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

[peacegirl]

I have made precise observations and with certainty I say the Sun goes around the Earth.

To hell with science I say! They are all dogmatic fools!

People have been wrong in their observations; that is true, but this doesn't mean Lessans must have been wrong because others were wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Throughout history, there has always been this skepticism before certain events were proven true. It is only natural to be skeptical, but this is never a sufficient reason to exclude the possibility of a scientific miracle. You may reason that many people have been positive that they were right, but it turned out they were wrong, so couldn’t I also be positive and wrong? There is a fallacious standard hidden in this reasoning. Because others were positive and wrong, I could be wrong because I am positive. The first astronomer who observed the mathematical laws inherent in the solar system that enabled him to predict an eclipse was positive and right, as was the space scientist who foretold that one day man would land on the moon. Edison, when he first discovered the electric bulb, was positive and right. Einstein, when he revealed the potential of atomic energy, was positive and right — and so were many other scientists — but they proved that they were right with an undeniable demonstration, which is what I am doing. If my demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and only then am I wrong. There is quite a difference between being positive or dogmatic over knowledge that is questionable and being positive over something that is undeniable, such as two plus two equals four. Just bear in mind how many times in the course of history the impossible (that which appeared to be) has been made possible by scientific discoveries, which should make you desire to contain your skepticism enough to investigate what this is all about.

Pg
electromagnetic energy (i.e., photons) have within them the reflective light of the object that will travel and eventually be interpreted as an image in the brain.

The optimal image is the patterns of photons created by interacting with an object.

Again. Imagine a still pond with a vertical stick stuck in the bottom going above the surface, Drop a rock in the pond and ripples expand in a circle. When the ripples hit the stick thy interact with the stick and form patterns in the ripples. The disturbance in the circular ripples past the stick containn an 'image' of the stick.

The water molecules are dumb. Meaning of the pasterns around hte stick are what we retainer them as.

Imagine that in 3D and you get an idea of how an optical image is formed by light refection off an object.

Where does this disprove real-time vision? Patterns exist. That is why we can see an object in real time, due to its pattern on the retina. It's just that the pattern doesn't continue beyond the inverse square law.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
That is a pretty good map of light traveling and the present belief as to how sight works, but nothing in that diagram explains how the eyes work. There is no proof that nerve signals reach the brain and become images, which is the main argument.

Rods and cones on retina connected to nerves, nerves running to a region of the brain. Signals on the optic nerves run one way, eye to brain.Rods ad cones cones convert photons to electrons. You might just as well argue against photosynthesis in plants

We know damage in the area of the brain where optic nerves go causes vision problems.

I am not debating any of this. Every part of the eye is necessary for sight. The only difference is the mechanism of how these structures are used in light of real-time vision. It doesn't remove them. Every part of the eye and brain is essential, including memory.

I had a temporary speech aphasia from a subdural hematoma. Fluid acculturation put pressure on the speech enter of my brain.

You can search for specific studies. Fairly old news.

I can understand that. Anything that interferes with a particular part of the brain, due to a lack of blood supply, would cause a serious problem. Thank goodness yours was resolved.

Imaging the brain's response to visual stimuli involves techniques like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) to map activation in the visual cortex and higher-order areas. Visual stimuli typically trigger responses in the primary visual cortex (V1), moving through areas V2-V4 for feature detection (color, orientation) and into the ventral stream for object recognition.

MRI can show which areas of the brain are invoked for different kinds of stimulus.

I watched a neuroscientist talk about an experiment. He ran MRIs on theists while contemplating god and paraying to see which areas of the brain increased activity.

It's really fascinating what neuroscience is learning about the brain, but so far, nothing has pinpointed a location in the brain where images are formed in delayed time.

You are arguing from an apriori assumption Lessans is right without evidence.

Visual images are foamed tin the visual cortex. Your chronic argument that science does not explain vision is patently false. It does not add credence to your claims.

We know that the visual cortex is the vision center of the brain, but neuroscientists do not explain how the visual cortex works other than by theorizing what they think is happening.

It is like a Creationist argument.

Steve, you are so off the mark, I don't know how to convince you. THERE IS EVIDENCE, but maybe not to your satisfaction. More tests can be done. I'm not here to fool you. I am challenging beliefs that you have carried for decades.

