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

[peacegirl]

However the question are answer, it i an impractical ideology that ignores human nature.

Marx is considered on of the greatest social scientist of all time. He acuratly described and modeled the social, political and economic system as it was then.

Capitalism today i not what it was. Marx could not have seen the rise of modern liberal democracy.

Mark predicted a spontaneous global uprising, and it never happened, Trotsky wrote that as people not willingly adopting the ideology they had to forced to conform. Such is the way of such ideologies.

'My ideology will save the world' is not exactly new. It i what Trump says about himself, he knows better than anyone else, his words.

I do not have to read the book to have an idea of what is in it, I have read it all before.

The west is not what it was 1900 what it was in 1800. The west is certainly not what it was today as it was 50 years ago. It evolves.

Yes it does, and this knowledge is part of our evolution.

A fixed ideology will never work, humans just do not fit in a box.

This is not about humans fitting in a box. It is about freeing humans from the box.

Today the left is moving toward socialism and polls indicate younger people are heading that way. We see it in the NYC and Seattle mayoral race. Both have extreme socialist candidate.

Forced narrow ideologies all become oppressive however well intentioned.

They do, but this is not an ideology. It doesn't tell anyone how to live or what to do. How can it be when there will be no dictators or kings or government as we know it?

Marx was right when he said the revolution never ends. There is always dynamic conflict and tension between groups.

I think I will write a book 'I will save the world' all you have to do is follow what I say.

You sound very jaded. This was not his ideology. This was an observation about the nature of man. He proved man's will is not free and what it means for our benefit. If you are that skeptical, then by all means enjoy your golden years without worrying about what's to come.

Introduction

Unfortunately, those endeavoring to correct our ills appear to be cutting off the heads of a diseased hydra; the more psychiatrists we graduate, the greater becomes our mental illness; the more policemen and moralists we have, the greater and more prevalent become our crimes; the more diplomats, statesmen, generals, and armies we have, the greater and more destructive become our wars. And as an expedient to the situation, we find ourselves being taxed to death while our cost of living steadily rises. Wouldn’t you like to see an end to all this? Therefore, before I begin, I would like to ask you the following questions: Do you prefer war or peace, unhappiness or happiness, insecurity or security, sickness or health? Do you prefer losing the one you have fallen in love with or winning and living happily ever after? Since I know that happiness is preferable to unhappiness and health to sickness, I shall now begin a revelation of knowledge that no one will be able to deny, provided the relations are understood. While the moral code, the Ten Commandments, our standards of right and wrong will be completely extirpated, all premarital relations, adultery and divorce will be a thing of the past, changing the entire landscape of family relationships. Where did you ever hear anything so fantastic or paradoxical? And aren’t you jumping to the conclusion that this is against all human nature? If all the people in the world who get displaced because their services are no longer needed were to know as a matter of undeniable knowledge that the income necessary to sustain their standard of living, whatever the cost, would never be stopped as long as they live, would they have any reason to complain about someone showing them a better way — the only way to accomplish that for which they are getting paid? Although they and others will be dissatisfied to learn the truth when it deprives them of personal fulfillment, they are compelled to be silent because to utter any words of protest would simply expose an illusion of knowledge, which Stephen Hawking claimed “is the greatest enemy.” I shall now set sail on a voyage that will perform this virtual miracle by igniting a chain reaction of thought that will explode across the planet and destroy with its fallout every conceivable kind of hurt that exists among human relations, never to return. It is now within our power to reach that mountaintop — the Golden Age of man — that we have all hoped and dreamed would one day become a reality.

 

[pood]

Peacegirl wants us to read a 600-page book, but she can’t read a short article about the Webb telescope that disproves her fantasies of light and sight.

 

[bilby]

that does not mean you should you ignore the fact that this knowledge is just as scientific --- or equivalent --- as any mathematical equation.

Oh, I agree. It's exactly as scientific as a mathematical equation, at least insofar as mathematics is not science, and nor is whatever the fuck this is supposed to be.

You are still conflating science with religion. You seem to have the idea that science is just another set of arcane and inexplicable rules, recorded in big books of incomprehensible symbols (called 'mathematics'), interpreted by a priestly class who jealously guard membership and reserve it to the most faithful.

