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

[bilby]

It all works the same way. The only difference is that we don't see in delayed time.

That's a contradiction. It is literally impossible for both of those statements to be simultaneously true.

 

[peacegirl]

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 directory 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?

The light is there instantly IF the object is in camera lens' field of view, just like the eye.

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.

What can I do to defend myself? These are not beliefs, but... if you think that is all they are, then, once again, why are you here? You seem to have made up your mind that this is some kind of childhood conditioning, and there is nothing I can do about that.

 

[peacegirl]

It all works the same way. The only difference is that we don't see in delayed time.

That's a contradiction. It is literally impossible for both of those statements to be simultaneously true.

There is no contradiction.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

Your study is biased and all you are doing with every one of my posts is confirming your premise that I am hopelessly mired in my faith. It's so obvious what you're doing.

 

[pood]

Your study is biased and all you are doing with every one of my posts is confirming your premise that I am hopelessly mired in my faith. It's so obvious what you're doing.

It is obvious that with these kinds of unsubstantiated charges you are tossing out ad homs, a rule violation here.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

I see, the image is conveyed by light, but somehow we see before the light arrives.

Your position is indefensible. Do you not see the contradiction? If light with a finite speed conveys an image, you can not see the image before the light arrives at the eye, or camera.

If light is a condition of seeing, you can not see until the light arrives, not before.

 

[peacegirl]

Your study is biased and all you are doing with every one of my posts is confirming your premise that I am hopelessly mired in my faith. It's so obvious what you're doing.

It is obvious that with these kinds of unsubstantiated charges you are tossing out ad homs, a rule violation here.

What about all the unsubstantiated charges against me that you, in particular, have accused me of? You will lose if you start with your ad hom BS!

 

[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 directory 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?

The light is there instantly IF the object is in camera lens' field of view, just like the eye.

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.

What can I do to defend myself? These are not beliefs, but... if you think that is all they are, then, once again, why are you here? You seem to have made up your mind that this is some kind of childhood conditioning, and there is nothing I can do about that.

Your clams are not defensible.

 

[DBT]

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.

You can't just change the terms to suit an idea.

The middle, if determinism is true, was set by all that led to it, and in turn sets the future evolution of the system.

Where if world peace comes about, it comes about inevitably.

Where you don't get to see something before light gets to the eyes and the brain converts that information into conscous experience.

 

[peacegirl]

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 directory 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?

The light is there instantly IF the object is in camera lens' field of view, just like the eye.

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.

What can I do to defend myself? These are not beliefs, but... if you think that is all they are, then, once again, why are you here? You seem to have made up your mind that this is some kind of childhood conditioning, and there is nothing I can do about that.

Your clams are not defensible.

But they are. Telling me they are not defensible doesn't make them not defensible.

 

[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.

You can't just change the terms to suit an idea.

DBT, this is not changing the terms. He is tweaking the definition for greater accuracy. Do you know why man's will is not free, according to this author?

The middle, if determinism is true, was set by all that led to it, and in turn sets the future evolution of the system.

That's all true, but he defined it, not in a way that allows for any kind of free will, but due to the standard definition that is lacking accuracy because the past (the antecedent events) cannot cause anything if the past doesn't exist except in memory. Rather, we move in the direction of greater satisfaction each and every moment of time, which means that once a choice (or decision) is made, we could not have chosen otherwise. But the missing part is that what we will find satisfying under the changed conditions, is to hurt no one, because the justification to do so will have been eliminated. There are other changes that must take place before these principles will work (which I have not yet discussed) but when they are. . . war, crime, and poverty will be coming to an end.
------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact that will is not free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate, and during every moment of his progress, was doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the word ‘cause,’ like ‘choice’ and ‘past,’ is very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two; it is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two opposing principles have never been reconciled until now. The amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, and the millions that criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system; but these systems are not caused by these laws; they are these laws.”

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment or else commit suicide. Therefore, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous, of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another. But remember, this desire of one thing over another is a compulsion beyond control. All I am doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but make sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding further.”

