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

[bilby]

Why use the word "idiot" at all

Because it is apt.

 

[bilby]

light is constantly traveling

Photons that the object reflects do not arrive because they do not travel

... and there's your contradiction.

Game, Set, Match.

 

[bilby]

I can't even make sense of the definitions that define ad homs.

That's really not surprising. Making sense of things has repeatedly eluded you.

I am confused with the double-talk as much as everyone else

I don't think anyone else here is even slightly confused.

 

[peacegirl]

Kindergarten slap fight?

Pg

Truth be told the book IS crapola.

I was pointing out that both are using insults but nothing that merits moderation IMO.

But I agree with Pood. You have no idea what you are talking about or what you are dong.

If for al your life wherever you go you get the same responses a rational person might begin to think there is something to the criticism.

What the hell, Steve? I have only gone to two forums that come back with no proof. These forums never went into depth about his discoveries but used his claim regarding the senses to go no further. This in no way disproves any of his claims. How could you call this crapola? You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[peacegirl]

light is constantly traveling

Photons that the object reflects do not arrive because they do not travel

... and there's your contradiction.

Game, Set, Match.

Nooo, it is not a contradiction. Have you read anything I've explained? Photons that the object reflects are exchanged with new ones, but this does not explain what we see IF ARE EYES ARE EFFERENT, NOT AFFERENT. You have yet to understand the difference.

 

[peacegirl]

I can't even make sense of the definitions that define ad homs.

That's really not surprising. Making sense of things has repeatedly eluded you.

Um, I think you are confused as to who is eluded. I don't want to get into a match as to who is wrong or right. Just keep in mind that a comment like this does nothing to prove anything. It's a waste of bandwidth.

I am confused with the double-talk as much as everyone else

I don't think anyone else here is even slightly confused.

Um, please stop alluding to "everyone here," which is a giveaway that you can't stand on your own two feet.

 

[pood]

I can't even make sense of the definitions that define ad homs. I am confused with the double-talk as much as everyone else

There is no double talk. You just don’t understand basic logic.

 

[peacegirl]

Scroll down and see thin lens ray tracing and image formation

B28: Thin Lenses - Ray Tracing

A lens is a piece of transparent material whose surfaces have been shaped so that, when the lens is in another transparent material (call it medium 0), light traveling in medium 0, upon passing …

phys.libretexts.org

And more

2.4 Thin Lenses - University Physics Volume 3 | OpenStax

Ray tracing is the technique of determining or following (tracing) the paths taken by light rays....

openstax.org

Step out of darkness and illuminate yourself with knowledge.

Attention Ladies And Gentleman!

Look out the widow and Flight 316 from Newark is not arriving at gate 34, it is being seen at gate 34.

Pg
Light isn't carrying information. It is revealing information from the object through light.

I see. My spoken words are not conveying information encoded int the sounds, it is revealing information?

What? Of course your spoken words are conveying information encoded in the sounds that are traveling to my ears. You cannot compare sound to sight, which he distinguished.

There is verbal communication with contextual subjective meaning, and there i precise theory that describes how light interacts with objects and how that interaction is interpreted by the eye/brain.

Saying this 1000 more times doesn't make it true. Light obviously interacts with objects. Precise theory can be wrong, don't forget it.

Pg speaks philosophically subjective and others speak from science.

This observation is not subjective.

I don't think #1 is stated quite right, but that is AI for you.

The aperture of a 10 inch Newtonian scope is bigger than your eye, so it gathers more light. A 'light bucket' so to speak.

Cool

Magnification is related to the focal lengths of he objective and eyepiece lenses.

Okay

There are armature astronomy and telescope making books that are easy to read. I can help you find one if you want.

You are assuming he's wrong, and it's a cop-out.

To real;l\y understand magnification you need to learn ray tracing, for tat you need trigonometry.

All that is necessary is to know that telescopes magnify objects for the purposes of this discussion.

 

[peacegirl]

I can't even make sense of the definitions that define ad homs. I am confused with the double-talk as much as everyone else

There is no double talk. You just don’t understand basic logic.