I have explained before why such a gross misunderstanding is quite common; And I have also explained in the same post why and how it is wrong.

If you insist on trying to frame your struggle as a religious struggle, then we are forced to conclude that your position is a religious position - you want us to subscribe to your utter bullshit, and not to anyone else's utter bullshit. This approach is doomed, on an atheist discussion board.

If you want, instead, to have your position considered to be scientific, then you have to accept it's being analyzed scientifically. You have to present it in a logical and structured way, that makes clear the testable hypotheses on which it is based, allowing others to test those hypotheses against reality.

And you have to accept the results of those tests, and abandon your claims if they are shown, by reality, to be incorrect.

Faith is a virtue in religion, but in science it is a vice.

 

[bilby]

We are now chimps?

Yes, humans are one of the three species of chimpanzee.

Did you not know that?

 

[pood]

In the bewildering number of supplements commercials on TV one hears 'the science is overwhelming ', 'scientifically proven', 'a scientific breakthrough' and o on.

'The science says..' has become cliche.

I suppose that goes back a ways in human history.

It is extremely annoying. Although I do like how the law compels the narrator to list all the ways the wonder drug they are peddling might kill you,

 

[DBT]

It's not a matter of what people like or dislike, but what is true and factual.

Obviously!

So why not consider the fact that light has a given speed, consequently, it takes time to travel from the light source to the eye, which in turn makes light at the eye/instant vision impossible.

 

[steve_bank]

She does acknowledge it. But then she says the book's idea on seeing does not conflict with science.

And then she says we just do';t get it.

Maybe we should not be too hard on her, this is probably what keeps her going.

 

[DBT]

She does acknowledge it. But then she says the book's idea on seeing does not conflict with science.

And then she says we just do';t get it.

Maybe we should not be too hard on her, this is probably what keeps her going.

That's probably true, so why would someone put themselves and their cherished beliefs through the mill? Especially when it's clear that it's never going to be accepted.

A strong belief, even in the face of evidence against it, that it can transform the world?

 

[bilby]

It seems that there are two competing models here.

In model A, light is generated at the Sun, in the form of photons. These photons travel at c (299792458m/s) away from the Sun, and some of them arrive at the Earth, some eight and a half minutes later. A fraction of those might impinge upon the light sensitive chemicals in the retina, causing a photochemical reaction that initiates an ion cascade in the optic nerve. That cascade propogates along the nerve to the brain, at about 100m/s, arriving in the brain after about a millisecond; The brain interprets these signals, and forms the qualia we call "seeing the Sun".

In model B, light is generated at the Sun, which is so large and so luminous that we form the qualia we call "seeing the Sun" instantly. However, the objects around us on Earth still have to wait for eight and a half minutes for the photons to arrive, and be reflected from them into our eyes, before we can see them.

The main question this raises, is fairly simple; What is the mechanism by which large luminous objects are detected instantly? It isn't the transmission of photons; They take time to arrive. So what is it? How large, and how luminous, must an object be to meet this criterion for instant seeing? Does the proposed mechanism also give an insight into the reason for, and magnitude of, these thresholds?

The answer given so far is that "the wavength is at the eye", which is not so much an explanation of the mechanism, as it is a restatement of the problem - how did that "wavelength" get there? And what is a "wavelength" in this context? Photons have a wavelength (also known as a "colour", or "color" in the US), but photons are not "at the eye" until they arrive, which we already know will take eight minutes.

The problem with model B is that it raises a whole bunch of unanswered questions, while not answering any questions at all. And it also predicts some interesting things which we should be able to exploit.

The implications of faster than light transmission of information are immense. They would effectively allow us to communicate with the future, and the consequences of that are huge. I recommend Asimov's 1948 paper on The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline, which describes a chemical process that achieves this information transmission, and his subsequent papers published between 1953 and 1973 that explore the implications and practical applications of such a process.

In short, these implications are so profound that it is inconceivable that there would not be very clear evidence observable in reality, were these to exist. Indeed, the military applications alone would ensure that any such capability would be ruthlessly exploited.

