much the same as the Sunrise Experiment; In the latter, we used the Earth itself to cast the shadow, but in this new experiment, we use something that's small enough so that the Sun is only just obscured from our vantage point. The benefit of this is that a telegraph pole doesn't have an atmosphere to scatter light, so we aren't at risk of being confused by the pre-dawn brightness of the sky.

These experiments demonstrate that instant vision is nonsense.

And his "reasoning" is contradictory, so it is logically impossible that he is right - we know he is wrong without needing to do the above experiments, and are doing them only to show that we are openminded.

So, having met your demand for "...the actual proof that we can see for ourselves", are you going to change your mind, and admit that you were wrong?

If not, why not?

Where are you planning to move the goalposts to this time?

 

[pood]

Well guess what? It will be you who will be running with your tail between your legs (if we're still living) when Lessans is proven to be right after all. What will you say then, Big Shot?

Are you eight years old?

Don’t insult eight-year olds. Even an eight-year old could understand that it’s not logically possible for light to be at the eye instantly even while it takes time for light to travel to the eye.

 

[DBT]

Scientists have explained a mechanism that they believe to be correct because it all seems to fit, but it hasn't been proven 100%. Where have they shown what the brain is doing in this version?

What happens when someone is put under aesthetic? What happens to their conscious experience, including sight? Where does conscious mind come from? Where does it go when a person is unconscious? What does your book say?

 

[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'

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?

Actually it has, it has been explained ad nauseam.

If nothing else the C speed limit precludes anything happening in zero time or without delay.


As I said, you can't just look at vision when you say without delay. It ripples through a great deal of issues lie electronic.


I takes time for light to pass trough the eye lens. Rods and cones take time to respond. It takes time for signals to travel through optic nerves to brain. And so on.

 

[bilby]

Well guess what? It will be you who will be running with your tail between your legs (if we're still living) when Lessans is proven to be right after all. What will you say then, Big Shot?

Are you eight years old?

Don’t insult eight-year olds. Even an eight-year old could understand that it’s not logically possible for light to be at the eye instantly even while it takes time for light to travel to the eye.

It's amusing that in the postulated future world in which Lessans work is proven right, we are told that everyone will be happy, will be able to do whatever they please, and nobody will ever harm anyone else, nor desire to do so. And simultaneously, that those who refused to believe his work to be true and perfect before the proof was available will be "running with your tail between your legs".

These two future states seem to be logically incompatible. And surely @peacegirl wouldn't want to contradict herself.

It's the Problem of Evil all over again; It seems that the faithful always claim to believe in universal happiness, but can't bring themselves to let go of the certainty that the infidels will suffer for their lack of faith.

Of course, were I to be proven wrong I should be very happy to have learned something new. But, lacking as she does any experience of 'learning something new', it seems that this is an alien concept to @peacegirl.

Indeed, she seems to view the prospect of learning anything new, with its consequent changing of the mind and embracing of new ways of doing things, with abject terror, bordering on paranoia.

Those evil scientists are trying to undermine her faith, and must be stopped!

 

[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?

Actually it has, it has been explained ad nauseam.

If nothing else the C speed limit precludes anything happening in zero time or without delay.

No it does not. Not if this is about the brain, not light. You’re making a category error.

As I said, you can't just look at vision when you say without delay. It ripples through a great deal of issues lie electronic.

None of these applications have anything to do with seeing in real time.

I takes time for light to pass trough the eye lens. Rods and cones take time to respond. It takes time for signals to travel through optic nerves to brain. And so on.

That’s not what real-time vision is referring to.

 

[peacegirl]

Well guess what? It will be you who will be running with your tail between your legs (if we're still living) when Lessans is proven to be right after all. What will you say then, Big Shot?

Are you eight years old?

Yes, I am 8 living in the past in a closed loop, which is my now. Didn’t you know there is no one now?

 

[peacegirl]

Scientists have explained a mechanism that they believe to be correct because it all seems to fit, but it hasn't been proven 100%. Where have they shown what the brain is doing in this version?

What happens when someone is put under aesthetic? What happens to their conscious experience, including sight? Where does conscious mind come from? Where does it go when a person is unconscious? What does your book say?

He doesn’t talk about consciousness except as it relates to birth and death. Also, he discussed how a doctor used too much anesthetic during a wisdom tooth removal and killed his patient in the chapter: The Wisdom of Socrates.