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

[peacegirl]

Light still travels at a finite speed but in this account, distance is not a factor.

Speed is distance divided by time. Distance is therefore always and unavoidably a factor when speed is involved.

The quoted sentence is proven to be nonsense, by contradiction. Did I mention that, unlike science, you can actually prove things in mathematics? This is one of those things; distance is proven to always be a factor when something has speed as an attribute.

It was not a contradiction if you understand that the eyes work completely opposite of how science thinks they work. Speed is a factor when distance and time are involved, that is true, but when it comes to vision (if he is right), then speed and distance don't play a part. You're not listening bilby. He was a math whiz, FYI. He figured out math problems that math professors could not.

The speed of light and its distance of travel has nothing to do with how the eyes work in detecting light.

Please read what I posted today. I can't do more. I do suggest that you buy the book for $1.95. At least you will know what the author's position was, and why he concluded what he did. You can then decide whether he's full of it, or maybe not. lol

I have read what you say, but it's just wrong. It's wrong because it's impossible for light to be "at the eye" without travel time from its source.

Nor does instant light at the eye make sense in transforming human behaviour and bringing peace to the world.

Sorry, but to put it kindly, the premise is flawed.

You did not read what his observations were or what led him to him claiming what he did. You only read what I posted. which isn’t good enough.

 

[peacegirl]

I really came only to tell people that I reduced the price of the ebook to $1.95 thinking that if cost was an issue, now it wouldn't be. try to get money out of people

FTFY.

Please don’t spend your last $1.95. I wouldn’t want to break you!

 

[DBT]

Light still travels at a finite speed but in this account, distance is not a factor.

Speed is distance divided by time. Distance is therefore always and unavoidably a factor when speed is involved.

The quoted sentence is proven to be nonsense, by contradiction. Did I mention that, unlike science, you can actually prove things in mathematics? This is one of those things; distance is proven to always be a factor when something has speed as an attribute.

It was not a contradiction if you understand that the eyes work completely opposite of how science thinks they work. Speed is a factor when distance and time are involved, that is true, but when it comes to vision (if he is right), then speed and distance don't play a part. You're not listening bilby. He was a math whiz, FYI. He figured out math problems that math professors could not.

The speed of light and its distance of travel has nothing to do with how the eyes work in detecting light.

Please read what I posted today. I can't do more. I do suggest that you buy the book for $1.95. At least you will know what the author's position was, and why he concluded what he did. You can then decide whether he's full of it, or maybe not. lol

I have read what you say, but it's just wrong. It's wrong because it's impossible for light to be "at the eye" without travel time from its source.

Nor does instant light at the eye make sense in transforming human behaviour and bringing peace to the world.

Sorry, but to put it kindly, the premise is flawed.

You did not read what his observations were or what led him to him claiming what he did. You only read what I posted. which isn’t good enough.

Whatever means or process he used, his conclusion is clearly wrong. As the conclusion is wrong, the process he used must have been be flawed.

 

[peacegirl]

Light still travels at a finite speed but in this account, distance is not a factor.

Speed is distance divided by time. Distance is therefore always and unavoidably a factor when speed is involved.

The quoted sentence is proven to be nonsense, by contradiction. Did I mention that, unlike science, you can actually prove things in mathematics? This is one of those things; distance is proven to always be a factor when something has speed as an attribute.

It was not a contradiction if you understand that the eyes work completely opposite of how science thinks they work. Speed is a factor when distance and time are involved, that is true, but when it comes to vision (if he is right), then speed and distance don't play a part. You're not listening bilby. He was a math whiz, FYI. He figured out math problems that math professors could not.

The speed of light and its distance of travel has nothing to do with how the eyes work in detecting light.

Please read what I posted today. I can't do more. I do suggest that you buy the book for $1.95. At least you will know what the author's position was, and why he concluded what he did. You can then decide whether he's full of it, or maybe not. lol

I have read what you say, but it's just wrong. It's wrong because it's impossible for light to be "at the eye" without travel time from its source.

Nor does instant light at the eye make sense in transforming human behaviour and bringing peace to the world.

Sorry, but to put it kindly, the premise is flawed.

The knowledge regarding the senses comes into play because so much hurt is the result of words and not understanding our relationship with the external world, but it’s the knowledge that lies behind the door of determinism that will prevent the desire to hurt others with a first blow. You’re mixing up the two discoveries.

 

[peacegirl]

Light still travels at a finite speed but in this account, distance is not a factor.

Speed is distance divided by time. Distance is therefore always and unavoidably a factor when speed is involved.

The quoted sentence is proven to be nonsense, by contradiction. Did I mention that, unlike science, you can actually prove things in mathematics? This is one of those things; distance is proven to always be a factor when something has speed as an attribute.