You use the same kind of argument.

Theists will argue both science and Chrtianity are faith based. Belief science works is as much a faith as religion. So, region is as valid as scienc
False equivalence?

Religion is not science.

For the first time, the members of a congregation, realizing that God is everywhere, not just in churches and synagogues, and realizing further that all evil is coming to a permanent end, will prefer spending their money in a different direction. Religion will be reluctant to give up the pivotal role it has played for thousands of years, but how is it possible for these theologians to object to the very things they have been unsuccessfully trying to accomplish without revealing that they don’t want mankind to be delivered from all evil? This does not mean that religion has not served an important function in man’s development. We could not have reached this turning point had it not been for our religious institutions, but we are at last shedding the final stage of the rocket that has given mankind its thrust up to this point. The great humor and the very reason religion could never approve of this work, despite its purpose, is because it would be forced to relinquish what has always been a source of tremendous satisfaction There is something else that annoys religion because it expects the Messiah to look like Christ or some other historical figure, and that he will come to Earth not through ordinary channels.

Someone who would claim to have solved the problem of evil could easily be mistaken for a false prophet or even the antichrist. It may be difficult for the faithful to entertain the idea that the promised Messiah may not come in bodily form but rather as a divine law which has the power to prevent what manmade laws and institutions could never accomplish. To some, this suggestion may be viewed as an unpardonable offense because it appears blasphemous. It may be impossible for those who adhere to the literal translation of the Bible, or any other sacred text, to consider the possibility that peace might come through an unexpected source, although still in accordance with God’s will. Even if I had never made this discovery, it would have come to light sooner or later because what is revealed is a definite part of the real world, not a figment of the imagination. Science will have to take the lead in affirming the accuracy of these principles before they can be applied worldwide. The truth will be very easy to convey once it is understood and acknowledged by scientists because it involves undeniable relations such as two plus two equals four, but when people have been taught for centuries that man’s will is free and the eyes are a sense organ, it becomes more difficult to break through these beliefs since the long tenure of preempted authority has confused opinions with facts and dogmatically closed the door to further investigation. However, when theologians fully realize that not only were they teaching something false and that God’s will, the truth, was hidden behind a different door, but that their standard of living will be permanently guaranteed even though they step down from the pulpit, we will very quickly get their cooperation in attaining this sonic boom.

Same type of claims with creation science. It is as sound and objective as physics.

Yo0u argue that Lessans subjective observations and interpretations without evidence is as objective as science, which it is not.

Lessans wrote his ideas are true with scientific and mathematical certainty.

You're all washed up, Steve. He was very precise in his observations and his description of how we become conditioned. You have no idea where his observations originated, or why he made this claim in the first place.

Hmm .. could that be hyperbole?

No hyperbole.

Your postings collectively have a religious like tone.

Maybe you're not used to his style of writing, but a religious tone? NOT.

A dead guru-master who left behind cryptic profound revelations. Belief will save the world. A high priest/priestess interprets, perches, and guides to the truth. Watch out for the evil naysayers who deny the truth of the dead master.


Historically formulaic.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

You have been proselytizing on the net for over a decade. In your own words if you could just get one person to believe.

I am not an expert in religion in mythology and religion but you do fit a pattern.

You have and present a mythical image of Lessans. You have a scripture you quote as the unassailable truth. Lessans was prophetic, the world will come to his way of thinking in 40 tears.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
electromagnetic energy (i.e., photons) have within them the reflective light of the object that will travel and eventually be interpreted as an image in the brain.

The optimal image is the patterns of photons created by interacting with an object.

Again. Imagine a still pond with a vertical stick stuck in the bottom going above the surface, Drop a rock in the pond and ripples expand in a circle. When the ripples hit the stick thy interact with the stick and form patterns in the ripples. The disturbance in the circular ripples past the stick containn an 'image' of the stick.

The water molecules are dumb. Meaning of the pasterns around hte stick are what we retainer them as.

Imagine that in 3D and you get an idea of how an optical image is formed by light refection off an object.

Where does this disprove real-time vision? Patterns exist. That is why we can see an object in real time, due to its pattern on the retina. It's just that the pattern doesn't continue past what the inverse square law allows.

It refutes everything you say about optics, light, and vision.