Yet no evidence whatsoever exists for this effect. If it did, @peacegirl would be able to suggest an experiment or observation that anyone could repeat to convince themselves of the existence of this effect.

 

[steve_bank]

Christianity, 2000 years and counting.

Islam, Christianity, ad Judaism are major forces in the world. Any competing ideology not based in that will have a hard time taking root.

My favorite example is Pete Buttigieg. Despite the harsh punishment for gays in Leviticus and the historic suppression of gays by Christians he is a gay man who says he is a Christian conservative. Traditional Christian valuse.

He is well educated and worked in militray intelligence. A logical reasoned man.

But when it comes to beliefs logic and reason appear to have little to do with it,

Here in the USA anything that seems like communism will be rejected. My guess is Marx is buried somewhere in nthe book, at least as an influence.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl wants us to read a 600-page book, but she can’t read a short article about the Webb telescope that disproves her fantasies of light and sight.

I don't see where red shift proves that the past is being observed. The premises regarding an expanding universe and stretching wavelengths are theoretical even if they are taken for granted to be true by mainstream science. The Webb telescope is able to gather infrared light (which is amazing, btw) but this does not prove that what scientists are seeing is millions of lightyears in the past. Their reasoning may be valid but the conclusion may not be as sound as they think. I am not trying to be recalcitrant. I am just trying to understand where there is proof vs theory. It does matter when it comes to interpretation of the data.

 

[peacegirl]

that does not mean you should you ignore the fact that this knowledge is just as scientific --- or equivalent --- as any mathematical equation.

Oh, I agree. It's exactly as scientific as a mathematical equation, at least insofar as mathematics is not science, and nor is whatever the fuck this is supposed to be.

You are still conflating science with religion. You seem to have the idea that science is just another set of arcane and inexplicable rules, recorded in big books of incomprehensible symbols (called 'mathematics'), interpreted by a priestly class who jealously guard membership and reserve it to the most faithful.

There is no conflating religions with science. You're wrong again bilby.

I have explained before why such a gross misunderstanding is quite common; And I have also explained in the same post why and how it is wrong.

Your explanation doesn't fly.

If you insist on trying to frame your struggle as a religious struggle, then we are forced to conclude that your position is a religious position - you want us to subscribe to your utter bullshit, and not to anyone else's utter bullshit. This approach is doomed, on an atheist discussion board.

If you want, instead, to have your position considered to be scientific, then you have to accept it's being analyzed scientifically. You have to present it in a logical and structured way, that makes clear the testable hypotheses on which it is based, allowing others to test those hypotheses against reality.

And you have to accept the results of those tests, and abandon your claims if they are shown, by reality, to be incorrect.

Faith is a virtue in religion, but in science it is a vice.

The great humor is that religion is founded on faith in God, and the moment we discover that God is an undeniable reality by delivering us from all evil, faith is no more necessary, just as it is impossible to have any more faith that the world is round because we know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that it is. As I stated before, the clergy will be completely displaced.

Have you any conception of the enormous wisdom that governs this universe? Is it possible for you not to desire this kind of world?

 

[peacegirl]

It seems that there are two competing models here.

In model A, light is generated at the Sun, in the form of photons. These photons travel at c (299792458m/s) away from the Sun, and some of them arrive at the Earth, some eight and a half minutes later. A fraction of those might impinge upon the light sensitive chemicals in the retina, causing a photochemical reaction that initiates an ion cascade in the optic nerve. That cascade propogates along the nerve to the brain, at about 100m/s, arriving in the brain after about a millisecond; The brain interprets these signals, and forms the qualia we call "seeing the Sun".

No argument here. He gave a hypothetical example that distinguished between seeing each other after 8.5 minutes and seeing the Sun turned on instantly before we could see each other. And he gave reasons for this.

In model B, light is generated at the Sun, which is so large and so luminous that we form the qualia we call "seeing the Sun" instantly. However, the objects around us on Earth still have to wait for eight and a half minutes for the photons to arrive, and be reflected from them into our eyes, before we can see them.

Yes, that is true. He brought this up to show why this would occur. It is hypothetical because the light from the Sun is already here, and when night comes, it's not like the Sun is turned again. It's just on another side of the Earth as it spins.

