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

[bilby]

You keep bringing up things that don't relate. Light does all of these things, but we are not discussing light's properties. We are discussing the properties of the brain and eyes.

So is it your contention that the Sun is caused by people's brains and eyes?

If so, how is it that each person doesn't hsve their very own Sun? Why is everyone seeing the Sun set in the West, and nobody seeing it set in the North?

Even if not, how does the information about the Sun's location get from the brains and eyes, to the Sun (or vice-versa), instantly? The Sun is the same distance from our eyes as our eyes are from the Sun.

 

[peacegirl]

He has his own evidence, which is supported. How can you know when you didn't read that chapter? You should read it and then dispute his observations, not before. But you will have to buy the book for $1.95.

If he has evidence, it should be verifiable, something that anyone can examine.

As it stands, there is no way around the fact of the speed of light and the time it takes to travel from the source to the eye.

For the hundredth time, the speed of light is not being disputed.

This is something that has been verified by countless experiments. The laser reflector left on the moon, for instance, is still being used to measure the distance of the moon by how long it takes light to get to the moon and back.

The mars rovers have a lag in communication, as do the Voyager space probes that left the solar system, etc, etc.

All of which falsifies any notion of light at the eye/instant vision.

There is a lag because the light is being transmitted through a video that is converted. This is not what he’s referring to. People are so up in arms that they won’t take the time to hear him out. This is intellectual snobbery!!

 

[DBT]

He has his own evidence, which is supported. How can you know when you didn't read that chapter? You should read it and then dispute his observations, not before. But you will have to buy the book for $1.95.

If he has evidence, it should be verifiable, something that anyone can examine.

As it stands, there is no way around the fact of the speed of light and the time it takes to travel from the source to the eye.

For the hundredth time, the speed of light is not being disputed.

This is something that has been verified by countless experiments. The laser reflector left on the moon, for instance, is still being used to measure the distance of the moon by how long it takes light to get to the moon and back.

The mars rovers have a lag in communication, as do the Voyager space probes that left the solar system, etc, etc.

All of which falsifies any notion of light at the eye/instant vision.

There is a lag because the light is being transmitted through a video that is converted. This is not what he’s referring to. People are so up in arms that they won’t take the time to hear him out. This is intellectual snobbery!!

No, that's not it. The lag varies regardless of the equipment used to detect the radio signals or the light reflecting off the laser reflector that was left on the moon . The reason for that is clearly related to speed and distance. The further away an object is, the longer it takes for signals to travel. Something like 22 hours for a signal to travel to Voyager1, the Moon and back ranges from 2.4 to 2.7 seconds, etc.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

Yous ay it is not about the properties of light, but how do you explain how e eye work without the properties of light?

Humor me if you will.

Lay out your argument as

Observation 1
Observation 2
Observation ...
Based on the above observations the conclusion is ...

How the eye works

1 Light hits the eye lens
2 ...
3 ...
4 We se an image

Note what you post as to properties of light is gibberish.

 

[peacegirl]

He has his own evidence, which is supported. How can you know when you didn't read that chapter? You should read it and then dispute his observations, not before. But you will have to buy the book for $1.95.

If he has evidence, it should be verifiable, something that anyone can examine.

As it stands, there is no way around the fact of the speed of light and the time it takes to travel from the source to the eye.

This is something that has been verified by countless experiments. The laser reflector left on the moon, for instance, is still being used to measure the distance of the moon by how long it takes light to get to the moon and back.

Measuring the speed of light by a laser isn't being disputed. Again, you're mixing up the properties of light and how the claim regarding the eyes.

The mars rovers have a lag in communication, as do the Voyager space probes that left the solar system, etc, etc.

I get that, but he was not disputing that space probes take pictures that can then be converted into digital data using radio waves.

When a space probe takes a picture, it converts the image into digital data, which is then transmitted back to Earth using radio waves. This data is received by powerful antennae on Earth, allowing scientists to analyze the information collected by the probe. Overall, space probes play a crucial role in expanding our understanding of the cosmos.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=a1c1...Y2F0aW9uLXNpZ25hbHMtZWFydGgtZHNuLmh0bWw&ntb=1
Back on Earth, we have an array of very powerful radio antennae called the Deep Space Network or DSN, which is responsible for the ‘reception’ part of the transmission. The DSN consists of three facilities (in Goldstone, near Barstow, California; near Madrid, Spain; and near Canberra, Australia) spaced 120 degrees apart in longitude, which helps to maintain a constant stream of dialogue when Earth rotates. As the most sensitive telecommunications system in the entire world, it supports interplanetary missions and a number of satellites that orbit Earth.

