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

[peacegirl]

In my view determinism and free will are basically the same thing. You cannot have the latter without the former.

That has been debated for centuries. Libertarians disagree, incompatibilists disagree.....who is right? Everyone thinks that they are right.

In the case of instant vision, projection and determinism as a means to world peace, there is no debate, it's just a bad idea.

DBT, you are mixing his discoveries up. Stick with his first discovery, which is why we can be prevented from striking a first blow.

There is no discovery. There is no real time/instant vision, no projection, and how some form of tweaked determinism is supposed to bring about world peace has not, despite numerous requests, been explained.

I am trying, as I said earlier, but this is not the way to discuss a book that has NOT been read. I must have been dreaming when I thought this could work, but there is no way it can. It's not the fault of the discovery, but how it's being delivered. There is no demonstration given in a step-by-step fashion. Look at what Pood is doing? He's doing the very same thing he did at FF. He's trying to yank sentences out of context and make them look ridiculous. I've learned my lesson. When I leave here, I'm not doing this again. Every bit of desire has been drained out of me.

I assume that you have read the book, that you should be familiar with the authors contentions, so it shouldn't be a problem to explain the link between his modified version of determinism and how that relates to world peace....plus how real time seeing relates to this claim.

Maybe give a definition of his modified form of determinism as a start. That would help.

I'm curious. Did you read the first three chapters that I posted or not? It begins on post 5473. The modified form of the definition is necessary because determinism, the way it is defined, talks about antecedent events CAUSING a chain of events that are determined without any possibility of it being any different. This is 100% true. But, according to Lessans, the past is nothing more than a memory; it cannot cause... because it doesn't exist. We make choices based on our current knowledge and use what we remember to guide our next decision in the direction that offers us greater satisfaction. The other side of this is that nothing can make us do what we make up our mind not to do. We have absolute control over this. I'm beginning to be concerned that no one understands the core of the discovery that are based on these two principles. Please go back to post 5473 and start reading if you haven't already. I cannot do this all alone. People have to meet me halfway if they are truly interested in following these principles, which will put an end to war. I am not getting into the senses again unless his first discovery is understood.

If the definition of determinism is modified to permit events that have not been determined, it's no longer determinism. The author is simply moving the goalposts. That is not a discovery.

WTF, this is not changing the goalposts. Are you serious DBT? Do you not understand the definition at all?

Determinism, by definition, does not permit alternate actions. If it does, it isn't Determinism.

Who said that in this definition, it allows for alternate actions? You don't understand his definition whatsoever, and you are a determinist. Go figure.

As it happens that you said that the author modified Determinism in a way that permits his desired redult, world peace, that is no longer defined as determinism.

If determinism is true and world peace becomes a reality, it inevitably becomes a reality.

True, but it is also true that it involves steps toward that end. You can't leave out the middle.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
A camera takes a picture of an object due to light. You cannot determine whether a camera is capturing the real object or an image of the object. Both would produce a picture.

I think there may be truth in that for once, but don't know what it is supposed to prove regarding war and crime. I can take a picture of a picture.

Light reflects off an object, light also reflects off a hard copy picture In both cases light is absorbed and reflected cantering patterns in the light, the image.

The only issue is what you mean bu image of of a real object.

You say light is required to see an object, bit the image is not conveyed by light. The image is already at the eye without delay, and I presume a camera.

No Steve. The object is seen due to light. It's no different than afferent vision where light is concerned. Light has to be at the eye. The only reason this works is due to how the brain sees, not how light works.

I think there are still 35mm cameras that use film . Expose film to light reflecting off an object and chemical reactions between light and the film produce an image of the object.

How does real time or instant vision explain how that works?

It all works the same way. The only difference is that we don't see in delayed time. It's as simple as that. I'm sorry if this one aspect supposedly challenges Einstein's special or general relativity. Whether it does or not, you can't tell me he's wrong because Einstein's theory contradicts this. It doesn't work that way.

Paint a piece of cardboard black and out a circularr hole in the middle. In a dark room sine a light behind the hole. How is the image of the hole you see formed and conveyed to the eye? There is no reflection.

It is conveyed through light. Light is the condition for any kind of sight, afferent or efferent. People just think that efferent vision would cause a gap between light and the eye. That is false.