The main question this raises, is fairly simple; What is the mechanism by which large luminous objects are detected instantly? It isn't the transmission of photons; They take time to arrive. So what is it? How large, and how luminous, must an object be to meet this criterion for instant seeing? Does the proposed mechanism also give an insight into the reason for, and magnitude of, these thresholds?

I'm not sure what you mean by "mechanism". Large luminous objects are detected instantly only if it is true that we are looking at the real object itself, not the image. If he is right, and we see the real deal (i.e., the object or event), not the image arriving, the object's wavelength would automatically be at the eye or we wouldn't see the object. Light is a necessary condition for sight but to conclude that it carries the "image" (or wavelength) to us, is erroneous. The reason he believed we are seeing in real time was due to how the brain and eyes work in relation to language. His reasoning was not from within the field of astronomy, which may allow us to see a situation from a different perspective.

The answer given so far is that "the wavength is at the eye", which is not so much an explanation of the mechanism, as it is a restatement of the problem - how did that "wavelength" get there? And what is a "wavelength" in this context? Photons have a wavelength (also known as a "colour", or "color" in the US), but photons are not "at the eye" until they arrive, which we already know will take eight minutes.

The wavelength at the eye would be there whether it was from delayed vision or instant vision. You say that photons are not "at the eye" until they arrive, but this is not true since there is no arrival or travel time in real time vision. This is all due, once again, to how the eyes work as they begin to focus (in infancy) due to the desire to see as a result of input from the other senses. It has been taken for granted that these photons travel and finally arrive, which is logical, and are then chemically transduced to form an image in the visual cortex that we call sight. It is also true that there is a vital connection between the optic nerve and the brain (for without this connection we would be blind), but this does not rule out seeing the world as it is, not as it was. When scientists talk about seeing the past, they are not referring to the processing time of approximately a millisecond. This is not what is under debate.

The problem with model B is that it raises a whole bunch of unanswered questions, while not answering any questions at all. And it also predicts some interesting things which we should be able to exploit.

The implications of faster than light transmission of information are immense. They would effectively allow us to communicate with the future, and the consequences of that are huge. I recommend Asimov's 1948 paper on The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline, which describes a chemical process that achieves this information transmission, and his subsequent papers published between 1953 and 1973 that explore the implications and practical applications of such a process.

The claim of seeing in real time (or seeing what exists in the present) has nothing to do with faster than light transmission because it has nothing to do with travel time AT ALL. If it did, then the idea that faster than light transmission would be the only reasonable way for an image to get to the eye "instantly." Even then, it would be difficult to imagine.

In short, these implications are so profound that it is inconceivable that there would not be very clear evidence observable in reality, were these to exist. Indeed, the military applications alone would ensure that any such capability would be ruthlessly exploited.

It would, but at this point it sounds like science-fiction and has nothing to do with this claim in particular.

Yet no evidence whatsoever exists for this effect. If it did, @peacegirl would be able to suggest an experiment or observation that anyone could repeat to convince themselves of the existence of this effect.

I hope you will read his demonstration, which does give you some idea as to his observations. He said that light travels; what he disagreed with is that the light waves bounce off of the object and travel through space/time. That is where his claim of efferent vision, where the brain looks through the eyes as a window, needs further exploration. To repeat: this does not leave any gaps between the object seen and the object's wavelength that has to be at the retina. It's not magic.

 

[steve_bank]

She does acknowledge it. But then she says the book's idea on seeing does not conflict with science.

And then she says we just do';t get it.

Maybe we should not be too hard on her, this is probably what keeps her going.

That's probably true, so why would someone put themselves and their cherished beliefs through the mill? Especially when it's clear that it's never going to be accepted.

A strong belief, even in the face of evidence against it, that it can transform the world?

Why? The martyr complex. Chrsitans do it all time.

X is out to get us, X being the boogeymen an of the day.

 

[peacegirl]

She does acknowledge it. But then she says the book's idea on seeing does not conflict with science.

And then she says we just do';t get it.

It conflicts with the conclusion science comes to. It doesn't conflict with science itself. You definitely don't get it.

Maybe we should not be too hard on her, this is probably what keeps her going.