Where if world peace comes about, it comes about inevitably.

It will come about eventually because determinism and its corollary cannot be denied, once understood. It is the gateway that unlocks the door to peace. Why do you think I'm working so hard to get this knowledge into the right hands. Here is part of this excerpt again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Although I agree with everything you have demonstrated so far, reluctantly, and think it is absolutely marvelous, I can’t see how you can satisfy the whole human race, and that’s what you must do with your equation, which includes communism as well as capitalism.”

You keep forgetting one thing. I am not the one who will solve this problem. The astronomer who first observed the invariable laws between the planets, moon, and sun didn’t cause the eclipse; he perceived certain relations that made him aware it would occur at a certain time. And just because I have observed the invariable laws inherent in the mankind system, which allowed me to see the end of all war and crime because of what it means that man’s will is not free, does not mean that I am causing this to come about. The most I am able to do is reveal God’s laws, which gives me no choice but to move in a certain direction for satisfaction because we are all part of His laws. At this juncture, let me recapitulate certain salient points.

Man is compelled by his nature to move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction and when he is blamed for hurting others through carelessness, he is permitted to find satisfaction in one of three ways. He can apologize, shift his responsibility to something or someone else as the cause for what he knows he has done, or, if there is no way he can shift his responsibility, he can pay a price for the hurt he knows he caused. However, when he knows, well in advance, that all mankind are compelled to excuse everything he does because it is now known that his will is not free — while he knows that he doesn’t have to hurt anybody unless he wants to (for over this he knows he has mathematical control) — he is given no choice but to do everything in his power to prevent a situation from which he cannot find any satisfaction.

How is it possible for him to find satisfaction in carelessly hurting others when he is denied an opportunity to apologize, to shift his responsibility, or to pay a price of atonement for what he did? Since this will eat at his conscience, and since he knows this well in advance, he is given no choice but to prefer the alternative that offers greater satisfaction, and in this case the only avenue open is for him to prevent such a situation from arising. I realize that there is quite a difference between hurt that results from carelessness, which is something a person really doesn’t want, and deliberate hurt. There is also a vast difference between the blame that follows a hurt and blame that is in advance, which is a judgment of what is right for someone else. This latter blame is discussed thoroughly in the chapter on marriage, where it is also demonstrated how such advance blame or judgment of others must come to an end out of mathematical necessity. This is the kind of blame that tells you how to wear your hair, how to dress, how you should live. It is the bully in various forms. These things are your business just as long as nobody is hurt by what you do. You will understand this much better as we proceed.

The belief in free will and the concomitant blame are equivalent to the thrust of a rocket in getting a satellite into space, for without it we could never have reached the outposts of this Golden Age. But just as the astronauts shed their excess baggage when their rocket has expended its energy in reaching orbit, so likewise will we shed this theory and all the blame that helped us reach this tremendous turning point in our lives. Well, is it any wonder this discovery was never found when the solution actually lies beyond the framework of modern thought since it cannot be understood in terms of our present knowledge? As I said, there are no precedents.

Where you don't get to see something before light gets to the eyes and the brain converts that information into conscous experience.

You keep saying that "you don't get to see something before light gets to the eyes," and you will continue to say that because you are not grasping that if he is right, we see the object first, and light is there BECAUSE WE ARE ABLE TO SEE THE OBJECT, not the other way around.

 

[steve_bank]

It taes light about 0.000005368 seconds to travel 1 mile.

The visual system reported response is on the order of 0.1 seconds.

For all practical purposes in our daily environment we see in real time. The light delay is small compared to the response time of the eye and brain.Technically speaking we do not see in real time with no delay.

And

Eye persistence time, or "
persistence of vision," is the phenomenon where the retina retains an image for roughly
1/16 to 1/32 of a second after it disappears. This short delay allows the brain to blend rapidly shifting still images into continuous motion, forming the basis for cinematography, animation, and light-based visual illusions.