 

[peacegirl]

Here in Seattle pigeons and sea gulls are everywhere. No natural predators. Pigeons eat and crap all over. Sea gulls are nasty flying rats.

Seagulls, really just gulls, are not nasty flying rats. They are beautiful creatures. I believe it was Dawkins who stated that they are so well designed for flight that it could almost make him believe in a designer.

Gulls, who eat worms, are so smart that they have figured out how do a collective dance on sunny days that sounds like the patter of rain. This makes the worms come out, whom they then eat.

Pigeons are beautiful. They have five cones so they see tens of millions of colors that humans don’t. They are very intelligent, and recognize individual humans. Several years ago, I had a pigeon friend, Brownie, with whom I shared roast chicken on a park bench. He let me pet him and so have other pigeons.

Pigeons and gulls in cities absolutely do have predators: falcons, hawks, owls, racoons, cats, among others. I have seen a falcon in a park grab a pigeon and fly away with it.

Gills are flying rats. They steal from each other. Crap all over.

In Washington state, it is illegal to feed seagulls in all state park areas and in various cities where local ordinances prohibit the practice. While there is no universal statewide ban specifically for seagulls, new 2025 regulations from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) make it illegal to feed any wildlife if doing so causes deer, elk, or moose to congregate.

Enforcement: Penalties for seagull-feeding offenses can range from small fines to civil penalties of up to $750 depending on the severity and local code.

Environmental and Health Impact

Disease Spread: Feeding encourages gulls to crowd together, which promotes the spread of diseases among birds and potentially to humans.
Public Nuisance: Large congregations of fed gulls can cause defacement and deterioration of public and private property through droppings and litter.

Seagulls are highly opportunistic, omnivorous feeders that eat a wide range of foods, including fish, marine invertebrates (crabs, mussels), insects, eggs, rodents, and refuse. Their diets vary by location, shifting from natural marine prey to scavenging human trash, fast food, and agricultural waste.\

I watched them drop shellfish on rocks to crack the shell. When one gets food in the beak others chase it to take it away.

I watched gulls line up with diving birds and try to go underwater with them.

Observational Learning: Studies show that seagulls watch what people are eating and target those specific items. They are more likely to approach food if they see a human interacting with it first.
Recognizing People: Gulls can remember faces, particularly those of people who have fed them or, conversely, those who have acted aggressively towards them.

Sorry pood, you are just a meal ticket.

Crows can remember faces. I watched a University Washington study on it out on the open. If you piss off crows they will remember you. A guy wore a mask and harassed crows. When he waked past without it no reaction, reacted to the mask. It appeared it could be communicated to other crows.

Pigeons were once trained to spot international orange for open water aircraft search. They would peck on a device to indicate direction.

Pigeons were indeed used in aerial water searches, most notably in a U.S. Coast Guard program called
Project Sea Hunt during the late 1970s and early 1980s. In this program, trained pigeons were used as "pigeon-powered sensors" to spot survivors, life rafts, and debris in the open ocean.

These birds definitely have amazing skills, but they cannot recognize faces in a lineup (as far as I can tell) without other cues to help them. They may associate a mask with aggression if they were hurt by someone wearing one (that's no surprise), but this does not prove that the eyes are a sense organ.

For heavens sake, animals need to recognize objects in their environment in order to interact with it, find food, shelter, avoid danger. That is what sight enables. The eyes detect light and the brain generates sight.

I am not talking about light. I am talking about recognition. Where have you been whole this time?

Recognition follows from the eyes detecting light, acquiring and transmitting information to the brain, which processes that information and you see and recognize the things in your environment.

Yep, that is the standard definition. Repeat, repeat, start over.

 

[peacegirl]

It's not just quantitative; it's qualitative. Dogs cannot connect a face with an individual because they don't have the conceptual ability that humans have.

How do you know this?

Because they don't have the ability of language. I already explained this.

Dogs do have "the ability of language". They can understand speech pretty well, or sign language, or whistles and clicks; They can also communicate information back to humans in various ways.

You’re being vague. Show me a conversation with a dog through sign language or any language that proves the dog understands what you’re saying.

Dogs understand words from sound boards buttons, study reveals.