You're right. What I meant is that it makes no difference to me what constitutes an ad hom or an insult. Both are nasty and I won't tolerate it.

 

[peacegirl]

Why use the word "idiot" at all

Because it is apt.

It is not apt, and like I just said to Pood, it's nasty. Would you teach your kids to call people idiots just because they don't agree with what someone has to say? That would turn them into little arrogant know-it-alls who can't accept that they aren't all that. It's not a nice word, so why are you defending it?

 

[steve_bank]

Kindergarten slap fight?

Pg

Truth be told the book IS crapola.

I was pointing out that both are using insults but nothing that merits moderation IMO.

But I agree with Pood. You have no idea what you are talking about or what you are dong.

If for al your life wherever you go you get the same responses a rational person might begin to think there is something to the criticism.
What the hell, Steve? I have only gone to two forums that come back with no proof. These forums never went into depth about his discoveries but used his claim regarding the senses to go no further. This in no way disproves any of his claims. How could you call this crapola? You have no idea what you're talking about.

You argue science of vision is wrong yet are utterly ignorant of the science you argue against.

Instant vision has been repeatedly refuted. Saying when the Sun is switched on there is a delay until we see objects around us but we see the Sun instantly is plain silly.

It is on you to provide tangible proof of assertions, which you can not do.

A discovery on senses? Renaming a sense does not change iow it functions.

As I said before the book is lke certuries old metaphysics

Redefining the classification for Pluto does not change what Pluto is psychically.

The Pluto controversy stems from the 2006
International Astronomical Union (IAU) decision to reclassify Pluto from a planet to a "dwarf planet" because it failed to "clear its neighborhood" of debris in the Kuiper Belt. This demotion triggered ongoing debate among astronomers, scientists, and the public, with critics arguing the definition is flawed, arbitrary, or too narrow

What the hell is an 'object wavelength'?

Light travels with a finite speed does not 'arrive' at the eye More silly nonsense.

You keep trying to spin a way to get around the fact the book makes no sense about vision, and you fail. Hence your stated frustration.

The retina, optic nerves, and vision center in the brain are all well mapped by dissection and maging.


This is old news. There should be videos on it.

Yes, visual senses can be seen and mapped in the brain, primarily within the visual cortex located in the occipital lobe at the back of the brain. Advanced imaging techniques like functional MRI (fMRI) allow researchers to map visual information, while electrodes can directly record neuronal firing patterns that represent shapes, colors, and memories.

 

[peacegirl]

Kindergarten slap fight?

Pg

Truth be told the book IS crapola.

I was pointing out that both are using insults but nothing that merits moderation IMO.

But I agree with Pood. You have no idea what you are talking about or what you are dong.

If for al your life wherever you go you get the same responses a rational person might begin to think there is something to the criticism.
What the hell, Steve? I have only gone to two forums that come back with no proof. These forums never went into depth about his discoveries but used his claim regarding the senses to go no further. This in no way disproves any of his claims. How could you call this crapola? You have no idea what you're talking about.

You argue science of vision is wrong yet are utterly ignorant of the science you argue against.

Instant vision has been repeatedly refuted. Saying when the Sun is switched on there is a delay until we see objects around us but we see the Sun instantly is plain silly.

It's not silly. It was meant as a hypothetical example to show that we would see the Sun first before light ever got here.

It is on you to provide tangible proof of assertions, which you can not do.

He demonstrated what is happening, if not more than what science is doing.

A discovery on senses? Renaming a sense does not change iow it functions.

It doesn't change how it functions, but it changes what we are conditioned to seeing.

As I said before the book is lke certuries old metaphysics

Redefining the classification for Pluto does not change what Pluto is psychically.

It doesn't change the physical aspect, but it does change how we view what we see.

The Pluto controversy stems from the 2006
International Astronomical Union (IAU) decision to reclassify Pluto from a planet to a "dwarf planet" because it failed to "clear its neighborhood" of debris in the Kuiper Belt. This demotion triggered ongoing debate among astronomers, scientists, and the public, with critics arguing the definition is flawed, arbitrary, or too narrow

This just goes to show that nothing can be ruled out until it is, and in this case, seeing in real time is not ruled out.