It was not a contradiction if you understand that the eyes work completely opposite of how science thinks they work. Speed is a factor when distance and time are involved, that is true, but when it comes to vision (if he is right), then speed and distance don't play a part. You're not listening bilby. He was a math whiz, FYI. He figured out math problems that math professors could not.

The speed of light and its distance of travel has nothing to do with how the eyes work in detecting light.

Please read what I posted today. I can't do more. I do suggest that you buy the book for $1.95. At least you will know what the author's position was, and why he concluded what he did. You can then decide whether he's full of it, or maybe not. lol

I have read what you say, but it's just wrong. It's wrong because it's impossible for light to be "at the eye" without travel time from its source.

Nor does instant light at the eye make sense in transforming human behaviour and bringing peace to the world.

Sorry, but to put it kindly, the premise is flawed.

You did not read what his observations were or what led him to him claiming what he did. You only read what I posted. which isn’t good enough.

Whatever means or process he used, his conclusion is clearly wrong. As the conclusion is wrong, the process he used must have been be flawed.

You don’t get to say the conclusion is wrong without understanding whether the premise and what follows is sound.

 

[peacegirl]

How is instant vision/light at the eye even supposed to work?

It takes time for light to get to the eye and be processed by the brain.
It can't be instant, and even if it was, it does not relate to how humans interact with each other and the world at large.

This so called discovery makes no sense.

You don’t understand that if the brain uses the eye to see the outside world, as a window, this means that the distance of the object is less important than the size and luminosity of the object. You are so convinced it makes no sense that you will not entertain the possibility that he could be right. I don’t think you read his reasoning as to why he came to this conclusion. Seeing in real time does not mean we don’t take what we see and interpret it by our brain, just as we would if the light waves traveled through space/time to reach our eye. Nothing changes in that respect.

No, that's not it. Physics excludes the possibility of instant vision, and human behaviour is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc.

You’re still not getting it. This does not violate physics. Light travels but if he's correct, and the eyes are efferent, not afferent, then the light from the object, regardless of how far away it is, is at the eye the second the object is seen, that is, if it is within the person's field of view. There is no gap between the light at the eye and the object seen, which would violate physics.

How is instant vision/light at the eye even supposed to work?

It takes time for light to get to the eye and be processed by the brain.
It can't be instant, and even if it was, it does not relate to how humans interact with each other and the world at large.

This so called discovery makes no sense.

You don’t understand that if the brain uses the eye to see the outside world, as a window, this means that the distance of the object is less important than the size and luminosity of the object. You are so convinced it makes no sense that you will not entertain the possibility that he could be right. I don’t think you read his reasoning as to why he came to this conclusion. Seeing in real time does not mean we don’t take what we see and interpret it by our brain, just as we would if the light waves traveled through space/time to reach our eye. Nothing changes in that respect.

No, that's not it. Physics excludes the possibility of instant vision, and human behaviour is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc.

He is not denying that human behavior is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc. All he is doing is showing that when the conditions of the environment change, and there is economic security and the absence of all authority and control (including government as we know it), the desire to strike a first blow of hurt, at the expense of others, will be eliminated.

That doesn't make sense. There is a gap between the object emitting or reflecting light and the eye that detects that light, which is distance of travel. Given that light has a finite speed, it takes time to travel between the light source and the eye.

That's simply how it works, physics, it's undeniable.

If the eyes were afferent, it would be violating physics because a gap would exist but if the eyes work like he described, there would be no gap. Light still travels at a finite speed but in this account, distance is not a factor. I hope you try to understand his observations and why he came to this conclusion. It didn’t come out of thin air. I reduced the book to $1.95. It would be worth your while to read it. Just put in Seymour Lessans in the search bar at Amazon, and Decline and Fall of All Evil will show up.

No, the eyes have nothing to do with the speed of light and the distance it takes to get from the source to the eye, which is not instant, and cannot be instant.

Light carries information about the source and cannot magically appear ''at the eye'' without travel time.

It's not about light magically appearing at the eye; the wavelength IS at the eye when we look at the object as long as the object is able to be seen due to its brightness and its size and location. Obviously, if it's outside of our field of view, we won't be able to see it; if it is not bright enough, we won't be able to see it; and if it's not large enough or too far away, we won't be able to see it. And, yes, if he is right, distance and time are not involved because light alone is not bringing the image or wavelength through millions of years to us, even though light travels at 186,000 miles a second.

Again you are incorrect.

Wavelength does not appear at the eye, photons appear at the eye.

I think you're nitpicking on purpose. Whether I call it a wavelength or a photon, you get the gist, so stop deflecting, no pun intended.