Persistence of vision - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Persistence of vision is the optical illusion that occurs when the visual perception of an object does not cease for some time after the rays of light proceeding from it have ceased to enter the eye.[1] The illusion has also been described as "retinal persistence",[2] "persistence of impressions",[3] simply "persistence" and other variations. A very commonly given example of the phenomenon is the apparent fiery trail of a glowing coal or burning stick while it is whirled around in the dark.[1]

 

[steve_bank]

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.

You can't just change the terms to suit an idea.

DBT, this is not changing the terms. He is tweaking the definition for greater accuracy. Do you know why man's will is not free, according to this author?

The middle, if determinism is true, was set by all that led to it, and in turn sets the future evolution of the system.

That's all true, but he defined it, not in a way that allows for any kind of free will, but due to the standard definition that is lacking accuracy because the past (the antecedent events) cannot cause anything if the past doesn't exist except in memory. Rather, we move in the direction of greater satisfaction each and every moment of time, which means that once a choice (or decision) is made, we could not have chosen otherwise. But the missing part is that what we will find satisfying under the changed conditions, is to hurt no one, because the justification to do so will have been eliminated. There are other changes that must take place before these principles will work (which I have not yet discussed) but when they are. . . war, crime, and poverty will be coming to an end.
------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact that will is not free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate, and during every moment of his progress, was doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the word ‘cause,’ like ‘choice’ and ‘past,’ is very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two; it is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two opposing principles have never been reconciled until now. The amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, and the millions that criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system; but these systems are not caused by these laws; they are these laws.”

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment or else commit suicide. Therefore, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous, of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another. But remember, this desire of one thing over another is a compulsion beyond control. All I am doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but make sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding further.”

Where if world peace comes about, it comes about inevitably.

It will come about eventually because determinism and its corollary cannot be denied, once understood. It is the gateway that unlocks the door to peace. Why do you think I'm working so hard to get this knowledge into the right hands. Here is part of this excerpt again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Although I agree with everything you have demonstrated so far, reluctantly, and think it is absolutely marvelous, I can’t see how you can satisfy the whole human race, and that’s what you must do with your equation, which includes communism as well as capitalism.”

You keep forgetting one thing. I am not the one who will solve this problem. The astronomer who first observed the invariable laws between the planets, moon, and sun didn’t cause the eclipse; he perceived certain relations that made him aware it would occur at a certain time. And just because I have observed the invariable laws inherent in the mankind system, which allowed me to see the end of all war and crime because of what it means that man’s will is not free, does not mean that I am causing this to come about. The most I am able to do is reveal God’s laws, which gives me no choice but to move in a certain direction for satisfaction because we are all part of His laws. At this juncture, let me recapitulate certain salient points.

Man is compelled by his nature to move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction and when he is blamed for hurting others through carelessness, he is permitted to find satisfaction in one of three ways. He can apologize, shift his responsibility to something or someone else as the cause for what he knows he has done, or, if there is no way he can shift his responsibility, he can pay a price for the hurt he knows he caused. However, when he knows, well in advance, that all mankind are compelled to excuse everything he does because it is now known that his will is not free — while he knows that he doesn’t have to hurt anybody unless he wants to (for over this he knows he has mathematical control) — he is given no choice but to do everything in his power to prevent a situation from which he cannot find any satisfaction.

How is it possible for him to find satisfaction in carelessly hurting others when he is denied an opportunity to apologize, to shift his responsibility, or to pay a price of atonement for what he did? Since this will eat at his conscience, and since he knows this well in advance, he is given no choice but to prefer the alternative that offers greater satisfaction, and in this case the only avenue open is for him to prevent such a situation from arising. I realize that there is quite a difference between hurt that results from carelessness, which is something a person really doesn’t want, and deliberate hurt. There is also a vast difference between the blame that follows a hurt and blame that is in advance, which is a judgment of what is right for someone else. This latter blame is discussed thoroughly in the chapter on marriage, where it is also demonstrated how such advance blame or judgment of others must come to an end out of mathematical necessity. This is the kind of blame that tells you how to wear your hair, how to dress, how you should live. It is the bully in various forms. These things are your business just as long as nobody is hurt by what you do. You will understand this much better as we proceed.