What the hell is an 'object wavelength'?

It is the light that travels through space/time, which is, according to delayed time, the very light that strikes the retina over long distances and is seen as an image in the brain.

Light travels with a finite speed does not 'arrive' at the eye More silly nonsense.

So you are saying light doesn't arrive at the eye?

You keep trying to spin a way to get around the fact the book makes no sense about vision, and you fail. Hence your stated frustration.

I'm not frustrated for that reason. I'm frustrated at the ignorance that poses as knowledge.

The retina, optic nerves, and vision center in the brain are all well mapped by dissection and maging.

No one is disputing any of this, but whether the brain is seeing a virtual image of real life or whether we are seeing real life directly cannot be mapped out in the way you describe. So it's moot.

This is old news. There should be videos on it.

I'm sure there are. People are trying to help the blind by sending signals to the brain that would mimic the retina that is being bypassed. Only time will tell if these methods will give people back their sight. That would be amazing indeed.

Yes, visual senses can be seen and mapped in the brain, primarily within the visual cortex located in the occipital lobe at the back of the brain. Advanced imaging techniques like functional MRI (fMRI) allow researchers to map visual information, while electrodes can directly record neuronal firing patterns that represent shapes, colors, and memories.

They might very well do that. Only time will tell if sight can be fully restored using this method. So far, all of the trials that have helped restore vision have involved people who have some remaining vision.

 

[peacegirl]

Kindergarten slap fight?

Pg

Truth be told the book IS crapola.

I was pointing out that both are using insults but nothing that merits moderation IMO.

But I agree with Pood. You have no idea what you are talking about or what you are dong.

If for al your life wherever you go you get the same responses a rational person might begin to think there is something to the criticism.
What the hell, Steve? I have only gone to two forums that come back with no proof. These forums never went into depth about his discoveries but used his claim regarding the senses to go no further. This in no way disproves any of his claims. How could you call this crapola? You have no idea what you're talking about.

You argue science of vision is wrong yet are utterly ignorant of the science you argue against.

Instant vision has been repeatedly refuted. Saying when the Sun is switched on there is a delay until we see objects around us but we see the Sun instantly is plain silly.

It is on you to provide tangible proof of assertions, which you can not do.

A discovery on senses? Renaming a sense does not change iow it functions.

As I said before the book is lke certuries old metaphysics

Redefining the classification for Pluto does not change what Pluto is psychically.

The Pluto controversy stems from the 2006
International Astronomical Union (IAU) decision to reclassify Pluto from a planet to a "dwarf planet" because it failed to "clear its neighborhood" of debris in the Kuiper Belt. This demotion triggered ongoing debate among astronomers, scientists, and the public, with critics arguing the definition is flawed, arbitrary, or too narrow

What the hell is an 'object wavelength'?

Light travels with a finite speed does not 'arrive' at the eye More silly nonsense.

You keep trying to spin a way to get around the fact the book makes no sense about vision, and you fail. Hence your stated frustration.

The retina, optic nerves, and vision center in the brain are all well mapped by dissection and maging.


This is old news. There should be videos on it.

Yes, visual senses can be seen and mapped in the brain, primarily within the visual cortex located in the occipital lobe at the back of the brain. Advanced imaging techniques like functional MRI (fMRI) allow researchers to map visual information, while electrodes can directly record neuronal firing patterns that represent shapes, colors, and memories.

light is constantly traveling

Photons that the object reflects do not arrive because they do not travel

... and there's your contradiction.

Game, Set, Match.

I want to, once again, explain why this is not a contradiction. Light IS constantly traveling and being replaced with new photons, but light that is a mirror image (so to speak, I don't like using the word reflected for obvious reasons) of the object goes only so far until we cannot see the object anymore, since the light diminishes before it gets to us. No light, no sight. This has nothing to do with light itself or its properties, so why does everyone keep talking about light when it has to do with the brain?