Light has finite speed, light reflecting off object creates the 'inage;, image arrives at eye with a delay.

 

[peacegirl]

Hey, peacegirl, remember this? It was first presented to you at least 15 years ago!

There is nothing here that conflicts with real-time vision because the speed of light has nothing to do with his claim. Back to the drawing board.

The drawing board doesn't permit instant vision. The drawing board support physics, where light has a finite speed and takes time to travel between its source and the eyes.

You are completely stuck in a rut. I don't think it's possible to help you understand that this version violates nothing.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
That is a pretty good map of light traveling and the present belief as to how sight works, but nothing in that diagram explains how the eyes work. There is no proof that nerve signals reach the brain and become images, which is the main argument.

Rods and cones on retina connected to nerves, nerves running to a region of the brain. Signals on the optic nerves run one way, eye to brain.Rods ad cones cones convert photons to electrons. You might just as well argue against photosynthesis in plants

We know damage in the area of the brain where optic nerves go causes vision problems.

I am not debating any of this. Every part of the eye is necessary for sight. The only difference is the mechanism of how these structures are used in light of real-time vision. It doesn't remove them. Every part of the eye and brain is essential, including memory.

I had a temporary speech aphasia from a subdural hematoma. Fluid acculturation put pressure on the speech enter of my brain.

You can search for specific studies. Fairly old news.

I can understand that. Anything that interferes with a particular part of the brain, due to a lack of blood supply, would cause a serious problem. Thank goodness yours was resolved.

Imaging the brain's response to visual stimuli involves techniques like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) to map activation in the visual cortex and higher-order areas. Visual stimuli typically trigger responses in the primary visual cortex (V1), moving through areas V2-V4 for feature detection (color, orientation) and into the ventral stream for object recognition.

MRI can show which areas of the brain are invoked for different kinds of stimulus.

I watched a neuroscientist talk about an experiment. He ran MRIs on theists while contemplating god and paraying to see which areas of the brain increased activity.

It's really fascinating what neuroscience is learning about the brain, but so far, nothing has pinpointed a location in the brain where images are formed in delayed time.

You are arguing from an apriori assumption Lessans is right without evidence.

Visual images are foamed tin the visual cortex. Your chronic argument that science does not explain vision is patently false. It does not add credence to your claims.

We know that the visual cortex is the vision center of the brain, but neuroscientists do not explain how the visual cortex works other than by theorizing what they think is happening.

It is like a Creationist argument.

Steve, you are so off the mark, I don't know how to convince you. THERE IS EVIDENCE, but maybe not to your satisfaction. More tests can be done. I'm not here to fool you. I am challenging beliefs that you have carried for decades.

You use the same kind of argument.

Theists will argue both science and Chrtianity are faith based. Belief science works is as much a faith as religion. So, region is as valid as scienc
False equivalence?

Religion is not science.

For the first time, the members of a congregation, realizing that God is everywhere, not just in churches and synagogues, and realizing further that all evil is coming to a permanent end, will prefer spending their money in a different direction. Religion will be reluctant to give up the pivotal role it has played for thousands of years, but how is it possible for these theologians to object to the very things they have been unsuccessfully trying to accomplish without revealing that they don’t want mankind to be delivered from all evil? This does not mean that religion has not served an important function in man’s development. We could not have reached this turning point had it not been for our religious institutions, but we are at last shedding the final stage of the rocket that has given mankind its thrust up to this point. The great humor and the very reason religion could never approve of this work, despite its purpose, is because it would be forced to relinquish what has always been a source of tremendous satisfaction There is something else that annoys religion because it expects the Messiah to look like Christ or some other historical figure, and that he will come to Earth not through ordinary channels.