Yes, wavelengths of light from objects do strike the retina, allowing us to see those objects. When light waves from an object interact with the retina, some wavelengths are absorbed, while others are reflected. Our eyes detect these reflected wavelengths, and our brains interpret these signals as colors, enabling us to perceive the object.
biologyinsights.com

You realize what you quoted above totally contradicts real-time seeing?

No, I did not contradict anything. The same exact light waves react with the retina in real time vision. The same impulses connect the retina to the visual cortex through the optic nerve, but to then conclude that images from the past are what we see through transduction does not automatically follow even though it seems logical.

 

[peacegirl]

She argue science without any understanding.

There were many threads on the science forum where Chi stains tried to discredit science that disputes Christian theology, like Young Earth Creationism and god starting the human race with Adam and Eve.

Evangelical argue science is out to destroy religion.

On the forum Peacegirl argues pseudo science that conflicts with established scince.

Christians on the forum have have argued for pseudoscience like Intelligent Design to try to get around evolution science.

The book is pseudoscience.

I showed in as simplest terms as I can how light works and how there can be no conditions where distance does not matter

The next step for Peacegirl would be to try and refute it.

You are asking her to explain how her author’s version of light and sight actually works, which the author somehow omitted to do in a 600-page book. Here is one of her explanations from another board:

How many times do I have to say that light travels, but non-absorbed light (the light that provides the mirror image) does not get (N) reflected which would indicate that it travels in that pattern forever. You will not understand why this is so if you don't see this from the efferent standpoint. That's why you're getting confused.

Does that clarify matters?

Light travels but to say it travels with the same pattern forever is a fallacy. It is only when we look at the object does the wavelength show up on our retina. His demonstration as to why he believed this was true starts on page 109. How dare you say that he omitted his observations regarding light and sight! You won't win by lying.

It i a little more complicated.

Imagine light from a distant star. From Earth it looks like an isotropic radiator, meaning it radiates in all directions equally as an expanding sphere here around the star. As the sphere propagates the surface area expands and the energy density in watts per square meters goes down.

From Hygen's Principle all subsections on the traveling sphere, wavefront, contains all the information details.

When using a backyard Newtonian telescope when viewing a bright object a disk with a hole in it is put over the aperture. An aperture stop.

The object image dims, but all the details of the object are there.

The wavefront does go on forever, but energy density in watts/meter^2 goes towards zero. At some point it becomes undetectable by our instruments,.

A photon is either being created, propagating, or being absorbed. It has no rest state. It goes on forever unless it is boarded by something. No different than other quantum particles like electrons.

Put an electron charge on a metal surface and it stays there.

You first have to understand the wave-particle duality. It is fundamental. It is all based in experiment.

How would you know it is a fallacy?

I have not said any of this is a fallacy. The only fallacy is that we see the same exact image based on the object's reflection. The only difference is that the object is seen in real time. All of the experiments done regarding density in watts per square or viewing a bright object with a disk and a hole over the aperture, does not change what we would see whether in real time or delayed time. I'm not sure how these experiments prove delayed vision.

We have already given you a gigantic list of proofs of delayed seeing.

You have not. It’s all theory and you’re doing your darndest to make it all fit with one big edge: you have science telling you you’re right. But science is constantly evolving and should question their own theories when they are challenged with a competing proposition.

 

[bilby]

But science is constantly evolving and should question their own theories when they are challenged with a competing proposition.

Did that. Asked the question. The answer was: "This 'competing proposition' is logically contradictory, makes no new predictions that have not been observed to be false, and has no redeeming features whatsoever.

After the question comes the answer. Then the question doesn't need to be asked again, unless a further, new, 'competing proposition' comes along.

You want the status quo to be questioned, but you refuse to accept the answer, because you don't like it. Reality doesn't care what you like. The question was asked. It was answered. You asked it again. It was answered again. You have nothing new; so why should anyone entertain the same stale question answered a thousand times, for a thousand and first time?

You don't get to keep accusing everyone of being closed-minded just because they reached a conclusion you hate. Your ideas have been given due consideration. And found to be stupid, nonsensical, self-contradictory claptrap, with no redeeming feature of any kind.

If you really want to review them yet again, feel free to re-read the last sentence of the preceeding paragraph as many times as it takes to sink in.

 

[DBT]

How is instant vision/light at the eye even supposed to work?

It takes time for light to get to the eye and be processed by the brain.
It can't be instant, and even if it was, it does not relate to how humans interact with each other and the world at large.

This so called discovery makes no sense.

You don’t understand that if the brain uses the eye to see the outside world, as a window, this means that the distance of the object is less important than the size and luminosity of the object. You are so convinced it makes no sense that you will not entertain the possibility that he could be right. I don’t think you read his reasoning as to why he came to this conclusion. Seeing in real time does not mean we don’t take what we see and interpret it by our brain, just as we would if the light waves traveled through space/time to reach our eye. Nothing changes in that respect.