The belief in free will and the concomitant blame are equivalent to the thrust of a rocket in getting a satellite into space, for without it we could never have reached the outposts of this Golden Age. But just as the astronauts shed their excess baggage when their rocket has expended its energy in reaching orbit, so likewise will we shed this theory and all the blame that helped us reach this tremendous turning point in our lives. Well, is it any wonder this discovery was never found when the solution actually lies beyond the framework of modern thought since it cannot be understood in terms of our present knowledge? As I said, there are no precedents.

Where you don't get to see something before light gets to the eyes and the brain converts that information into conscous experience.

You keep saying that "you don't get to see something before light gets to the eyes," and you will continue to say that because you are not grasping that if he is right, we see the object first, and light is there BECAUSE WE ARE ABLE TO SEE THE OBJECT, not the other way around.

I am sorry, but that is blameable. It is nionsense.

The light is there because we are able to see te object?

The thing about science is equations and models trump semantics.

PHYSICALLY light travels from object to eye and the vision process does not start until light reaches the eye. Period.

 

[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 directory 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?

The light is there instantly IF the object is in camera lens' field of view, just like the eye.

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.

What can I do to defend myself? These are not beliefs, but... if you think that is all they are, then, once again, why are you here? You seem to have made up your mind that this is some kind of childhood conditioning, and there is nothing I can do about that.

Your clams are not defensible.

But they are. Telling me they are not defensible doesn't make them not defensible.

Sophistry.

The burden of proof is on you/Lessans, and you fail to make it.

 

[DBT]

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.

You can't just change the terms to suit an idea.

DBT, this is not changing the terms. He is tweaking the definition for greater accuracy. Do you know why man's will is not free, according to this author?

The middle, if determinism is true, was set by all that led to it, and in turn sets the future evolution of the system.

That's all true, but he defined it, not in a way that allows for any kind of free will, but due to the standard definition that is lacking accuracy because the past (the antecedent events) cannot cause anything if the past doesn't exist except in memory. Rather, we move in the direction of greater satisfaction each and every moment of time, which means that once a choice (or decision) is made, we could not have chosen otherwise. But the missing part is that what we will find satisfying under the changed conditions, is to hurt no one, because the justification to do so will have been eliminated. There are other changes that must take place before these principles will work (which I have not yet discussed) but when they are. . . war, crime, and poverty will be coming to an end.
------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact that will is not free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate, and during every moment of his progress, was doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the word ‘cause,’ like ‘choice’ and ‘past,’ is very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two; it is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two opposing principles have never been reconciled until now. The amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, and the millions that criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system; but these systems are not caused by these laws; they are these laws.”

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment or else commit suicide. Therefore, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous, of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another. But remember, this desire of one thing over another is a compulsion beyond control. All I am doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but make sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding further.”

Where if world peace comes about, it comes about inevitably.

It will come about eventually because determinism and its corollary cannot be denied, once understood. It is the gateway that unlocks the door to peace. Why do you think I'm working so hard to get this knowledge into the right hands. Here is part of this excerpt again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Although I agree with everything you have demonstrated so far, reluctantly, and think it is absolutely marvelous, I can’t see how you can satisfy the whole human race, and that’s what you must do with your equation, which includes communism as well as capitalism.”

You keep forgetting one thing. I am not the one who will solve this problem. The astronomer who first observed the invariable laws between the planets, moon, and sun didn’t cause the eclipse; he perceived certain relations that made him aware it would occur at a certain time. And just because I have observed the invariable laws inherent in the mankind system, which allowed me to see the end of all war and crime because of what it means that man’s will is not free, does not mean that I am causing this to come about. The most I am able to do is reveal God’s laws, which gives me no choice but to move in a certain direction for satisfaction because we are all part of His laws. At this juncture, let me recapitulate certain salient points.