Someone who would claim to have solved the problem of evil could easily be mistaken for a false prophet or even the antichrist. It may be difficult for the faithful to entertain the idea that the promised Messiah may not come in bodily form but rather as a divine law which has the power to prevent what manmade laws and institutions could never accomplish. To some, this suggestion may be viewed as an unpardonable offense because it appears blasphemous. It may be impossible for those who adhere to the literal translation of the Bible, or any other sacred text, to consider the possibility that peace might come through an unexpected source, although still in accordance with God’s will. Even if I had never made this discovery, it would have come to light sooner or later because what is revealed is a definite part of the real world, not a figment of the imagination. Science will have to take the lead in affirming the accuracy of these principles before they can be applied worldwide. The truth will be very easy to convey once it is understood and acknowledged by scientists because it involves undeniable relations such as two plus two equals four, but when people have been taught for centuries that man’s will is free and the eyes are a sense organ, it becomes more difficult to break through these beliefs since the long tenure of preempted authority has confused opinions with facts and dogmatically closed the door to further investigation. However, when theologians fully realize that not only were they teaching something false and that God’s will, the truth, was hidden behind a different door, but that their standard of living will be permanently guaranteed even though they step down from the pulpit, we will very quickly get their cooperation in attaining this sonic boom.

Same type of claims with creation science. It is as sound and objective as physics.

Yo0u argue that Lessans subjective observations and interpretations without evidence is as objective as science, which it is not.

Lessans wrote his ideas are true with scientific and mathematical certainty.

You're all washed up, Steve. He was very precise in his observations and his description of how we become conditioned. You have no idea where his observations originated, or why he made this claim in the first place.

Hmm .. could that be hyperbole?

No hyperbole.

Your postings collectively have a religious like tone.

Maybe you're not used to his style of writing, but a religious tone? NOT.

A dead guru-master who left behind cryptic profound revelations. Belief will save the world. A high priest/priestess interprets, perches, and guides to the truth. Watch out for the evil naysayers who deny the truth of the dead master.


Historically formulaic.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

You have been proselytizing on the net for over a decade. In your own words if you could just get one person to believe.
I am not an expert in religion in mythology and religion but you do fit a pattern.

Who cares. I was compiling his work for 20 years. I went on forums during that time to share it, but it backfired. It's not about belief, Steve. Why in the world would you need to have others say they believe it -- as some kind of proof -- unless you were relying on them to explain what you obviously can't? Lessans would never have made this discovery if he had depended on others to agree with him

You have and present a mythical image of Lessans.

He was a human being who had an intellectual capacity that could match any philosopher of ancient times. Why should that be a surprise?

You have a scripture you quote as the unassailable truth. Lessans was prophetic, the world will come to his way of thinking in 40 tears.

It was a prophecy in the Bible. It wasn't his prophecy. You can't even read what was written when it's right in front of you.

 

[steve_bank]

Is the book in the OP Lessans' verbatim writing or is it your compilation?

 

[peacegirl]

Is the book in the OP Lessans' verbatim writing or is it your compilation?

Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times is my compilation. I typed all of his books verbatim as well. Here is one:

Read a sample: “A New Earth: From Conflict to Unity: The Road to Lasting Peace”

Seymour Lessans, Janis Rafael

read.amazon.com

 

[steve_bank]

That may explain the lack of structure and form in the book. No coherent them or focus. A collection of unconnected thoughts.

 

[peacegirl]

Hey, peacegirl, remember this? It was first presented to you at least 15 years ago!

There is nothing here that conflicts with real-time vision because the speed of light has nothing to do with his claim. Back to the drawing board.

Sure there is. If he saw Io in real time, the discreapancy he noted could not have existed; Io would be seen at the same predicted point in its orbit regardless of how far from Earth it was.

Jupiter's Io experiment is considered to be the only interpretation possible. But if Lessans is right (and I say "if" for your benefit), then there may be another reason for the delay that has nothing to do with the speed of light.

If there is another reason for the delay, then that "other reason" exists regardless of how wrong Lessans might be.

I don't see where the delay proved that we see in delayed time. They were able to figure out the speed of light based on his experiment due to the delay, but the idea that this meant we were seeing the Io moon in delayed time is pure conjecture.

And equally, IF that reason exists, it should be easily measurable; We are talking about a discrepancy of some seventeen minutes over six months here. And it would not be expected to just coincidentally match up with every other way we have of measuring lightspeed (including such things as observations of Saturn's moons or Mars's, which display the exact same phenomenon).

Tidal effects are truly irrelevant here. Io is tidally locked, so the effect on orbital period is small, despite the eccentricity and seismological impacts which are notable and in the latter case, very impressive.

Worse still for your case, the orbital eccentricity of Io is now very precisely known, and when the variations in orbital period this causes are accounted for, the estimate of lightspeed we derive is even more accurate - allowing for these effects does not undermine the result, but rather gives it more support.