No, that's not it. Physics excludes the possibility of instant vision, and human behaviour is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc.

You’re still not getting it. This does not violate physics. Light travels but if he's correct, and the eyes are efferent, not afferent, then the light from the object, regardless of how far away it is, is at the eye the second the object is seen, that is, if it is within the person's field of view. There is no gap between the light at the eye and the object seen, which would violate physics.

How is instant vision/light at the eye even supposed to work?

It takes time for light to get to the eye and be processed by the brain.
It can't be instant, and even if it was, it does not relate to how humans interact with each other and the world at large.

This so called discovery makes no sense.

You don’t understand that if the brain uses the eye to see the outside world, as a window, this means that the distance of the object is less important than the size and luminosity of the object. You are so convinced it makes no sense that you will not entertain the possibility that he could be right. I don’t think you read his reasoning as to why he came to this conclusion. Seeing in real time does not mean we don’t take what we see and interpret it by our brain, just as we would if the light waves traveled through space/time to reach our eye. Nothing changes in that respect.

No, that's not it. Physics excludes the possibility of instant vision, and human behaviour is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc.

He is not denying that human behavior is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc. All he is doing is showing that when the conditions of the environment change, and there is economic security and the absence of all authority and control (including government as we know it), the desire to strike a first blow of hurt, at the expense of others, will be eliminated.

That doesn't make sense. There is a gap between the object emitting or reflecting light and the eye that detects that light, which is distance of travel. Given that light has a finite speed, it takes time to travel between the light source and the eye.

That's simply how it works, physics, it's undeniable.

If the eyes were afferent, it would be violating physics because a gap would exist but if the eyes work like he described, there would be no gap. Light still travels at a finite speed but in this account, distance is not a factor. I hope you try to understand his observations and why he came to this conclusion. It didn’t come out of thin air. I reduced the book to $1.95. It would be worth your while to read it. Just put in Seymour Lessans in the search bar at Amazon, and Decline and Fall of All Evil will show up.

No, the eyes have nothing to do with the speed of light and the distance it takes to get from the source to the eye, which is not instant, and cannot be instant.

Light carries information about the source and cannot magically appear ''at the eye'' without travel time.

It's not about light magically appearing at the eye; the wavelength IS at the eye when we look at the object as long as the object is able to be seen due to its brightness and its size and location. Obviously, if it's outside of our field of view, we won't be able to see it; if it is not bright enough, we won't be able to see it; and if it's not large enough or too far away, we won't be able to see it. And, yes, if he is right, distance and time are not involved because light alone is not bringing the image or wavelength through millions of years to us, even though light travels at 186,000 miles a second.

Again you are incorrect.

Wavelength does not appear at the eye, photons appear at the eye.

I think you're nitpicking on purpose. Whether I call it a wavelength or a photon, you get the gist, so stop deflecting, no pun intended.

Yes, wavelengths of light from objects do strike the retina, allowing us to see those objects. When light waves from an object interact with the retina, some wavelengths are absorbed, while others are reflected. Our eyes detect these reflected wavelengths, and our brains interpret these signals as colors, enabling us to perceive the object.
biologyinsights.com

You realize what you quoted above totally contradicts real-time seeing?

No, I did not contradict anything. The same exact light waves react with the retina in real time vision. The same impulses connect the retina to the visual cortex through the optic nerve, but to then conclude that images from the past are what we see through transduction does not automatically follow even though it seems logical.

Not only does it take time for light to travel between its source and the eye, it takes time for the information to be converted to nerve impulses and transmitted to the brain for processing and representation in conscious form.

 

[peacegirl]

How is instant vision/light at the eye even supposed to work?

It takes time for light to get to the eye and be processed by the brain.
It can't be instant, and even if it was, it does not relate to how humans interact with each other and the world at large.

This so called discovery makes no sense.

You don’t understand that if the brain uses the eye to see the outside world, as a window, this means that the distance of the object is less important than the size and luminosity of the object. You are so convinced it makes no sense that you will not entertain the possibility that he could be right. I don’t think you read his reasoning as to why he came to this conclusion. Seeing in real time does not mean we don’t take what we see and interpret it by our brain, just as we would if the light waves traveled through space/time to reach our eye. Nothing changes in that respect.

No, that's not it. Physics excludes the possibility of instant vision, and human behaviour is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc.

You’re still not getting it. This does not violate physics. Light travels but if he's correct, and the eyes are efferent, not afferent, then the light from the object, regardless of how far away it is, is at the eye the second the object is seen, that is, if it is within the person's field of view. There is no gap between the light at the eye and the object seen, which would violate physics.

How is instant vision/light at the eye even supposed to work?

It takes time for light to get to the eye and be processed by the brain.
It can't be instant, and even if it was, it does not relate to how humans interact with each other and the world at large.

