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

[DBT]

The sun is luminous because it emits EMR/Light. If it did not, it would not be luminous and we would not see it.
That light that is emitted from the sun, the very same light that makes the sun luminous, takes 8.5 minutes to reach earth to be detected by our eyes and converted to vision by our brain and we see the sun.

Repetition doesn’t make you anymore right than the first time you said it.

Physics, the way the world works, makes it right. I don’t have to say it, it's right regardless of me saying it or you denying the fact of it.

 

[pood]

The sun is luminous because it emits EMR/Light. If it did not, it would not be luminous and we would not see it.
That light that is emitted from the sun, the very same light that makes the sun luminous, takes 8.5 minutes to reach earth to be detected by our eyes and converted to vision by our brain and we see the sun.

Repetition doesn’t make you anymore right than the first time you said it.

Please look in a mirror when you say that,

 

[peacegirl]

The sun is luminous because it emits EMR/Light. If it did not, it would not be luminous and we would not see it.
That light that is emitted from the sun, the very same light that makes the sun luminous, takes 8.5 minutes to reach earth to be detected by our eyes and converted to vision by our brain and we see the sun.

Repetition doesn’t make you anymore right than the first time you said it.

Please look in a mirror when you say that,

This is not about looking in the mirror. This is about looking out in the external world. We would get an inverted image on our retina with no time delay.

 

[peacegirl]

The sun is luminous because it emits EMR/Light. If it did not, it would not be luminous and we would not see it.
That light that is emitted from the sun, the very same light that makes the sun luminous, takes 8.5 minutes to reach earth to be detected by our eyes and converted to vision by our brain and we see the sun.

Repetition doesn’t make you anymore right than the first time you said it.

Physics, the way the world works, makes it right. I don’t have to say it, it's right regardless of me saying it or you denying the fact of it.

Mistakes can be made. Science is not perfect. This is really sad.

 

[pood]

The sun is luminous because it emits EMR/Light. If it did not, it would not be luminous and we would not see it.
That light that is emitted from the sun, the very same light that makes the sun luminous, takes 8.5 minutes to reach earth to be detected by our eyes and converted to vision by our brain and we see the sun.

Repetition doesn’t make you anymore right than the first time you said it.

Physics, the way the world works, makes it right. I don’t have to say it, it's right regardless of me saying it or you denying the fact of it.

Mistakes can be made. Science is not perfect. This is really sad.

The science on this is settled. We know how light and sight work down to the atomic level — as was described to you in a 30-page paper written for you, with illustrations, by the biologist the Lone Ranger.

Which you admitted you did not read.

 

[peacegirl]

The sun is luminous because it emits EMR/Light. If it did not, it would not be luminous and we would not see it.
That light that is emitted from the sun, the very same light that makes the sun luminous, takes 8.5 minutes to reach earth to be detected by our eyes and converted to vision by our brain and we see the sun.

Repetition doesn’t make you anymore right than the first time you said it.

Physics, the way the world works, makes it right. I don’t have to say it, it's right regardless of me saying it or you denying the fact of it.

Mistakes can be made. Science is not perfect. This is really sad.

The science on this is settled. We know how light and sight work down to the atomic level — as was described to you in a 30-page paper written for you, with illustrations, by the biologist the Lone Ranger.

Which you admitted you did not read.

I already said that nothing in that paper proved him wrong. In fact, the mechanism by which the optic nerve transmits impulses to the visual cortex doesn’t change.

 

[DBT]

It makes no sense. We can't possibly see something before the information is acquired by the eyes and vision is generated by the brain.

That's how it works. The evidence is undeniable. There is no way for instant vision to work.

 

[peacegirl]

It makes no sense. We can't possibly see something before the information is acquired by the eyes and vision is generated by the brain.

That's how it works. The evidence is undeniable. There is no way for instant vision to work.

You keep saying “before it gets here.” That’s not at all true because there IS no seeing something before it gets here. That would go against physics.

 

[DBT]

It makes no sense. We can't possibly see something before the information is acquired by the eyes and vision is generated by the brain.

That's how it works. The evidence is undeniable. There is no way for instant vision to work.

You keep saying “before it gets here.” That’s not at all true because there IS no seeing something before it gets here. That would go against physics.

How is it possible to see something before the eyes detect the light radiating from an object is detected by the eyes and its information processed by a brain?

How would instant vision work? Please don't just say 'read the book.'

 

[peacegirl]

It makes no sense. We can't possibly see something before the information is acquired by the eyes and vision is generated by the brain.

That's how it works. The evidence is undeniable. There is no way for instant vision to work.

You keep saying “before it gets here.” That’s not at all true because there IS no seeing something before it gets here. That would go against physics.