That's probably true, so why would someone put themselves and their cherished beliefs through the mill? Especially when it's clear that it's never going to be accepted.

You don't know that.

A strong belief, even in the face of evidence against it, that it can transform the world?

It's not a belief, that's why. I
Why? The martyr complex. Chrsitans do it all time.

X is out to get us, X being the boogeymen an of the day.

I'm not a martyr.

 

[pood]

It seems that there are two competing models here.

In model A, light is generated at the Sun, in the form of photons. These photons travel at c (299792458m/s) away from the Sun, and some of them arrive at the Earth, some eight and a half minutes later. A fraction of those might impinge upon the light sensitive chemicals in the retina, causing a photochemical reaction that initiates an ion cascade in the optic nerve. That cascade propogates along the nerve to the brain, at about 100m/s, arriving in the brain after about a millisecond; The brain interprets these signals, and forms the qualia we call "seeing the Sun".

No argument here. He gave a hypothetical example that distinguished between seeing each other after 8.5 minutes and seeing the Sun turned on instantly before we could see each other. And he gave reasons for this.

In model B, light is generated at the Sun, which is so large and so luminous that we form the qualia we call "seeing the Sun" instantly. However, the objects around us on Earth still have to wait for eight and a half minutes for the photons to arrive, and be reflected from them into our eyes, before we can see them.

Yes, that is true. He brought this up to show why this would occur. It is hypothetical because the light from the Sun is already here, and when night comes, it's not like the Sun is turned again. It's just on another side of the Earth as it spins.

The main question this raises, is fairly simple; What is the mechanism by which large luminous objects are detected instantly? It isn't the transmission of photons; They take time to arrive. So what is it? How large, and how luminous, must an object be to meet this criterion for instant seeing? Does the proposed mechanism also give an insight into the reason for, and magnitude of, these thresholds?

I'm not sure what you mean by "mechanism". Large luminous objects are detected instantly only if it is true that we are looking at the real object itself, not the image. If he is right, and we see the real deal (i.e., the object or event), not the image arriving, the object's wavelength would automatically be at the eye or we wouldn't see the object. Light is a necessary condition for sight but to conclude that it carries the "image" (or wavelength) to us, is erroneous. The reason he believed we are seeing in real time was due to how the brain and eyes work in relation to language. His reasoning was not from within the field of astronomy, which may allow us to see a situation from a different perspective.

The answer given so far is that "the wavength is at the eye", which is not so much an explanation of the mechanism, as it is a restatement of the problem - how did that "wavelength" get there? And what is a "wavelength" in this context? Photons have a wavelength (also known as a "colour", or "color" in the US), but photons are not "at the eye" until they arrive, which we already know will take eight minutes.

The wavelength at the eye would be there whether it was from delayed vision or instant vision. You say that photons are not "at the eye" until they arrive, but this is not true since there is no arrival or travel time in real time vision. This is all due, once again, to how the eyes work as they begin to focus (in infancy) due to the desire to see as a result of input from the other senses. It has been taken for granted that these photons travel and finally arrive, which is logical, and are then chemically transduced to form an image in the visual cortex that we call sight. It is also true that there is a vital connection between the optic nerve and the brain (for without this connection we would be blind), but this does not rule out seeing the world as it is, not as it was. When scientists talk about seeing the past, they are not referring to the processing time of approximately a millisecond. This is not what is under debate.

The problem with model B is that it raises a whole bunch of unanswered questions, while not answering any questions at all. And it also predicts some interesting things which we should be able to exploit.

The implications of faster than light transmission of information are immense. They would effectively allow us to communicate with the future, and the consequences of that are huge. I recommend Asimov's 1948 paper on The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline, which describes a chemical process that achieves this information transmission, and his subsequent papers published between 1953 and 1973 that explore the implications and practical applications of such a process.

The claim of seeing in real time (or seeing what exists in the present) has nothing to do with faster than light transmission because it has nothing to do with travel time AT ALL. If it did, then the idea that faster than light transmission would be the only reasonable way for an image to get to the eye "instantly." Even then, it would be difficult to imagine.