This so called discovery makes no sense.

You don’t understand that if the brain uses the eye to see the outside world, as a window, this means that the distance of the object is less important than the size and luminosity of the object. You are so convinced it makes no sense that you will not entertain the possibility that he could be right. I don’t think you read his reasoning as to why he came to this conclusion. Seeing in real time does not mean we don’t take what we see and interpret it by our brain, just as we would if the light waves traveled through space/time to reach our eye. Nothing changes in that respect.

No, that's not it. Physics excludes the possibility of instant vision, and human behaviour is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc.

He is not denying that human behavior is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc. All he is doing is showing that when the conditions of the environment change, and there is economic security and the absence of all authority and control (including government as we know it), the desire to strike a first blow of hurt, at the expense of others, will be eliminated.

That doesn't make sense. There is a gap between the object emitting or reflecting light and the eye that detects that light, which is distance of travel. Given that light has a finite speed, it takes time to travel between the light source and the eye.

That's simply how it works, physics, it's undeniable.

If the eyes were afferent, it would be violating physics because a gap would exist but if the eyes work like he described, there would be no gap. Light still travels at a finite speed but in this account, distance is not a factor. I hope you try to understand his observations and why he came to this conclusion. It didn’t come out of thin air. I reduced the book to $1.95. It would be worth your while to read it. Just put in Seymour Lessans in the search bar at Amazon, and Decline and Fall of All Evil will show up.

No, the eyes have nothing to do with the speed of light and the distance it takes to get from the source to the eye, which is not instant, and cannot be instant.

Light carries information about the source and cannot magically appear ''at the eye'' without travel time.

It's not about light magically appearing at the eye; the wavelength IS at the eye when we look at the object as long as the object is able to be seen due to its brightness and its size and location. Obviously, if it's outside of our field of view, we won't be able to see it; if it is not bright enough, we won't be able to see it; and if it's not large enough or too far away, we won't be able to see it. And, yes, if he is right, distance and time are not involved because light alone is not bringing the image or wavelength through millions of years to us, even though light travels at 186,000 miles a second.

Again you are incorrect.

Wavelength does not appear at the eye, photons appear at the eye.

I think you're nitpicking on purpose. Whether I call it a wavelength or a photon, you get the gist, so stop deflecting, no pun intended.

Yes, wavelengths of light from objects do strike the retina, allowing us to see those objects. When light waves from an object interact with the retina, some wavelengths are absorbed, while others are reflected. Our eyes detect these reflected wavelengths, and our brains interpret these signals as colors, enabling us to perceive the object.
biologyinsights.com

You realize what you quoted above totally contradicts real-time seeing?

No, I did not contradict anything. The same exact light waves react with the retina in real time vision. The same impulses connect the retina to the visual cortex through the optic nerve, but to then conclude that images from the past are what we see through transduction does not automatically follow even though it seems logical.

Not only does it take time for light to travel between its source and the eye, it takes time for the information to be converted to nerve impulses and transmitted to the brain for processing and representation in conscious form.

When scientists claimed we see in delayed time (the past), they were not referring to information to be converted through nerve impulses and transmitted to the brain for processing, and neither was Lessans. If you want to call that delayed time seeing, be my guest.

 

[DBT]

How is instant vision/light at the eye even supposed to work?

It takes time for light to get to the eye and be processed by the brain.
It can't be instant, and even if it was, it does not relate to how humans interact with each other and the world at large.

This so called discovery makes no sense.

You don’t understand that if the brain uses the eye to see the outside world, as a window, this means that the distance of the object is less important than the size and luminosity of the object. You are so convinced it makes no sense that you will not entertain the possibility that he could be right. I don’t think you read his reasoning as to why he came to this conclusion. Seeing in real time does not mean we don’t take what we see and interpret it by our brain, just as we would if the light waves traveled through space/time to reach our eye. Nothing changes in that respect.

No, that's not it. Physics excludes the possibility of instant vision, and human behaviour is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc.

You’re still not getting it. This does not violate physics. Light travels but if he's correct, and the eyes are efferent, not afferent, then the light from the object, regardless of how far away it is, is at the eye the second the object is seen, that is, if it is within the person's field of view. There is no gap between the light at the eye and the object seen, which would violate physics.

How is instant vision/light at the eye even supposed to work?

It takes time for light to get to the eye and be processed by the brain.
It can't be instant, and even if it was, it does not relate to how humans interact with each other and the world at large.

This so called discovery makes no sense.

You don’t understand that if the brain uses the eye to see the outside world, as a window, this means that the distance of the object is less important than the size and luminosity of the object. You are so convinced it makes no sense that you will not entertain the possibility that he could be right. I don’t think you read his reasoning as to why he came to this conclusion. Seeing in real time does not mean we don’t take what we see and interpret it by our brain, just as we would if the light waves traveled through space/time to reach our eye. Nothing changes in that respect.