Man is compelled by his nature to move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction and when he is blamed for hurting others through carelessness, he is permitted to find satisfaction in one of three ways. He can apologize, shift his responsibility to something or someone else as the cause for what he knows he has done, or, if there is no way he can shift his responsibility, he can pay a price for the hurt he knows he caused. However, when he knows, well in advance, that all mankind are compelled to excuse everything he does because it is now known that his will is not free — while he knows that he doesn’t have to hurt anybody unless he wants to (for over this he knows he has mathematical control) — he is given no choice but to do everything in his power to prevent a situation from which he cannot find any satisfaction.

How is it possible for him to find satisfaction in carelessly hurting others when he is denied an opportunity to apologize, to shift his responsibility, or to pay a price of atonement for what he did? Since this will eat at his conscience, and since he knows this well in advance, he is given no choice but to prefer the alternative that offers greater satisfaction, and in this case the only avenue open is for him to prevent such a situation from arising. I realize that there is quite a difference between hurt that results from carelessness, which is something a person really doesn’t want, and deliberate hurt. There is also a vast difference between the blame that follows a hurt and blame that is in advance, which is a judgment of what is right for someone else. This latter blame is discussed thoroughly in the chapter on marriage, where it is also demonstrated how such advance blame or judgment of others must come to an end out of mathematical necessity. This is the kind of blame that tells you how to wear your hair, how to dress, how you should live. It is the bully in various forms. These things are your business just as long as nobody is hurt by what you do. You will understand this much better as we proceed.

The belief in free will and the concomitant blame are equivalent to the thrust of a rocket in getting a satellite into space, for without it we could never have reached the outposts of this Golden Age. But just as the astronauts shed their excess baggage when their rocket has expended its energy in reaching orbit, so likewise will we shed this theory and all the blame that helped us reach this tremendous turning point in our lives. Well, is it any wonder this discovery was never found when the solution actually lies beyond the framework of modern thought since it cannot be understood in terms of our present knowledge? As I said, there are no precedents.

Where you don't get to see something before light gets to the eyes and the brain converts that information into conscous experience.

You keep saying that "you don't get to see something before light gets to the eyes," and you will continue to say that because you are not grasping that if he is right, we see the object first, and light is there BECAUSE WE ARE ABLE TO SEE THE OBJECT, not the other way around.

I continue to say it because, unlike the idea of real time/instant vision, it is demonstrably true.

 

[peacegirl]

It taes light about 0.000005368 seconds to travel 1 mile.

The visual system reported response is on the order of 0.1 seconds.

For all practical purposes in our daily environment we see in real time. The light delay is small compared to the response time of the eye and brain.Technically speaking we do not see in real time with no delay.

That's why it can't be tested on Earth because light travels so fast, according to the present theory of sight, there would be a delay that would appear instantaneous.

And

Eye persistence time, or "
persistence of vision," is the phenomenon where the retina retains an image for roughly
1/16 to 1/32 of a second after it disappears. This short delay allows the brain to blend rapidly shifting still images into continuous motion, forming the basis for cinematography, animation, and light-based visual illusions.

Persistence of vision - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Persistence of vision is the optical illusion that occurs when the visual perception of an object does not cease for some time after the rays of light proceeding from it have ceased to enter the eye.[1] The illusion has also been described as "retinal persistence",[2] "persistence of impressions",[3] simply "persistence" and other variations. A very commonly given example of the phenomenon is the apparent fiery trail of a glowing coal or burning stick while it is whirled around in the dark.[1]

I believe this has to do with visual memory, which is an interesting phenomenon but not sure how it would contradict real time vision.

Although the persistence of a visual impression can be pathological (palinopsia), it can commonly be attributed to incidental yet normal physiological afterimages, or to the aspect of visual sensory memory that is a standard element of human vision.

Persistence of vision - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[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.

You can't just change the terms to suit an idea.

DBT, this is not changing the terms. He is tweaking the definition for greater accuracy. Do you know why man's will is not free, according to this author?

The middle, if determinism is true, was set by all that led to it, and in turn sets the future evolution of the system.