These antennae detect the signals (which contain information pertaining to the current location of the probe and its health, along with the required scientific data, i.e., pictures and audio files) transmitted by the probe and relay them to computers, which decode them into sensible, useful information.

How Do Distant Space Probes And Satellites Talk To Earth?

How do astronauts, who are hundreds of miles away from Earth in space, manage to talk to space agencies like NASA and their friends and relatives?

www.scienceabc.com

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=a1c1...Y2F0aW9uLXNpZ25hbHMtZWFydGgtZHNuLmh0bWw&ntb=1

All of which falsifies any notion of light at the eye/instant vision.

No it doesn't. They are two different things.

If it were possible to transmit a television picture from the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into America for the first time because the picture would be in the process of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But objects do not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge on the optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them, and it takes the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun, or distant stars. To sum this up, just as we have often observed that a marching band is out of step with the beat when seen from a distance because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been taken, so likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope and hear his voice on the radio, we would see his lips move instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric image of his lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this distance. Because Aristotle assumed the eyes functioned like the other four and the scientific community assumed he was right, it made all their reasoning fit what appeared to be undeniable. According to their thinking, how else was it possible for knowledge to reach us through our eyes when they were compelled to believe that man had five senses? Were they given any choice? Let me prove in another way that the eyes are not a sense organ.

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight distance away, cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense, if an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic nerve, then he would recognize his master instantly, as he can from sound and smell. In fact, if he was vicious and accustomed to attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his sense of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way of identifying his master’s face even if every feature was lit up like a Christmas tree and would attack. This is why he cannot recognize his master from a picture or statue because nothing from the external world is striking the optic nerve. The question of how man is able to accomplish this continues to confound our scientists.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

Yous ay it is not about the properties of light, but how do you explain how e eye work without the properties of light?

Humor me if you will.

Lay out your argument as

Observation 1
Observation 2
Observation ...
Based on the above observations the conclusion is ...

How the eye works

1 Light hits the eye lens
2 ...
3 ...
4 We se an image

Note what you post as to properties of light is gibberish.

I am not saying light is not a factor in sight, but the properties of light and how light works were not what he was refuting. Light is at the eye lens instantly when we are focused on the object; it does not hit the eye lens. Why can't you read the chapter? It's not that long. You don't have $1.95? I would charge nothing if I could, but Amazon won't let me. You can always get your money back and delete the book if you think it's junk.

 

[peacegirl]

He has his own evidence, which is supported. How can you know when you didn't read that chapter? You should read it and then dispute his observations, not before. But you will have to buy the book for $1.95.

If he has evidence, it should be verifiable, something that anyone can examine.

As it stands, there is no way around the fact of the speed of light and the time it takes to travel from the source to the eye.

For the hundredth time, the speed of light is not being disputed.

This is something that has been verified by countless experiments. The laser reflector left on the moon, for instance, is still being used to measure the distance of the moon by how long it takes light to get to the moon and back.

The mars rovers have a lag in communication, as do the Voyager space probes that left the solar system, etc, etc.

All of which falsifies any notion of light at the eye/instant vision.

There is a lag because the light is being transmitted through a video that is converted. This is not what he’s referring to. People are so up in arms that they won’t take the time to hear him out. This is intellectual snobbery!!

No, that's not it. The lag varies regardless of the equipment used to detect the radio signals or the light reflecting off the laser reflector that was left on the moon . The reason for that is clearly related to speed and distance. The further away an object is, the longer it takes for signals to travel. Something like 22 hours for a signal to travel to Voyager1, the Moon and back ranges from 2.4 to 2.7 seconds, etc.

There is no disagreement here.

 

[peacegirl]

You keep bringing up things that don't relate. Light does all of these things, but we are not discussing light's properties. We are discussing the properties of the brain and eyes.

So is it your contention that the Sun is caused by people's brains and eyes?

Not at all. The external world exists outside of our

If so, how is it that each person doesn't hsve their very own Sun? Why is everyone seeing the Sun set in the West, and nobody seeing it set in the North?

Due to the rotation of the Earth. A person would see the Sun set or not depending on where he is located, but this doesn't disprove his claim.