No, that's not it. Physics excludes the possibility of instant vision, and human behaviour is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc.

He is not denying that human behavior is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc. All he is doing is showing that when the conditions of the environment change, and there is economic security and the absence of all authority and control (including government as we know it), the desire to strike a first blow of hurt, at the expense of others, will be eliminated.

That doesn't make sense. There is a gap between the object emitting or reflecting light and the eye that detects that light, which is distance of travel. Given that light has a finite speed, it takes time to travel between the light source and the eye.

That's simply how it works, physics, it's undeniable.

If the eyes were afferent, it would be violating physics because a gap would exist but if the eyes work like he described, there would be no gap. Light still travels at a finite speed but in this account, distance is not a factor. I hope you try to understand his observations and why he came to this conclusion. It didn’t come out of thin air. I reduced the book to $1.95. It would be worth your while to read it. Just put in Seymour Lessans in the search bar at Amazon, and Decline and Fall of All Evil will show up.

No, the eyes have nothing to do with the speed of light and the distance it takes to get from the source to the eye, which is not instant, and cannot be instant.

Light carries information about the source and cannot magically appear ''at the eye'' without travel time.

It's not about light magically appearing at the eye; the wavelength IS at the eye when we look at the object as long as the object is able to be seen due to its brightness and its size and location. Obviously, if it's outside of our field of view, we won't be able to see it; if it is not bright enough, we won't be able to see it; and if it's not large enough or too far away, we won't be able to see it. And, yes, if he is right, distance and time are not involved because light alone is not bringing the image or wavelength through millions of years to us, even though light travels at 186,000 miles a second.

Again you are incorrect.

Wavelength does not appear at the eye, photons appear at the eye.

I think you're nitpicking on purpose. Whether I call it a wavelength or a photon, you get the gist, so stop deflecting, no pun intended.

Yes, wavelengths of light from objects do strike the retina, allowing us to see those objects. When light waves from an object interact with the retina, some wavelengths are absorbed, while others are reflected. Our eyes detect these reflected wavelengths, and our brains interpret these signals as colors, enabling us to perceive the object.
biologyinsights.com

You realize what you quoted above totally contradicts real-time seeing?

No, I did not contradict anything. The same exact light waves react with the retina in real time vision. The same impulses connect the retina to the visual cortex through the optic nerve, but to then conclude that images from the past are what we see through transduction does not automatically follow even though it seems logical.

Not only does it take time for light to travel between its source and the eye, it takes time for the information to be converted to nerve impulses and transmitted to the brain for processing and representation in conscious form.

When scientists claim we see in delayed time (the past), they are not referring to information to be converted through nerve impulses and transmitted to the brain for processing, and neither is Lessans. If you want to call that delayed time seeing, be my guest.

Perception, thought and response is always after the event. It doesn't take long for light to get from the event to the eyes, but the travel time is there. It doesn't take long, milliseconds, for the information to be processed and represented in conscious form, but the delay is there, Libet, Haynes, et al.

 

[peacegirl]

But science is constantly evolving and should question their own theories when they are challenged with a competing proposition.

Did that. Asked the question. The answer was: "This 'competing proposition' is logically contradictory, makes no new predictions that have not been observed to be false, and has no redeeming features whatsoever.

After the question comes the answer. Then the question doesn't need to be asked again, unless a further, new, 'competing proposition' comes along.

You want the status quo to be questioned, but you refuse to accept the answer, because you don't like it. Reality doesn't care what you like. The question was asked. It was answered. You asked it again. It was answered again. You have nothing new; so why should anyone entertain the same stale question answered a thousand times, for a thousand and first time?

You don't get to keep accusing everyone of being closed-minded just because they reached a conclusion you hate. Your ideas have been given due consideration. And found to be stupid, nonsensical, self-contradictory claptrap, with no redeeming feature of any kind.

If you really want to review them yet again, feel free to re-read the last sentence of the preceeding paragraph as many times as it takes to sink in.

You don’t even know what his observations were. What gives you the right to be so condescending? Question: Why are you still here if you resent the author so much for making this claim? You don’t have to be the guardian to protect people who may accept this “claptrap.” People here are quite capable of protecting themselves. You’re like an annoying fly. Shoo!

 

[peacegirl]

How is instant vision/light at the eye even supposed to work?

It takes time for light to get to the eye and be processed by the brain.
It can't be instant, and even if it was, it does not relate to how humans interact with each other and the world at large.

This so called discovery makes no sense.