How is it possible to see something before the eyes detect the light radiating from an object is detected by the eyes and its information processed by a brain?

How would instant vision work? Please don't just say 'read the book.'

I explained this so many times, I’m sure people are bored as hell. It’s important that you at least try to understand his reasoning by reading how he came to this conclusion. At least then you will be able to refute it if you think it’s hogwash.

 

[DBT]

It makes no sense. We can't possibly see something before the information is acquired by the eyes and vision is generated by the brain.

That's how it works. The evidence is undeniable. There is no way for instant vision to work.

You keep saying “before it gets here.” That’s not at all true because there IS no seeing something before it gets here. That would go against physics.

How is it possible to see something before the eyes detect the light radiating from an object is detected by the eyes and its information processed by a brain?

How would instant vision work? Please don't just say 'read the book.'

I explained this so many times, I’m sure people are bored as hell. It’s important that you at least try to understand his reasoning by reading how he came to this conclusion. At least then you will be able to refute it if you think it’s hogwash.

I haven't seen a reasonable explanation for how it may work.

 

[peacegirl]

It makes no sense. We can't possibly see something before the information is acquired by the eyes and vision is generated by the brain.

That's how it works. The evidence is undeniable. There is no way for instant vision to work.

You keep saying “before it gets here.” That’s not at all true because there IS no seeing something before it gets here. That would go against physics.

How is it possible to see something before the eyes detect the light radiating from an object is detected by the eyes and its information processed by a brain?

How would instant vision work? Please don't just say 'read the book.'

I explained this so many times, I’m sure people are bored as hell. It’s important that you at least try to understand his reasoning by reading how he came to this conclusion. At least then you will be able to refute it if you think it’s hogwash.

I haven't seen a reasonable explanation for how it may work.

Because you start with light traveling at a finite speed and that the light (or wavelength) bounces off the object and takes the image with it. It will then look like he’s violating physics by thinking that seeing in real time would mean seeing the image before the light even gets here. That would indeed be a violation of physics. But if the light is not bouncing but rather revealing what is there, it’s a completely different ballgame. If you read that chapter it will give you a better picture or at least help you understand what his observations were that led him to claim what he did.

 

[DBT]

It makes no sense. We can't possibly see something before the information is acquired by the eyes and vision is generated by the brain.

That's how it works. The evidence is undeniable. There is no way for instant vision to work.

You keep saying “before it gets here.” That’s not at all true because there IS no seeing something before it gets here. That would go against physics.

How is it possible to see something before the eyes detect the light radiating from an object is detected by the eyes and its information processed by a brain?

How would instant vision work? Please don't just say 'read the book.'

I explained this so many times, I’m sure people are bored as hell. It’s important that you at least try to understand his reasoning by reading how he came to this conclusion. At least then you will be able to refute it if you think it’s hogwash.

I haven't seen a reasonable explanation for how it may work.

Because you start with light traveling at a finite speed and that the light (or wavelength) bounces off the object and takes the image with it. It will look like he’s violating physics by thinking that seeing in real time would mean we would see the image before the light even gets here, which would be a violation of physics. But if the light is not bouncing but rather revealing what is there, it’s a completely different ballgame. If you read that chapter it will give you a better picture or at least help you understand what his observations were that led him to claim what he did.

Except that light does reflect, and the eyes do detect reflected light, which in turn is the source of information we have about our surroundings.
Simply walking into a pitch dark room then switching on the light confirms it.

 

[peacegirl]

It makes no sense. We can't possibly see something before the information is acquired by the eyes and vision is generated by the brain.

That's how it works. The evidence is undeniable. There is no way for instant vision to work.

You keep saying “before it gets here.” That’s not at all true because there IS no seeing something before it gets here. That would go against physics.

How is it possible to see something before the eyes detect the light radiating from an object is detected by the eyes and its information processed by a brain?

How would instant vision work? Please don't just say 'read the book.'

I explained this so many times, I’m sure people are bored as hell. It’s important that you at least try to understand his reasoning by reading how he came to this conclusion. At least then you will be able to refute it if you think it’s hogwash.

I haven't seen a reasonable explanation for how it may work.

Because you start with light traveling at a finite speed and that the light (or wavelength) bounces off the object and takes the image with it. It will look like he’s violating physics by thinking that seeing in real time would mean we would see the image before the light even gets here, which would be a violation of physics. But if the light is not bouncing but rather revealing what is there, it’s a completely different ballgame. If you read that chapter it will give you a better picture or at least help you understand what his observations were that led him to claim what he did.

Except that light does reflect, and the eyes do detect reflected light, which in turn is the source of information we have about our surroundings.
Simply walking into a pitch dark room then switching on the light confirms it.