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

The bottom line is you are the one with the agenda trying to convince us. We are not accepting anything you are claiming form the book.

So, what comes next? There are a finite number of forums for you to post n.

It is common after a failed exercise like this to do a postmortem. Ask yourself why it failed and how it could have been done better. Ask yourself 'What am I doing wrong?'

 

[pood]

Kindergarten slap fight?

Pg

Truth be told the book IS crapola.

I was pointing out that both are using insults but nothing that merits moderation IMO.

But I agree with Pood. You have no idea what you are talking about or what you are dong.

If for al your life wherever you go you get the same responses a rational person might begin to think there is something to the criticism.
What the hell, Steve? I have only gone to two forums that come back with no proof. These forums never went into depth about his discoveries but used his claim regarding the senses to go no further. This in no way disproves any of his claims. How could you call this crapola? You have no idea what you're talking about.

You argue science of vision is wrong yet are utterly ignorant of the science you argue against.

Instant vision has been repeatedly refuted. Saying when the Sun is switched on there is a delay until we see objects around us but we see the Sun instantly is plain silly.

It's not silly. It was meant as a hypothetical example to show that we would see the Sun first before light ever got here.

Which you can test by watching the sun rise in the morning. When we conduct that test, we find your writer is wrong.

It is on you to provide tangible proof of assertions, which you can not do.

He demonstrated what is happening, if not more than what science is doing.

No, he did not.

A discovery on senses? Renaming a sense does not change iow it functions.

It doesn't change how it functions, but it changes what we are conditioned to seeing.

Meaningless statement.

As I said before the book is lke certuries old metaphysics

Redefining the classification for Pluto does not change what Pluto is psychically.

It doesn't change the physical aspect, but it does change how we view what we see.

Meaningless statement.

The Pluto controversy stems from the 2006
International Astronomical Union (IAU) decision to reclassify Pluto from a planet to a "dwarf planet" because it failed to "clear its neighborhood" of debris in the Kuiper Belt. This demotion triggered ongoing debate among astronomers, scientists, and the public, with critics arguing the definition is flawed, arbitrary, or too narrow

This just goes to show that nothing can be ruled out until it is, and in this case, seeing in real time is not ruled out.

Of course it is. It is both physically and logically impossible, as has been endlessly explained to you.

What the hell is an 'object wavelength'?

It is the light that travels through space/time, which is, according to delayed time, the very light that strikes the retina over long distances and is seen as an image in the brain.

That is not an object’s wavelength.

Light travels with a finite speed does not 'arrive' at the eye More silly nonsense.

So you are saying light doesn't arrive at the eye?

I think he means that light does not arrive at the eye instantly, which is correct. You are the one claiming that light is at the eye instantly even though it takes time to get to the eye, a clear logical contradiction, a self-refuting statement and a very silty one to boot.

 

[pood]

I'm not frustrated for that reason. I'm frustrated at the ignorance that poses as knowledge.

You should look in the mirror when you say that.

The retina, optic nerves, and vision center in the brain are all well mapped by dissection and maging.

No one is disputing any of this, but whether the brain is seeing a virtual image of real life or whether we are seeing real life directly cannot be mapped out in the way you describe. So it's moot.

No, it’s not. We understand how light and sight and the brain work and that real-time seeing is both physically and logically impossible.

This is old news. There should be videos on it.

I'm sure there are. People are trying to help the blind by sending signals to the brain that would mimic the retina that is being bypassed. Only time will tell if these methods will give people back their sight. That would be amazing indeed.

It has already worked and also disproves real-time seeing. This was explained to you years ago by The Lone Ranger.

 

[pood]

Why use the word "idiot" at all

Because it is apt.

It is not apt, and like I just said to Pood, it's nasty. Would you teach your kids to call people idiots just because they don't agree with what someone has to say? That would turn them into little arrogant know-it-alls who can't accept that they aren't all that. It's not a nice word, so why are you defending it?

Why are you calling people irrational and terrified of having their world view threatened, which are not only nasty insults but ad hom to boot in the context in which you are using these insults?