Dogs are being trained to associate a sound with a word. It doesn't correlate to dogs understanding rational thought beyond a command, a few words, or gestures.

Why do you hate and fear dogs?

You're getting desperate.

 

[peacegirl]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation of sense experience, such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes are the windows of the brain, through which experience is gained, not by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience. If a lion roared in that room, a newborn baby would hear the sound and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ.

The optic nerve is entirely afferent.

Your father was an idiot, and the above passage is gibberish.

There is obviously a connection, but there is a difference. Light strikes the retina, and then the photoreceptors go to the optic nerve. With every other sense organ, there is a direct relationship between the stimulus and the nerve. Even though the optic nerve is afferent, that does not explain or prove what the brain is doing.

 

[peacegirl]

Recent studies I have found suggest that some dogs can learn up to 250 words, but I’m betting it could be a lot more than that. As more dogs use sound boards we will find out more.

There was a famous dog, whose name I unfortunately forget, who appeared to be a dog genius and clearly understood words. There is a video of him with his human partner and Neil deGrasse Tyson. The dog could find stuffed animals by name hidden behind a couch, and would fetch them on command.

Tyson smuggled in a Charles Darwin doll that the dog had never seen. He threw it in with a bunch of other stuffed animals and dolls behind the couch that the dog already knew. Tyson told the dog to go find Charles Darwin. At first he was confused, and came back from behind the couch for more instruction. Tyson repeated the command to go find Charles Darwin.

The dog then came out with Charles Darwin in its mouth.

This shows that the dog employed the process of elimination, previously thought, wrongly, to be exclusive to humans. He knew the names of the other stuffed animals and dolls but had never seen Charles Darwin. So by process of elimination he figured the only candidate for Darwin was the doll he had never seen, and brought it out. Note that he did this by sight alone, since he had never had any contact with the Darwin doll.

All hail dogs, science, the eyes as sense organs, and evolution!

It is true that Chaser the dog knew that the only object left that was unfamiliar had to be the Darwin doll. This still does not prove that this dog could recognize his owner in a lineup, which would indicate that the light of his owner was being transmitted to his eyes. As I said earlier, dogs can identify objects, but they cannot seem to discriminate between faces without other cues to help them. This could be due to the difficulty of seeing differences between features that are more nuanced, rather than identifying individual objects.

Chaser (dog) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
It is conveyed through light. Light is the condition for any kind of sight, afferent or efferent. People just think that efferent vision would cause a gap between light and the eye. That is false.

Afferent refers to neural signals going from eye to brain. Efferent refers to neural signals going from brain to eye. Afferent and efferent say nothing about how optical information is processed in the brain to create our perception of vision. We do have an idea how image and pattern recognition occur. It is emulated in aificial neural networks used for image recognition.

A picture of a criminal form a camera is checked against picture of known criminals.

In vision afferent and efferent have specific definitions which I posted several time. You have to define what YOU mean by the term.

You previously argued the image is not conveyed by light which has a delay. The image is already at the eye without delay. Are you changing your view?

In a dark room the shutter is open on a camera with unexposed film.A light is switched on. Does the film start reacting and creating an image after the light reaches the camera with a delay?

Or dose the film start reacting instantly because the image is already at the camera without delay.?

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
That is true, but evolution evolves out of need. To say that a dog's larynx is the only reason why he can't speak is ludicrous because it would mean a mismatch between a dog's cognitive ability (language ability) and his ability to express himself.

Evolution is blind, no intent or purpose. No intelligence.

Just blind chemical reactions. Theory Of Evolution in total is more complex, but it is natural selection

An organism does not choose to mutate.

What is the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution in total? I never said an organism chooses to mutate.

Humans evolve out of need, as natural selection drives the development of traits that enhance survival and reproduction. This process is continuous, with adaptations to environmental changes, genetic mutations, and new survival pressures. For example, the sickle cell trait offers protection against severe malaria, and resistance to HIV is linked to gene mutations. These adaptations illustrate how evolution is a dynamic process that continues to shape our species.

ScienceAlert+3

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=e5eb...cGVuaW5nLWFuZC1oZXJlcy10aGUtZXZpZGVuY2U&ntb=1

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
A camera takes a picture of an object due to light. You cannot determine whether a camera is capturing the real object or an image of the object. Both would produce a picture.