That’s the belief DBT. I am only asking you to consider the possibility that science got it wrong this time.

 

[DBT]

It makes no sense. We can't possibly see something before the information is acquired by the eyes and vision is generated by the brain.

That's how it works. The evidence is undeniable. There is no way for instant vision to work.

You keep saying “before it gets here.” That’s not at all true because there IS no seeing something before it gets here. That would go against physics.

How is it possible to see something before the eyes detect the light radiating from an object is detected by the eyes and its information processed by a brain?

How would instant vision work? Please don't just say 'read the book.'

I explained this so many times, I’m sure people are bored as hell. It’s important that you at least try to understand his reasoning by reading how he came to this conclusion. At least then you will be able to refute it if you think it’s hogwash.

I haven't seen a reasonable explanation for how it may work.

Because you start with light traveling at a finite speed and that the light (or wavelength) bounces off the object and takes the image with it. It will look like he’s violating physics by thinking that seeing in real time would mean we would see the image before the light even gets here, which would be a violation of physics. But if the light is not bouncing but rather revealing what is there, it’s a completely different ballgame. If you read that chapter it will give you a better picture or at least help you understand what his observations were that led him to claim what he did.

Except that light does reflect, and the eyes do detect reflected light, which in turn is the source of information we have about our surroundings.
Simply walking into a pitch dark room then switching on the light confirms it.

That’s the belief DBT. I am only asking you to consider the possibility that science got it wrong this time.

It's not a belief, you can do it for yourself, you can walk into a pitch dark room, black, you see nothing, then flip the light switch and suddenly the room is bright and you can see everything that is in the room.

It's basic stuff, you know it's true.

 

[peacegirl]

It makes no sense. We can't possibly see something before the information is acquired by the eyes and vision is generated by the brain.

That's how it works. The evidence is undeniable. There is no way for instant vision to work.

You keep saying “before it gets here.” That’s not at all true because there IS no seeing something before it gets here. That would go against physics.

How is it possible to see something before the eyes detect the light radiating from an object is detected by the eyes and its information processed by a brain?

How would instant vision work? Please don't just say 'read the book.'

I explained this so many times, I’m sure people are bored as hell. It’s important that you at least try to understand his reasoning by reading how he came to this conclusion. At least then you will be able to refute it if you think it’s hogwash.

I haven't seen a reasonable explanation for how it may work.

Because you start with light traveling at a finite speed and that the light (or wavelength) bounces off the object and takes the image with it. It will look like he’s violating physics by thinking that seeing in real time would mean we would see the image before the light even gets here, which would be a violation of physics. But if the light is not bouncing but rather revealing what is there, it’s a completely different ballgame. If you read that chapter it will give you a better picture or at least help you understand what his observations were that led him to claim what he did.

Except that light does reflect, and the eyes do detect reflected light, which in turn is the source of information we have about our surroundings.
Simply walking into a pitch dark room then switching on the light confirms it.

That’s the belief DBT. I am only asking you to consider the possibility that science got it wrong this time.

It's not a belief, you can do it for yourself, you can walk into a pitch dark room, black, you see nothing, then flip the light switch and suddenly the room is bright and you can see everything that is in the room.

It's basic stuff, you know it's true.

I’m sorry you feel that way but I do thank you for even trying to see if this could be true. The verdict though is still out. The object reveals the object; it doesn’t reflect the object in the light.

 

[peacegirl]

Why is there such denial that science could be wrong? Because science questions, which is a good thing. Even astronomers say that the universe may not be expanding the way that was once thought, which is why science continues to progress. One step back, two steps forward.

The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, new theoretical study suggests

New research looking at the cosmological constant problem suggests the expansion of the universe could be an illusion.

www.space.com

 

[DBT]

Sorry, equivocation won't help convince anyone that instant vision/the 'object reveals the object' independently of light is worthy of consideration.

 

[peacegirl]

Sorry, equivocation won't help convince anyone that instant vision/the 'object reveals the object' independently of light is worthy of consideration.

DBT, I don't know what to say at this point. I told you that he had reasons for making this claim, but you won't even look at them. How can you say I'm equivocating when I've been very upfront and transparent?

 

[DBT]

Sorry, equivocation won't help convince anyone that instant vision/the 'object reveals the object' independently of light is worthy of consideration.

DBT, I don't know what to say at this point. I told you that he had reasons for making this claim, but you won't even look at them. How can you say I'm equivocating when I've been very upfront and transparent?

There are no possible reasons for vision working without the need of light.

Can you see objects in a dark room before the light is turned on?

Of course not. It never happens, it can't happen because the eyes evolved to detect light.

Because it cannot happen, you can't see without light, the claim that the "object reveals the object" is demonstrably false.