In short, these implications are so profound that it is inconceivable that there would not be very clear evidence observable in reality, were these to exist. Indeed, the military applications alone would ensure that any such capability would be ruthlessly exploited.

It would, but at this point it sounds like science-fiction and has nothing to do with this claim in particular.

Yet no evidence whatsoever exists for this effect. If it did, @peacegirl would be able to suggest an experiment or observation that anyone could repeat to convince themselves of the existence of this effect.

I hope you will read his demonstration, which does give you some idea as to his observations. He said that light travels; what he disagreed with is that the light waves bounce off of the object and travel through space/time. That is where his claim of efferent vision, where the brain looks through the eyes as a window, needs further exploration. To repeat: this does not leave any gaps between the object seen and the object's wavelength that has to be at the retina. It's not magic.

Make sense now, bilby?

 

[WAB]

It seems that there are two competing models here.

In model A, light is generated at the Sun, in the form of photons. These photons travel at c (299792458m/s) away from the Sun, and some of them arrive at the Earth, some eight and a half minutes later. A fraction of those might impinge upon the light sensitive chemicals in the retina, causing a photochemical reaction that initiates an ion cascade in the optic nerve. That cascade propogates along the nerve to the brain, at about 100m/s, arriving in the brain after about a millisecond; The brain interprets these signals, and forms the qualia we call "seeing the Sun".

No argument here. He gave a hypothetical example that distinguished between seeing each other after 8.5 minutes and seeing the Sun turned on instantly before we could see each other. And he gave reasons for this.

In model B, light is generated at the Sun, which is so large and so luminous that we form the qualia we call "seeing the Sun" instantly. However, the objects around us on Earth still have to wait for eight and a half minutes for the photons to arrive, and be reflected from them into our eyes, before we can see them.

Yes, that is true. He brought this up to show why this would occur. It is hypothetical because the light from the Sun is already here, and when night comes, it's not like the Sun is turned again. It's just on another side of the Earth as it spins.

The main question this raises, is fairly simple; What is the mechanism by which large luminous objects are detected instantly? It isn't the transmission of photons; They take time to arrive. So what is it? How large, and how luminous, must an object be to meet this criterion for instant seeing? Does the proposed mechanism also give an insight into the reason for, and magnitude of, these thresholds?

I'm not sure what you mean by "mechanism". Large luminous objects are detected instantly only if it is true that we are looking at the real object itself, not the image. If he is right, and we see the real deal (i.e., the object or event), not the image arriving, the object's wavelength would automatically be at the eye or we wouldn't see the object. Light is a necessary condition for sight but to conclude that it carries the "image" (or wavelength) to us, is erroneous. The reason he believed we are seeing in real time was due to how the brain and eyes work in relation to language. His reasoning was not from within the field of astronomy, which may allow us to see a situation from a different perspective.

The answer given so far is that "the wavength is at the eye", which is not so much an explanation of the mechanism, as it is a restatement of the problem - how did that "wavelength" get there? And what is a "wavelength" in this context? Photons have a wavelength (also known as a "colour", or "color" in the US), but photons are not "at the eye" until they arrive, which we already know will take eight minutes.

The wavelength at the eye would be there whether it was from delayed vision or instant vision. You say that photons are not "at the eye" until they arrive, but this is not true since there is no arrival or travel time in real time vision. This is all due, once again, to how the eyes work as they begin to focus (in infancy) due to the desire to see as a result of input from the other senses. It has been taken for granted that these photons travel and finally arrive, which is logical, and are then chemically transduced to form an image in the visual cortex that we call sight. It is also true that there is a vital connection between the optic nerve and the brain (for without this connection we would be blind), but this does not rule out seeing the world as it is, not as it was. When scientists talk about seeing the past, they are not referring to the processing time of approximately a millisecond. This is not what is under debate.

The problem with model B is that it raises a whole bunch of unanswered questions, while not answering any questions at all. And it also predicts some interesting things which we should be able to exploit.

The implications of faster than light transmission of information are immense. They would effectively allow us to communicate with the future, and the consequences of that are huge. I recommend Asimov's 1948 paper on The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline, which describes a chemical process that achieves this information transmission, and his subsequent papers published between 1953 and 1973 that explore the implications and practical applications of such a process.