I think there may be truth in that for once, but don't know what it is supposed to prove regarding war and crime. I can take a picture of a picture.

It doesn't, but it does have to do with much of the hurt in relationships. I was in the middle of posting Chapter Six, and Pood went and switched the conversation back to this. I want to move on.

Light reflects off an object, light also reflects off a hard copy picture In both cases light is absorbed and reflected cantering patterns in the light, the image.

The only issue is what you mean bu image of of a real object.

You say light is required to see an object, bit the image is not conveyed by light. The image is already at the eye without delay, and I presume a camera.

I think there are still 35mm cameras that use film . Expose film to light reflecting off an object and chemical reactions between light and the film produce an image of the object.

That is true. It would be like light reflecting off an object and chemical reactions taking place between the light and our photoreceptors.

How does real time or instant vision explain how that works?

Paint a piece of cardboard black and out a circularr hole in the middle. In a dark room sine a light behind the hole. How is the image of the hole you see formed and conveyed to the eye? There is no reflection.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The properties of light do not change. A similar example would be using a pinhole camera. We would see the image on the other side of the pinhole instantly.

How to Make a Pinhole Camera – Science Project | NASA JPL Education

Learn how to make your very own pinhole camera to safely see a solar eclipse in action.

www.jpl.nasa.gov

.

 

[peacegirl]

I'm not angry. I'm frustrated. I have explained this many times, but you won't hear of it. These were observations. I'm not sure how he could have explained them any better. You don't have to believe him if you don't. Here it is again.

At a very early age, our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but also photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation, whereas a dog is incapable of this.

That's not only NOT an observation (it's an assertion, and it's a conjecture); It's also completely false in literally every respect.

The brain does not photograph objects.

Developing a negative is a complex chemical process specific to early photography. Not only do brains not do this, but nor do modern cameras.

A camera takes a picture of an object due to light. You cannot determine whether a camera is capturing the real object or an image of the object. Both would produce a picture.

What would it mean for a camera to “capture the real object”? Is the idea here that if I snap a photo of a building across the street, the building itself is somehow inside my camera?

You are making lulz, as usual. I don't have time for this without proof. and it doesn't exist.

There is no fundamental difference between dogs and humans; Both have similar eyes and similar brains, that work in the same way at the cellular level. The differences that do exist are quantitative, not qualitative.

It's not just quantitative; it's qualitative. Dogs cannot connect a face with an individual because they don't have the conceptual ability that humans have.

It has scientifically, repeatedly demonstrated that dogs and other animals can do exactly that. Sorry if that makes you angry.

It has not been scientifically repeated. It repeats a narrative that has taken hold as the only possible way that reality exists.

Nothing that follows from the unevidenced and frankly stupid belief that the brain takes photographs can possibly be of any worth whatsoever.

Sorry you feel that way.

How does a brain take a photograph? How does it project anything through the optic nerve that is entirely afferent?

How does light turn into an image from an optic nerve that does not do what science says it does? There is something very different between how an infant can recognize objects and all the other senses that show an immediate reaction.

Before you can interest me in any of the remaining text, you must therefore explain both what exactly is meant by "photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation" (which from a plain English reading is just nonsense); And you must then show that this is an actual thing that actually happens.

All I can do is share his observations and what he believed was occurring. He did not believe the muscles of the eye of an infant are what allowed that baby to focus. I cannot give you more than what he wrote. If you don't think it's enough, then you're entitled to believe what you want. I am not invested in convincing you. Here is that excerpt again.

Spare us.

You are not Einstein, Pood. So stfu with your entitlement, as if you have it all figured out. YOU DON'T.

I am not an Einstein either, but I know how the eye and light and iimage formation works.

Lessans from what is written knew nothing about science. He created fictional pseudoscience mumbo jumbo.

Whoever the people on the thread my actually be, they all appear to know a hell of a lot more than you do and your hero Lean did.

Realize it and get over it.

NO!

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
It is conveyed through light. Light is the condition for any kind of sight, afferent or efferent. People just think that efferent vision would cause a gap between light and the eye. That is false.