You don’t understand that if the brain uses the eye to see the outside world, as a window, this means that the distance of the object is less important than the size and luminosity of the object. You are so convinced it makes no sense that you will not entertain the possibility that he could be right. I don’t think you read his reasoning as to why he came to this conclusion. Seeing in real time does not mean we don’t take what we see and interpret it by our brain, just as we would if the light waves traveled through space/time to reach our eye. Nothing changes in that respect.

No, that's not it. Physics excludes the possibility of instant vision, and human behaviour is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc.

You’re still not getting it. This does not violate physics. Light travels but if he's correct, and the eyes are efferent, not afferent, then the light from the object, regardless of how far away it is, is at the eye the second the object is seen, that is, if it is within the person's field of view. There is no gap between the light at the eye and the object seen, which would violate physics.

How is instant vision/light at the eye even supposed to work?

It takes time for light to get to the eye and be processed by the brain.
It can't be instant, and even if it was, it does not relate to how humans interact with each other and the world at large.

This so called discovery makes no sense.

You don’t understand that if the brain uses the eye to see the outside world, as a window, this means that the distance of the object is less important than the size and luminosity of the object. You are so convinced it makes no sense that you will not entertain the possibility that he could be right. I don’t think you read his reasoning as to why he came to this conclusion. Seeing in real time does not mean we don’t take what we see and interpret it by our brain, just as we would if the light waves traveled through space/time to reach our eye. Nothing changes in that respect.

No, that's not it. Physics excludes the possibility of instant vision, and human behaviour is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc.

He is not denying that human behavior is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc. All he is doing is showing that when the conditions of the environment change, and there is economic security and the absence of all authority and control (including government as we know it), the desire to strike a first blow of hurt, at the expense of others, will be eliminated.

That doesn't make sense. There is a gap between the object emitting or reflecting light and the eye that detects that light, which is distance of travel. Given that light has a finite speed, it takes time to travel between the light source and the eye.

That's simply how it works, physics, it's undeniable.

If the eyes were afferent, it would be violating physics because a gap would exist but if the eyes work like he described, there would be no gap. Light still travels at a finite speed but in this account, distance is not a factor. I hope you try to understand his observations and why he came to this conclusion. It didn’t come out of thin air. I reduced the book to $1.95. It would be worth your while to read it. Just put in Seymour Lessans in the search bar at Amazon, and Decline and Fall of All Evil will show up.

No, the eyes have nothing to do with the speed of light and the distance it takes to get from the source to the eye, which is not instant, and cannot be instant.

Light carries information about the source and cannot magically appear ''at the eye'' without travel time.

It's not about light magically appearing at the eye; the wavelength IS at the eye when we look at the object as long as the object is able to be seen due to its brightness and its size and location. Obviously, if it's outside of our field of view, we won't be able to see it; if it is not bright enough, we won't be able to see it; and if it's not large enough or too far away, we won't be able to see it. And, yes, if he is right, distance and time are not involved because light alone is not bringing the image or wavelength through millions of years to us, even though light travels at 186,000 miles a second.

Again you are incorrect.

Wavelength does not appear at the eye, photons appear at the eye.

I think you're nitpicking on purpose. Whether I call it a wavelength or a photon, you get the gist, so stop deflecting, no pun intended.

Yes, wavelengths of light from objects do strike the retina, allowing us to see those objects. When light waves from an object interact with the retina, some wavelengths are absorbed, while others are reflected. Our eyes detect these reflected wavelengths, and our brains interpret these signals as colors, enabling us to perceive the object.
biologyinsights.com

You realize what you quoted above totally contradicts real-time seeing?

No, I did not contradict anything. The same exact light waves react with the retina in real time vision. The same impulses connect the retina to the visual cortex through the optic nerve, but to then conclude that images from the past are what we see through transduction does not automatically follow even though it seems logical.

Not only does it take time for light to travel between its source and the eye, it takes time for the information to be converted to nerve impulses and transmitted to the brain for processing and representation in conscious form.

When scientists claim we see in delayed time (the past), they are not referring to information to be converted through nerve impulses and transmitted to the brain for processing, and neither is Lessans. If you want to call that delayed time seeing, be my guest.

Perception, thought and response is always after the event. It doesn't take long for light to get from the event to the eyes, but the travel time is there. It doesn't take long, milliseconds, for the information to be processed and represented in conscious form, but the delay is there, Libet, Haynes, et al.

Again, if you want to call that delayed time vision, we are not on the same page. Processing the info is not what scientists are referring to when it comes to seeing in delayed time, and hence, the past.

 

[DBT]

It's not so much ''delayed time,'' but the time the light takes to travel from its source to the eye, the eyes to transmit information to the brain and the brain to process and act on that information.

A process that is not instant at any stage.

 

[peacegirl]

It's not so much ''delayed time,'' but the time the light takes to travel from its source to the eye, the eyes to transmit information to the brain and the brain to process and act on that information.