Even if not, how does the information about the Sun's location get from the brains and eyes, to the Sun (or vice-versa), instantly? The Sun is the same distance from our eyes as our eyes are from the Sun.

I already explained that it doesn't GET anywhere implying that travel is involved. If the Sun was setting in the West where we were located, we would see it just as instantly as we would see anything else that was within our field of view.

Each language has its own set of words or symbols that are used to identify substance existing in the external world. Therefore, we can say that these symbols describe an accurate object-word relationship. It should be obvious to everyone’s common sense that the sun exists out in space, like the moon, the stars, buildings, people, automobiles, etc. These objects are real, are completely independent of an individual’s perception, and do not exist in a person’s head, as some epistemologists have imagined. We see them not because they impinge upon the optic nerve but because they are there to be seen if one cares to look. The word does not create the dog as it does words like heaven, spirit, soul, etc., it is this dog that gives us the desire to give it a name, which then identifies it and allows us to differentiate it from other objects. In other words, the word dog makes us conscious that this something is not a cat or a cow, and it allows us to see this difference between existing bits of substance because the word used to describe this particular animal is different from words used to describe other animals, which is why we give it a different name. Consequently, the actual word contains the consciousness of a difference that exists in the external or internal world. Remember, there is absolutely nothing that travels from the dog to the optic nerve, although the bark does strike the ears, and this sound is a slide in itself which then permits the brain to look at this bit of living substance through the many relations that become associated with the sound. As stimuli enter through the four senses and get combined in various relations, they are then projected onto the screen of substance through the eyes, which see everything in relation to what is on the slide. If a child gets frightened by the barking of a dog, this fear is recorded on the slide and photographed in relation to it, and when a dog is seen the fear is projected.

 

[pood]

He has his own evidence, which is supported. How can you know when you didn't read that chapter? You should read it and then dispute his observations, not before. But you will have to buy the book for $1.95.

If he has evidence, it should be verifiable, something that anyone can examine.

As it stands, there is no way around the fact of the speed of light and the time it takes to travel from the source to the eye.

This is something that has been verified by countless experiments. The laser reflector left on the moon, for instance, is still being used to measure the distance of the moon by how long it takes light to get to the moon and back.

Measuring the speed of light by a laser isn't being disputed. Again, you're mixing up the properties of light and how the claim regarding the eyes.

The mars rovers have a lag in communication, as do the Voyager space probes that left the solar system, etc, etc.

I get that, but he was not disputing that space probes take pictures that can then be converted into digital data using radio waves.

When a space probe takes a picture, it converts the image into digital data, which is then transmitted back to Earth using radio waves. This data is received by powerful antennae on Earth, allowing scientists to analyze the information collected by the probe. Overall, space probes play a crucial role in expanding our understanding of the cosmos.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=a1c1...Y2F0aW9uLXNpZ25hbHMtZWFydGgtZHNuLmh0bWw&ntb=1
Back on Earth, we have an array of very powerful radio antennae called the Deep Space Network or DSN, which is responsible for the ‘reception’ part of the transmission. The DSN consists of three facilities (in Goldstone, near Barstow, California; near Madrid, Spain; and near Canberra, Australia) spaced 120 degrees apart in longitude, which helps to maintain a constant stream of dialogue when Earth rotates. As the most sensitive telecommunications system in the entire world, it supports interplanetary missions and a number of satellites that orbit Earth.

These antennae detect the signals (which contain information pertaining to the current location of the probe and its health, along with the required scientific data, i.e., pictures and audio files) transmitted by the probe and relay them to computers, which decode them into sensible, useful information.

How Do Distant Space Probes And Satellites Talk To Earth?

How do astronauts, who are hundreds of miles away from Earth in space, manage to talk to space agencies like NASA and their friends and relatives?

www.scienceabc.com

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=a1c1...Y2F0aW9uLXNpZ25hbHMtZWFydGgtZHNuLmh0bWw&ntb=1

All of which falsifies any notion of light at the eye/instant vision.

No it doesn't. They are two different things.

If it were possible to transmit a television picture from the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into America for the first time because the picture would be in the process of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But objects do not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge on the optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them, and it takes the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun, or distant stars. To sum this up, just as we have often observed that a marching band is out of step with the beat when seen from a distance because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been taken, so likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope and hear his voice on the radio, we would see his lips move instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric image of his lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this distance. Because Aristotle assumed the eyes functioned like the other four and the scientific community assumed he was right, it made all their reasoning fit what appeared to be undeniable. According to their thinking, how else was it possible for knowledge to reach us through our eyes when they were compelled to believe that man had five senses? Were they given any choice? Let me prove in another way that the eyes are not a sense organ.