Afferent refers to neural signals going from eye to brain. Efferent refers to neural signals going from brain to eye. Afferent and efferent say nothing about how optical information is processed in the brain to create our perception of vision. We do have an idea how image and pattern recognition occur. It is emulated in aificial neural networks used for image recognition.

That is the belief. They are trying to simulate real sight. Will it work? Only time will tell.

Neuralink, co-founded by Elon Musk, is working on a groundbreaking technology called Blindsight to help the blind see. The Blindsight chip aims to restore vision by directly stimulating the brain's visual cortex, even for individuals who have lost both eyes and their optic nerves. The device has received FDA Breakthrough Device designation, indicating its potential to treat serious health conditions. Neuralink plans to conduct human trials for the Blindsight chip, with the first implant expected in late 2025.
Newsweek+3

A picture of a criminal form a camera is checked against picture of known criminals.

In vision afferent and efferent have specific definitions which I posted several time. You have to define what YOU mean by the term.

I posted this excerpt (I will keep reposting because I know it will take more than one time to get it), where he explained why the eyes are efferent, not afferent.

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation of sense experience, such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the source of the experience by focusing his eyes, like binoculars. The eyes are the windows of the brain, through which experience is gained, not by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience. If a lion roared in that room, a newborn baby would hear the sound and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then transmitted to the brain. The same holds for anything that makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ. The brain records various sounds, tastes, touches, and smells in relation to the objects from which these experiences are derived and then looks through the eyes to see these things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This desire is an electric current that turns on or focuses the eyes to see that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception — in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But in order to look, there must be a desire to see. The child becomes aware that something will soon follow something else, which then arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a potato a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called a sense organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an inaccurate observation that was never corrected.”

“Well, I say, what difference does it make whether we have four senses and a pair of eyes instead of five senses? I certainly don’t feel any different, and I still see you just as before.”

“Once it is understood that something existing in the external world makes contact with the brain through the four senses, but that the brain contacts the various objects by peering through the eyes, it makes a huge difference, and many things can be clarified.

You previously argued the image is not conveyed by light which has a delay. The image is already at the eye without delay. Are you changing your view?

The image is not formed by traveling light, but light has to surround the object for the photoreceptors to react. That is why he gave the example of seeing the Sun turned on at noon before we would see each other, which would take 8.5 minutes.

In a dark room the shutter is open on a camera with unexposed film.A light is switched on. Does the film start reacting and creating an image after the light reaches the camera with a delay?

The film would react to the light just like our eyes would, as long as the requirements of luminosity and size are met.

Or dose the film start reacting instantly because the image is already at the camera without delay.?

As I keep saying, the object has to be bright enough and large enough to be seen, whether we are talking about a camera or an eye. The light would be at the film or photoreceptors in real time, not delayed. Light is not optional. We can see nothing without light. It is the necessary link that allows all instruments to work, including binoculars and telescopes.

 

[peacegirl]

I knew some bees who when they saw me coming would hover and spell out 'hello Steve'.

This has gotten very silly.

From what I read bees can be conditioned to recognize pictures. not the same as 'recognizing'. Their brains are too small for that. Semantics.

Pavlov conditioned digs to salivate at the ring of a bell.

If they can do this, then there should be proof, not just what you read.

Pavlovian (classical) conditioning involves associating an involuntary reflex with a new stimulus, whereas operant conditioning (Skinner) associates voluntary behavior with consequences like rewards or punishments. Pavlov focused on involuntary responses (e.g., salivation), while operant conditioning

Operant conditioning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Operant conditioning originated with Edward Thorndike, whose law of effect theorised that behaviors arise as a result of consequences as satisfying or discomforting. In the 20th century, operant conditioning was studied by behavioral psychologists, who believed that much of mind and behaviour is explained through environmental conditioning. Reinforcements are environmental stimuli that increase behaviors, whereas punishments are stimuli that decrease behaviors. Both kinds of stimuli can be further categorised into positive and negative stimuli, which respectively involve the addition or removal of environmental stimuli.

Operant conditioning works, but bees being conditioned to recognize pictures is pure conjecture. Where is the proof that they can recognize their beekeepers in a different environment, let alone recognize them from a picture?

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

Your book and all your argument are silly. As somebody else posted, this thread is entertainment.