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

The bottom line is you are the one with the agenda trying to convince us. We are not accepting anything you are claiming form the book.

So, what comes next? There are a finite number of forums for you to post n.

It is common after a failed exercise like this to do a postmortem. Ask yourself why it failed and how it could have been done better. Ask yourself 'What am I doing wrong?'

The only thing I have done wrong is thinking a forum like this would create interest. It isn't anyone's fault. People don't normally assess a book that has not been read, especially in a philosophy forum. The discussion was doomed from the beginning, but not due to anything wrong with the knowledge itself. Question: Do you remember anything I posted regarding why man's will is not free? Do you remember the two principles leading to the discovery? I don't think you do. Prove me wrong. I have done my best, but it's not enough, unfortunately.

 

[bilby]

light is constantly traveling

Photons that the object reflects do not arrive because they do not travel

... and there's your contradiction.

Game, Set, Match.

Nooo, it is not a contradiction.

You say that light is constantly travelling, but does not arrive because it does not travel.

That's a contradiction, and remains one no matter how much you deny it.

Have you read anything I've explained?

I don't need to read anything other than your two contradictiry statements to see that a contradiction is present. Anything else you say cannot possibly reverse that obvious and undeniable fact.

Photons that the object reflects are exchanged with new ones, but this does not explain what we see IF ARE EYES ARE EFFERENT, NOT AFFERENT.

So what? You explicitly said that light is constantly travelling, AND that photons do not travel. It is logically impossible for these two claims to both be true, regardless of anything else. Efferent, afferent, effluent, or abracadabra cannot make something both constantly travel, AND not travel.

You have yet to understand the difference.

The difference is irrelevant. The contradiction is fatal to your position. You are not only espousing a set of claims that is wrong, but one that is internally contradictory.

 

[peacegirl]

Kindergarten slap fight?

Pg

Truth be told the book IS crapola.

I was pointing out that both are using insults but nothing that merits moderation IMO.

But I agree with Pood. You have no idea what you are talking about or what you are dong.

If for al your life wherever you go you get the same responses a rational person might begin to think there is something to the criticism.
What the hell, Steve? I have only gone to two forums that come back with no proof. These forums never went into depth about his discoveries but used his claim regarding the senses to go no further. This in no way disproves any of his claims. How could you call this crapola? You have no idea what you're talking about.

You argue science of vision is wrong yet are utterly ignorant of the science you argue against.

Instant vision has been repeatedly refuted. Saying when the Sun is switched on there is a delay until we see objects around us but we see the Sun instantly is plain silly.

It is not silly once you understand how the brain and eyes work. Then it won't be silly anymore.

It's not silly. It was meant as a hypothetical example to show that we would see the Sun first before light ever got here.

Which you can test by watching the sun rise in the morning. When we conduct that test, we find your writer is wrong.

We already went over this. The example was hypothetical. When night arrives, the light from the Sun is on the other side of Earth; that's all. You can't use this example because the Sun has been emitting light to us nonstop for 4.6 billion years.

It is on you to provide tangible proof of assertions, which you can not do.

He demonstrated what is happening, if not more than what science is doing.

No, he did not.

Yes he did, but it's hard for people to think about, I guess. They just can't believe he is refuting the science that has apparently been settled for a long long time. I have to keep repeating certain excerpts in the hope that one day you will see that he was correct in his observations.

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

For the modern empiricist, the only way knowledge becomes ‘stamped’ onto the human conscience is through internal and external sensations, or through sense experience. But there is surprising evidence that the eyes are not a sense organ. The idea that man has five senses originated with Aristotle, and it has never been challenged. He did this just as naturally as we would name anything to identify it. But he made an assumption that the eyes functioned like the other senses, so he included them in the definition. This is equivalent to calling an apple, pear, peach, orange, and potato five fruit. The names given to these foods describe differences in substance that exist in the real world, but we certainly cannot call them five fruit since this word excludes the potato, which is not grown in the same manner as is described by the word fruit. Believe it or not, the eyes, similar to the potato in the above example, were classified in a category to which they did not belong. We cannot name the organs with which we communicate with the outside world — the five senses, when they do not function alike. Aristotle, however, didn’t know this. His logic and renown delayed an immediate investigation of his theory because no one dared oppose the genius of this individual without appearing ridiculous for such audacity, which brought about almost unanimous agreement. To disagree was so presumptuous that nobody dared to voice their disagreement because this would only incur disdainful criticism. Everyone believed that such a brilliant individual, such a genius, had to know whereof he spoke.

