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

[bilby]

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.

Light reflects off objects, and travels to the brain.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

 

[pood]

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?

 

[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?

 

[DBT]

That explanation doesn't work. The reasons why it doesn't work have already been described too many times.

No it hasn’t.

That's not true. The problem is that you ignore any given explanation, only to reset and repeat the authors claims.

Of course, I'm going to repeat his claims because people are trying to prove him wrong. This is what anyone would do if the present scientific explanation has flaws that haven't been brought to the forefront.

Claims that are not only not supported by evidence, but are contrary to the evidence that we do have (physics).

That, again, has to do with science explaining its narrative of what is occurring without realizing that there is a loophole when it comes to vision. This account DOES NOT violate physics, so stop telling me it does.

That is how faith is defined. That is how theists tend to defend their own faith.

This has nothing to do with faith because he has an understandable explanation.

He wrote: I know that 2+2=4; I don’t have faith or believe that this is true.”

The same goes for his proof of no free will and that the brain and eyes work differently than what was previously believed.

An understandable explanation? That has yet to be shown.

You have not explained how light at the eye/ instant vision could possibly work.

It has not been explained how information about a distant object can be at the eye before it is transmitted or even arrives.

As that isn't physically possible, to believe it is true a matter of faith.

The claim is a faith based belief.