A process that is not instant at any stage.

Processing of information is not what he was referring to when he claimed we see in real time. Nothing changes in how we process the information. Call it delayed if it suits you.

 

[DBT]

It's not so much ''delayed time,'' but the time the light takes to travel from its source to the eye, the eyes to transmit information to the brain and the brain to process and act on that information.

A process that is not instant at any stage.

Processing of information is not what he was referring to when he claimed we see in real time. Nothing changes in how we process the information. Call it delayed if it suits you.

What we see is not instant. Light is not instant. Light is not instantly at the eye, that is the point.

 

[pood]

But science is constantly evolving and should question their own theories when they are challenged with a competing proposition.

Did that. Asked the question. The answer was: "This 'competing proposition' is logically contradictory, makes no new predictions that have not been observed to be false, and has no redeeming features whatsoever.

After the question comes the answer. Then the question doesn't need to be asked again, unless a further, new, 'competing proposition' comes along.

You want the status quo to be questioned, but you refuse to accept the answer, because you don't like it. Reality doesn't care what you like. The question was asked. It was answered. You asked it again. It was answered again. You have nothing new; so why should anyone entertain the same stale question answered a thousand times, for a thousand and first time?

You don't get to keep accusing everyone of being closed-minded just because they reached a conclusion you hate. Your ideas have been given due consideration. And found to be stupid, nonsensical, self-contradictory claptrap, with no redeeming feature of any kind.

If you really want to review them yet again, feel free to re-read the last sentence of the preceeding paragraph as many times as it takes to sink in.

You don’t even know what his observations were. What gives you the right to be so condescending? Question: Why are you still here if you resent the author so much for making this claim? You don’t have to be the guardian to protect people who may accept this “claptrap.” People here are quite capable of protecting themselves. You’re like an annoying fly. Shoo!

Nobody resents the author. We are just pointing out that what he wrote is claptrap.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacgirl

You keep coming back to a zero time delay.

Every day in electronics the speed of electromagnetic waves in slower mediums than space are measured, it i routine.

Keep in mid visible light is only a small fraction of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Radio waves are 'light', with different frequencies/wavelengths.

In common usage light can refer to the entire spectrum with visible spectrum boning specif.

Radio and TV station transitions are the same phenomena as visible light. So your idea would have to apply to radio and TV receivers. And your cell phones.

Electromagnetic spectrum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The electromagnetic spectrum is the full range of electromagnetic radiation, organized by frequency or wavelength. The spectrum is divided into separate bands, with different names for the electromagnetic waves within each band. From low to high frequency these are: radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays. The electromagnetic waves in each of these bands have different characteristics, such as how they are produced, how they interact with matter, and their practical applications.

A fundamental principle is that nothing propagates faster than the speed of light. Maybe some day, as of today there is no known way to get around that limit.

When you say zero delay you violate C.

Yes science questions and evolves. Some theories can be demonstrated and succeed, others do not.

As to light in the 19th century there were competing theories to explain electric and magnetic phenomena. Maxwell put it all together and succeeded. He predicted how light would propagate and C the speed of light as a constant. Eventually as technology evolved his theory was demonstrated. The rsult all the electronic technology we have today.

I see no way to take your father's thought experiment to actual physical testing.

It is not jut science when an engineer designs something it has to be testable.

Theories about airplane wings and lift had to be tested.

 

[peacegirl]

It's not so much ''delayed time,'' but the time the light takes to travel from its source to the eye, the eyes to transmit information to the brain and the brain to process and act on that information.

A process that is not instant at any stage.

Processing of information is not what he was referring to when he claimed we see in real time. Nothing changes in how we process the information. Call it delayed if it suits you.

What we see is not instant. Light is not instant. Light is not instantly at the eye, that is the point.

You still don't get why efferent vision changes the direction. I do understand the dilemma, but this back and forth is a waste of time. If you can't even entertain the possibility that we see in real time (for argument's sake if nothing else) even though all other brain processes remain the same, this is not going to get us anywhere. Let's agree to disagree because that's the easiest way out for both of us.

 

[pood]

It's not so much ''delayed time,'' but the time the light takes to travel from its source to the eye, the eyes to transmit information to the brain and the brain to process and act on that information.

A process that is not instant at any stage.

Processing of information is not what he was referring to when he claimed we see in real time. Nothing changes in how we process the information. Call it delayed if it suits you.

What we see is not instant. Light is not instant. Light is not instantly at the eye, that is the point.

You still don't get why efferent vision changes the direction. I understand but this back and forth is wasteful. If you can't entertain the possibility that we see in real time even though all other processes remain the same, this is not going to get us anywhere. Let's agree to disagree because that's the easiest way out for both of us.

It is not a possibility. It is logically impossible.