I do not take any of this seriously.

A to Pavlov, at this point I have a good idea of your conditioned responses. You probably grew up listening to it being repeated over and over by Lessans. Like kids being brought up Evangelical or Jehovah Witness, nearly impossible to change the conditioned responses..

Like Evangelicals you have never learned any science, but dispute it when it conflicts with belief.Some Christians believe humans coexisted with dinosaurs.

A I said, you and Lessans fit well established patterns and antecedents..

Over time on religion forum I saw how Christians put on blinders. A wilful ignorance of any historical context to faith outside of Christianity. That Jesus fits perfectly as a Greek demigod bounces right off. Other mythology does not exist.

You clam Lessans was entrely original, Christian clam Jesus and what he said were entirely new new and revolutionary.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
As I keep saying, the object has to be bright enough and large enough to be seen, whether we are talking about a camera or an eye. The light would be at the film or photoreceptors in real time, not delayed. Light is not optional. We can see nothing without light. It is the necessary link that allows all instruments to work, including binoculars and telescopes.

Again you are not directly answering the question. Does the chemical reaction in the film begin after a finite delay of the light reflecting off the object, or does it begin instantly when the light is turned on?

If it is instant, how does the image of the object get to the film before the light does?

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

Your book and all your argument are silly. As somebody else posted, this thread is entertainment.

I do not take any of this seriously.

That’s okay with me. I can’t make you take any of this seriously.

A to Pavlov, at this point I have a good idea of your conditioned responses. You probably grew up listening to it being repeated over and over by Lessans. Like kids being brought up Evangelical or Jehovah Witness, nearly impossible to change the conditioned responses..

My response is not conditioned like Pavlov. I was privileged to hear him and I asked tons of questions. I know you can’t imagine him being right, but I hope you come around with the realization that this discovery is not at all similar to growing up in a cult like atmosphere.

Like Evangelicals you have never learned any science, but dispute it when it conflicts with belief.Some Christians believe humans coexisted with dinosaurs.

I believe in science. I hope that you’ll one day see that these discoveries are not theories. They belong in the category of science.

A I said, you and Lessans fit well established patterns and antecedents..

Over time on religion forum I saw how Christians put on blinders. A wilful ignorance of any historical context to faith outside of Christianity. That Jesus fits perfectly as a Greek demigod bounces right off. Other mythology does not exist.

I understand that they refuse to hear anything else, but there is a difference between a Christian mindset and this.

You clam Lessans was entrely original, Christian clam Jesus and what he said were entirely new new and revolutionary.

Lessans’ discovery is revolutionary if it can do what it claims, and it can. I would not be here if I had any doubt. I hope you keep listening because you are the kind of person that is capable of understanding if you just give him a chance.

 

[steve_bank]

An old saying. Build a better muse trap and the world will beat a path to your door.

IO(W good ideas tend to get noticed.

Pg, your responses are generally limited to quoting the book and proclaiming the greatness of Lessans. Just like Christians do with the gospels and Jesus. As others have said it is religious like for you.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
As I keep saying, the object has to be bright enough and large enough to be seen, whether we are talking about a camera or an eye. The light would be at the film or photoreceptors in real time, not delayed. Light is not optional. We can see nothing without light. It is the necessary link that allows all instruments to work, including binoculars and telescopes.

Again you are not directly answering the question. Does the chemical reaction in the film begin after a finite delay of the light reflecting off the object, or does it begin instantly when the light is turned on?

If it is instant, how does the image of the object get to the film before the light does?

Have an answer Pg? You will not find it in the book. You have to picture it and reason trough it without referencing the book as an answer.

 

[bilby]

evolution evolves out of need

No, it absolutely does not.

 

[bilby]

He explained the concepts very well. You just don't agree to make it reasonable for you to say he didn't explain well. because he is demonstrably wrong.

FTFY.

 

[bilby]

You will be very contrite when this knowledge has nothing to do with faith in my father.

When will that be? When will you attempt to explain this "knowledge", without quoting his book?

This is prejudicial on your part.

No, it is postjudicial. It's bloody obvious, from my study of your thousands of posts on this subject. I didn't start with the expectation that you were hopelessly mired in your faith, but you have made that abundantly and unavoidably clear.