This is not a criticism of Aristotle or of anyone. But even today, we are still in agreement regarding a fallacious observation about the brain and its relation to the eyes. Those who will consider the possibility that you might have a discovery reveal their confusion by trying to nullify any value to it with this comment, as was made to me, “What difference does it make what we call them as a group; this isn’t going to change what we are. Whether we call them five senses, or four senses and a pair of eyes, is certainly not going to change them in any way.” However, if man doesn’t really have five senses, isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think otherwise, we will be prevented from discovering those things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery? Consequently, it does make a difference what we call them. Just as my first discovery was not that man’s will is not free but the knowledge revealed by opening that door for a thorough investigation, so likewise, my second discovery is not that man does not have five senses but what significant knowledge lies hidden behind this door.

Many years later, we have an additional problem that is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear, any evidence to the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth. However, it appears that they will not be given the opportunity because the very moment the will of God is perceived and understood, man is given no alternative as to what direction he must travel, which is away from condemning someone who has uncovered a falsehood. The real truth is that there are thousands upon thousands of differences existing in the external world, but when words do not describe these differences accurately, we are then seeing a distorted version of what exists — as with free will.

A discovery on senses? Renaming a sense does not change iow it functions.

It doesn't change how it functions, but it changes what we are conditioned to seeing.

Meaningless statement.

This is not meaningless. So many things change for the better as a result of this realization.

As I said before the book is lke certuries old metaphysics

Redefining the classification for Pluto does not change what Pluto is psychically.

It doesn't change the physical aspect, but it does change how we view what we see.

Meaningless statement.

It is not meaningless. It matters greatly, just as it matters greatly that will is not free, due to the amazing changes that will take place after the basic principle is applied on a global basis.

The Pluto controversy stems from the 2006
International Astronomical Union (IAU) decision to reclassify Pluto from a planet to a "dwarf planet" because it failed to "clear its neighborhood" of debris in the Kuiper Belt. This demotion triggered ongoing debate among astronomers, scientists, and the public, with critics arguing the definition is flawed, arbitrary, or too narrow

This just goes to show that nothing can be ruled out until it is, and in this case, seeing in real time is not ruled out.

Of course it is. It is both physically and logically impossible, as has been endlessly explained to you.

An explanation may look perfect in every way... and still be wrong.

What the hell is an 'object wavelength'?

It is the light that travels through space/time, which is, according to delayed time, the very light that strikes the retina over long distances and is seen as an image in the brain.

That is not an object’s wavelength.

If you are NOT saying that the light bounces off of objects, taking the frequency/wavelength with it across eons to finally reach the eye, which is then transduced into a virtual image in the brain, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?

Light travels with a finite speed does not 'arrive' at the eye More silly nonsense.

So you are saying light doesn't arrive at the eye?

I think he means that light does not arrive at the eye instantly, which is correct. You are the one claiming that light is at the eye instantly even though it takes time to get to the eye, a clear logical contradiction, a self-refuting statement and a very silty one to boot.

There is no logical contradiction, which I've explained. The way you say it sounds ludicrous, sort of like teleportation, but that's not what it is. Why not say it like this: As we focus on an object in the sky, we see it because when our gaze is upon it, there is enough light at our eyes for it to be seen. Do you remember the requirements? Luminosity and size? If an object is too far away, there won't be any light at the eye to see it, and if the object is too dim, there won't be enough light at the eye to see it. This account has nothing to do with time but everything to do with whether the object we are looking at meets the requirements, whether that object is a million miles away or ten yards away.