The claim of seeing in real time (or seeing what exists in the present) has nothing to do with faster than light transmission because it has nothing to do with travel time AT ALL. If it did, then the idea that faster than light transmission would be the only reasonable way for an image to get to the eye "instantly." Even then, it would be difficult to imagine.

In short, these implications are so profound that it is inconceivable that there would not be very clear evidence observable in reality, were these to exist. Indeed, the military applications alone would ensure that any such capability would be ruthlessly exploited.

It would, but at this point it sounds like science-fiction and has nothing to do with this claim in particular.

Yet no evidence whatsoever exists for this effect. If it did, @peacegirl would be able to suggest an experiment or observation that anyone could repeat to convince themselves of the existence of this effect.

I hope you will read his demonstration, which does give you some idea as to his observations. He said that light travels; what he disagreed with is that the light waves bounce off of the object and travel through space/time. That is where his claim of efferent vision, where the brain looks through the eyes as a window, needs further exploration. To repeat: this does not leave any gaps between the object seen and the object's wavelength that has to be at the retina. It's not magic.

Make sense now, bilby?

Egads.

I hear Bugs Bilby saying, "M'yeahhh... She don't know me vewy well, do she?"

 

[steve_bank]

I'm not sure what you mean by "mechanism". Large luminous objects are detected instantly only if it is true that we are looking at the real object itself, not the image.

Huh? A dialect of Gibberish I am unfamiliar with.

What would an unreal object be? The thing about science is it cuts trough semkantics.

Light comprised of photon bonces off an object ,pass trough the eye lenns, get focused on the retina, photon converted to electron by the photoreceptors, and so o0n.

In geometric optics image formation is done by tracing straight l lines through a lens, ray tracing..

Light is reflecting off a painting you are looking at. At each point on the painting draw a straight line to the lens. The ray is bent by the lens trough refraction and hits a spot on the retina. The image is formed.

There is nothing instantaneous.

Optics software traces thousand of rays. There are free ray tracers online.

Semantics. In physics we do not see the object directly as it really may be, we se light reflected off an object. There is nothing else.

And that leads to the age old question, what s reality? Is our vision perception of reality? All deepnds on how you you define relativity.

 

[peacegirl]

I'm not sure what you mean by "mechanism". Large luminous objects are detected instantly only if it is true that we are looking at the real object itself, not the image.

Huh? A dialect of Gibberish I am unfamiliar with.

It's not gibberish; you just don't get it. Luminous only means bright enough to be seen. If something is too far away or too small, whether we are using a telescope, a camera, or the naked eye, we would not see it in either model of sight.

Light comprised of photon bonces off an object ,pass trough the eye lenns, get focused on the retina, photon converted to electron by the photoreceptors, and so o0n.

In geometric optics image formation is done by tracing straight l lines through a lens, ray tracing..

Light is reflecting off a painting you are looking at. At each point on the painting draw a straight line to the lens. The ray is bent by the lens trough refraction and hits a spot on the retina. The image is formed.

There is nothing instantaneous.

Optics software traces thousand of rays. There are free ray tracers online.

None of what you're saying is wrong. The only difference is how the brain and eyes work, not how light works.

Semantics. In physics we do not see the object directly as it really may be, we se light reflected off an object. There is nothing else.

That's what is being challenged. You are just regurgitating the same thing. According to Lessans, we see the object directly when we look at it. Science says we are not seeing the object directly; we are seeing the image. That is incorrect... if he's right. I say "if he is right" because I don't want people to get pissed, not that I doubt that he is right.

And that leads to the age old question, what s reality? Is our vision perception of reality? All deepnds on how you you define relativity.

We see the external world with our eyes, but how we perceive what we see is a different story.

 

[steve_bank]

Seriously Peacegirl. scientifically and philosophically gibberish.

gibberish
unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense.
"he talks gibberish"

If you want to challenge the models of how the eyes and brain works you have to refute electromagnetics, quantum mechanics, and neuroscience. Nervous system and the brain are well mapped in by MRI.

The speech and vision centers in the brain are known.

A few years ago I had an MRI to look at my optic nerves trying to diagnose a vision problem.