That's all true, but he defined it, not in a way that allows for any kind of free will, but due to the standard definition that is lacking accuracy because the past (the antecedent events) cannot cause anything if the past doesn't exist except in memory. Rather, we move in the direction of greater satisfaction each and every moment of time, which means that once a choice (or decision) is made, we could not have chosen otherwise. But the missing part is that what we will find satisfying under the changed conditions, is to hurt no one, because the justification to do so will have been eliminated. There are other changes that must take place before these principles will work (which I have not yet discussed) but when they are. . . war, crime, and poverty will be coming to an end.
------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact that will is not free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate, and during every moment of his progress, was doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the word ‘cause,’ like ‘choice’ and ‘past,’ is very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two; it is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two opposing principles have never been reconciled until now. The amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, and the millions that criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system; but these systems are not caused by these laws; they are these laws.”

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment or else commit suicide. Therefore, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous, of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another. But remember, this desire of one thing over another is a compulsion beyond control. All I am doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but make sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding further.”

Where if world peace comes about, it comes about inevitably.

It will come about eventually because determinism and its corollary cannot be denied, once understood. It is the gateway that unlocks the door to peace. Why do you think I'm working so hard to get this knowledge into the right hands. Here is part of this excerpt again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Although I agree with everything you have demonstrated so far, reluctantly, and think it is absolutely marvelous, I can’t see how you can satisfy the whole human race, and that’s what you must do with your equation, which includes communism as well as capitalism.”

You keep forgetting one thing. I am not the one who will solve this problem. The astronomer who first observed the invariable laws between the planets, moon, and sun didn’t cause the eclipse; he perceived certain relations that made him aware it would occur at a certain time. And just because I have observed the invariable laws inherent in the mankind system, which allowed me to see the end of all war and crime because of what it means that man’s will is not free, does not mean that I am causing this to come about. The most I am able to do is reveal God’s laws, which gives me no choice but to move in a certain direction for satisfaction because we are all part of His laws. At this juncture, let me recapitulate certain salient points.

Man is compelled by his nature to move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction and when he is blamed for hurting others through carelessness, he is permitted to find satisfaction in one of three ways. He can apologize, shift his responsibility to something or someone else as the cause for what he knows he has done, or, if there is no way he can shift his responsibility, he can pay a price for the hurt he knows he caused. However, when he knows, well in advance, that all mankind are compelled to excuse everything he does because it is now known that his will is not free — while he knows that he doesn’t have to hurt anybody unless he wants to (for over this he knows he has mathematical control) — he is given no choice but to do everything in his power to prevent a situation from which he cannot find any satisfaction.

How is it possible for him to find satisfaction in carelessly hurting others when he is denied an opportunity to apologize, to shift his responsibility, or to pay a price of atonement for what he did? Since this will eat at his conscience, and since he knows this well in advance, he is given no choice but to prefer the alternative that offers greater satisfaction, and in this case the only avenue open is for him to prevent such a situation from arising. I realize that there is quite a difference between hurt that results from carelessness, which is something a person really doesn’t want, and deliberate hurt. There is also a vast difference between the blame that follows a hurt and blame that is in advance, which is a judgment of what is right for someone else. This latter blame is discussed thoroughly in the chapter on marriage, where it is also demonstrated how such advance blame or judgment of others must come to an end out of mathematical necessity. This is the kind of blame that tells you how to wear your hair, how to dress, how you should live. It is the bully in various forms. These things are your business just as long as nobody is hurt by what you do. You will understand this much better as we proceed.

The belief in free will and the concomitant blame are equivalent to the thrust of a rocket in getting a satellite into space, for without it we could never have reached the outposts of this Golden Age. But just as the astronauts shed their excess baggage when their rocket has expended its energy in reaching orbit, so likewise will we shed this theory and all the blame that helped us reach this tremendous turning point in our lives. Well, is it any wonder this discovery was never found when the solution actually lies beyond the framework of modern thought since it cannot be understood in terms of our present knowledge? As I said, there are no precedents.

Where you don't get to see something before light gets to the eyes and the brain converts that information into conscous experience.