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight distance away, cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense, if an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic nerve, then he would recognize his master instantly, as he can from sound and smell. In fact, if he was vicious and accustomed to attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his sense of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way of identifying his master’s face even if every feature was lit up like a Christmas tree and would attack. This is why he cannot recognize his master from a picture or statue because nothing from the external world is striking the optic nerve. The question of how man is able to accomplish this continues to confound our scientists.

The above is total bs, as people have explained to you for 25 years.

 

[peacegirl]

He has his own evidence, which is supported. How can you know when you didn't read that chapter? You should read it and then dispute his observations, not before. But you will have to buy the book for $1.95.

If he has evidence, it should be verifiable, something that anyone can examine.

As it stands, there is no way around the fact of the speed of light and the time it takes to travel from the source to the eye.

This is something that has been verified by countless experiments. The laser reflector left on the moon, for instance, is still being used to measure the distance of the moon by how long it takes light to get to the moon and back.

Measuring the speed of light by a laser isn't being disputed. Again, you're mixing up the properties of light and how the claim regarding the eyes.

The mars rovers have a lag in communication, as do the Voyager space probes that left the solar system, etc, etc.

I get that, but he was not disputing that space probes take pictures that can then be converted into digital data using radio waves.

When a space probe takes a picture, it converts the image into digital data, which is then transmitted back to Earth using radio waves. This data is received by powerful antennae on Earth, allowing scientists to analyze the information collected by the probe. Overall, space probes play a crucial role in expanding our understanding of the cosmos.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=a1c1...Y2F0aW9uLXNpZ25hbHMtZWFydGgtZHNuLmh0bWw&ntb=1
Back on Earth, we have an array of very powerful radio antennae called the Deep Space Network or DSN, which is responsible for the ‘reception’ part of the transmission. The DSN consists of three facilities (in Goldstone, near Barstow, California; near Madrid, Spain; and near Canberra, Australia) spaced 120 degrees apart in longitude, which helps to maintain a constant stream of dialogue when Earth rotates. As the most sensitive telecommunications system in the entire world, it supports interplanetary missions and a number of satellites that orbit Earth.

These antennae detect the signals (which contain information pertaining to the current location of the probe and its health, along with the required scientific data, i.e., pictures and audio files) transmitted by the probe and relay them to computers, which decode them into sensible, useful information.

How Do Distant Space Probes And Satellites Talk To Earth?

How do astronauts, who are hundreds of miles away from Earth in space, manage to talk to space agencies like NASA and their friends and relatives?

www.scienceabc.com

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=a1c1...Y2F0aW9uLXNpZ25hbHMtZWFydGgtZHNuLmh0bWw&ntb=1

All of which falsifies any notion of light at the eye/instant vision.

No it doesn't. They are two different things.

If it were possible to transmit a television picture from the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into America for the first time because the picture would be in the process of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But objects do not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge on the optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them, and it takes the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun, or distant stars. To sum this up, just as we have often observed that a marching band is out of step with the beat when seen from a distance because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been taken, so likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope and hear his voice on the radio, we would see his lips move instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric image of his lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this distance. Because Aristotle assumed the eyes functioned like the other four and the scientific community assumed he was right, it made all their reasoning fit what appeared to be undeniable. According to their thinking, how else was it possible for knowledge to reach us through our eyes when they were compelled to believe that man had five senses? Were they given any choice? Let me prove in another way that the eyes are not a sense organ.

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight distance away, cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense, if an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic nerve, then he would recognize his master instantly, as he can from sound and smell. In fact, if he was vicious and accustomed to attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his sense of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way of identifying his master’s face even if every feature was lit up like a Christmas tree and would attack. This is why he cannot recognize his master from a picture or statue because nothing from the external world is striking the optic nerve. The question of how man is able to accomplish this continues to confound our scientists.

The above is total bs, as people have explained to you for 25 years.

No it isn't Pood. No one has proven he was wrong while on these forums. Not one single person, including YOU.

 

[pood]

Probably more than a hundred people over the years have shown not only why it is wrong, but logically impossible. At FF it was correctly characterized as idiot nonsense babble.