You keep saying that "you don't get to see something before light gets to the eyes," and you will continue to say that because you are not grasping that if he is right, we see the object first, and light is there BECAUSE WE ARE ABLE TO SEE THE OBJECT, not the other way around.

I continue to say it because, unlike the idea of real time/instant vision, it is demonstrably true.

Not really. There is no absolute proof that we see in delayed time, just appearances and models that seem airtight but aren't proven when it comes to what the brain is doing. So far, they haven't created neural pathways in the brain that could lead to sight in the blind. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

I was an electrical engineer. Been out of it for 15 years now, don't know measurement state of the art today.

Measuring C is routine daily stuff in electronics. Light, meaning the electromagnet spectrum, is a littke slower in air than in space, and slower in a medium like a circuit board.

In the 80s I worked on militray RADAR system. RADAR sends out a pule and resumes the time it takes to reflect off a target and return.

Light is the visible potion of the electromagnet spectrum. Radio waves lie radar and visible light are the same thing with different wavelengths.

A radar mile is the time it takes for a radar pulse to travel to a target and return, approximately
12.36 microseconds

In electronics 12.6 microseconds is a very long time. Picooseconds can be easily resolved with ordinary equipment.

micro 10-6
pico 10-12

The smallest measurable time delay in electronics/physics is in the zeptosecond (10-21seconds) range, with a record measurement of 247 zeptoseconds, which is the time taken for a photon to cross a hydrogen molecule. These extremely precise measurements are achieved by observing interference patterns of electrons ejected from atoms by X-rays.

So yes in our daily local environment for all practical proposes we see in real time, but it is not strictly true.

If Lessans based his great discovery in any way on 'instant' vision meaning no delay than the whole argument fails.

We do not see the Sun in real time.

Persistence represents a delay in seeing motion.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

I was an electrical engineer. Been out of it for 15 years now, don't know measurement state of the art today.

Measuring C is routine daily stuff in electronics. Light, meaning the electromagnet spectrum, is a littke slower in air than in space, and slower in a medium like a circuit board.

In the 80s I worked on militray RADAR system. RADAR sends out a pule and resumes the time it takes to reflect off a target and return.

Light is the visible potion of the electromagnet spectrum. Radio waves lie radar and visible light are the same thing with different wavelengths.

A radar mile is the time it takes for a radar pulse to travel to a target and return, approximately
12.36 microseconds

In electronics 12.6 microseconds is a very long time. Picooseconds can be easily resolved with ordinary equipment.

micro 10-6
pico 10-12

The smallest measurable time delay in electronics/physics is in the zeptosecond (10-21seconds) range, with a record measurement of 247 zeptoseconds, which is the time taken for a photon to cross a hydrogen molecule. These extremely precise measurements are achieved by observing interference patterns of electrons ejected from atoms by X-rays.

So yes in our daily local environment for all practical proposes we see in real time, but it is not strictly true.

If Lessans based his great discovery in any way on 'instant' vision meaning no delay than the whole argument fails.

We do not see the Sun in real time.

Persistence represents a delay in seeing motion.

For the umpteenth time, light travels. Even if it turns out to be true that we see in real time, it doesn't change the speed of light, so why do you bring this up as if it is a done deal? I don't want to downplay what you know. I appreciate all of your capabilities, but I don't think anything you have said thus far disproves his claim. And no one has proven that dogs can recognize their masters without other cues to help them. This does matter because if the eyes were a sense organ, they should be able to. Lessans explains that it has to do with a dog's brain that does not have the language ability that humans have. He uses this difference to explain how the human brain is capable of identifying object/word relationships by taking a photograph (or picture) that are not sent in the light itself.

 

[steve_bank]

You sad it is too fast to be measured, but it is easily measured

If real time means witho0ut delay than that can not be.

Again. If light is necessary condition fo0r seeing and there is a finite speed, then there can be no instant or real time vision as you believe.

There are inherent delays in the eye, nerves, and the brain.

Way back you said light does not convey the image. The image is already at the eye when a light is turned on. Is that still your position?