 

[peacegirl]

Probably more than a hundred people over the years have shown not only why it is wrong, but logically impossible. At FF it was correctly characterized as idiot nonsense babble.

There were people who shared what they thought disproved that we see in real time, such as stellar aberration, but they never considered alternative explanations. That’s what confirmation bias is all about. And why couldn’t the dog identify his owner standing right next to her, if her image was in the light? You were never able to answer that other than poorly designed experiments that prove nothing.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

I read rough the book pars you linked to at the start of the thread. I still do not see the point of any of it.

Good luck on your quest to transform the world into your father's image.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

I read rough the book pars you linked to at the start of the thread. I still do not see the point of any of it.

That is because you didn't read it to understand. You read it to criticize. Nobody will understand it if they already have determined he was wrong.

Good luck on your quest to transform the world into your father's image.

What a nasty comment, which shows me how narrow-minded you really are.

 

[pood]

People have read the stuff about light and sight and it’s wrong, peacegirl. I doubt anyone will waste anymore time yet again explaining why.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

I read rough the book pars you linked to at the start of the thread. I still do not see the point of any of it.

That is because you didn't read it to understand. You read it to criticize. Nobody will understand it if they already have determined he was wrong.

Good luck on your quest to transform the world into your father's image.

What a nasty comment, which shows me how narrow-minded you really are.

In your own words and in the book the world will be unable to resist the ideology and the world will be transformed, IOW the book aka your father.

You have spent your life rationalizing and avoiding the truth.

You have spent your life trying to elevate your father and have failed.

The last word is yours, I am done on the thread.

 

[bilby]

I already explained that it doesn't GET anywhere implying that travel is involved.

Travel is unavoidable. We are here; The Sun is 150,000,000km away. For one to influence the other in any way, something has to cross that distance; The information that the Sun is there has to get from the Sun to our brains somehow.

No information can travel faster than 299792.458km/s. The claim that we see the Sun instantly, and not as it was eight and a half minutes ago, is mathematically identical to claiming that the information crossed the distance between the Sun and our brains faster than 299792.458km/s - in fact, it is a claim that information travelled at infinite speed.

We can show that this does not happen. You don't have to take anybody's word for it; It's incredibly easy to test it for yourself.

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

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

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

Your claims:

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

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




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

 

[peacegirl]

People have read the stuff about light and sight and it’s wrong, peacegirl. I doubt anyone will waste anymore time yet again explaining why.

It isn't wrong just because you say it is. You have completely disregarded his proof because you just can't believe that science could have gotten it wrong. In your eyes the science is settled, and nothing will allow you to take his claim seriously. I realize what I'm up against on his behalf. He knew it too.

Those who will consider the possibility that you might have a discovery reveal their confusion by trying to nullify any value to it with this comment, as was made to me, “What difference does it make what we call them as a group, this isn’t going to change what we are. Whether we call them five senses, or four senses and a pair of eyes, is certainly not going to change them in any way.” However, if man doesn’t really have five senses, isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think otherwise, we will be prevented from discovering those things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery? Consequently, it does make a difference what we call them. Just as my first discovery was not that man’s will is not free but the knowledge revealed by opening that door for a thorough investigation, so likewise, my second discovery is not that man does not have five senses but what significant knowledge lies hidden behind this door. Many years later, we have an additional problem that is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear, any evidence to the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

I read rough the book pars you linked to at the start of the thread. I still do not see the point of any of it.

That is because you didn't read it to understand. You read it to criticize. Nobody will understand it if they already have determined he was wrong.

Good luck on your quest to transform the world into your father's image.

What a nasty comment, which shows me how narrow-minded you really are.

In your own words and in the book the world will be unable to resist the ideology and the world will be transformed, IOW the book aka your father.

I have said over and over that this is not about my father at all. He wrote:

The wisdom here is amazing if you analyze it carefully enough, and it is not mine.

You have spent your life rationalizing and avoiding the truth.

No, you have spent your entire life not understanding why will is not free, why the eyes are not a sense organ, and why we are born again and again and again.

You have spent your life trying to elevate your father and have failed.

The last word is yours, I am done on the thread.

Thank you! Bye bye.

 

[pood]

People have read the stuff about light and sight and it’s wrong, peacegirl. I doubt anyone will waste anymore time yet again explaining why.

It isn't wrong just because you say it is.

It’s not because I say it is wrong, but because the evidence shows that is wrong. See bilby’s post just above, for example.