That makes sense. I am glad the experiment was able to be used to support how fast light travels.

It also brings into question whether the speed of light, based on his computations, was accurate.
.

No, it really doesn't. It is known to have been fairly inaccurate, though it was in the right ballpark; And the reasons for that are not only well known, but are given in the article @pood provided, and that is linked in the very first post in the quote-chain (above).

Of course, Roemer was the FIRST to use this technique, but was far from the last, and further observations using far better equipment than was available in the C17th have been made, confirming that his methodology was sound.

You are falling into your well worn rut of taking something you know nothing about, asking Bing a loaded question about it, and then misinterpreting the answer (which you don't seem to have read, or at least don't seem to have understood) as support for your beliefs.

That this is a spectacularly poor way to find out anything about anything, should be obvious to anyone with a primary school level grasp of science; So I am not surprised that you are utterly and pathetically unaware of just how dumb you are being when you do it.

I'm not trying to ask Bing a loaded question and then misinterpret the answer.

Then what you are trying to do does not reflect what you are actually doing.

Once again, the problem isn't the accuracy of the speed of light. It is the belief that, as a result of the speed of light, we are seeing Io in delayed time. These are two different phenomena. I have said this all along. In the same vein, we see the moon in real time, even though it takes 1.3 seconds for its light to travel to Earth.

I am trying to work through the claim of afferent vision in light of Lessans' claim. He made this claim from a different angle entirely.

From the angle of not having a clue?

He had important clues.

If he was right about his observations (which you have not disproved),

I so have. His "observations" are logically impossible, and fail to predict any of a range of observations available to all, while implying to be false many observations that are demonstrably true.

I don't think his claim is logically impossible if you understand that light is a necessary condition. This isn't magic or teleportation.

I shouldn't have to prove that certain astronomical calculations are false.

You don't have to. You could simply drop your belief in Lessans' idiotic claims; Or you could choose to be wrong. Both are alternative options for you.

I would never do that because I know (believe ) that he was right. It has important implications for our world.

That wasn't his job either. I have said over and over that he was not an astronomer, but, again, that doesn't automatically make his observations inaccurate.

What fucking observations? He has CLAIMS. He has CONJECTURES. He has NO OBSERVATIONS.

You don't even know what the word means, and nor did he.

They were observations. Maybe they were not physical observations, but observations, nevertheless.

That is why I said it's a category error because he is discussing how the brain and eyes work, and everyone else is discussing how light works.

The eyes work by detecting light.

Discussion of the eyes necessarily entails discussion of light.

Even you, with your nutty "light has to be at the eye" incomplete conjecture, agree that light is directly necessary for sight.

True, but he was not disputing anything about light or its properties. That is not how he came to his finding.

His claim does not violate physics or the speed of light.

Yes, it absolutely does.

No one seems interested in understanding his observations or his reasoning therefrom.

That's because they cannot be understood. They fly in the face of logic and reason, and understanding is not an option. Belief is always an option, people believe incoherent nonsense all the time. But belief not only does not require understanding, it actively rejects it.

He was the first to say you can deny anything you want if it is not understood.

They just want to claim that he is wrong so they claim that they are right.

No, I claim he is wrong because he is demonstrably wrong. Even if I too were wildly wrong, he wouldn't be, and couldn't be, right.

He is not demonstrably wrong because you believe he couldn't be right. That is because you still believe there is a gap between seeing in real time and receiving the image in delayed time.

They both can't be right. The verdict is still out whether you think so or not.

That's obvious. He is wrong, so either they are both wrong, or just Lessans is.

Either way, he remains wrong.

Either way, he remains right.

 

[peacegirl]

That may explain the lack of structure and form in the book. No coherent them or focus. A collection of unconnected thoughts.

Say something TRUE, or I'm giving up on you.

 

[peacegirl]

THERE IS EVIDENCE

What is it?

In fact, there can be no evidence, because it cannot logically be the case that light is at the eye instantly while taking time to get there.

Why did you post total irrelevancies about the Jovian moon Io when the example I linked clearly shows that we were able to measure the speed of light only because there is a delay in light getting to the eye?

If light is at the eye instantly (even though ti takes time to get there by your own admission) how are we able to measure the speed of light in the first place?

No one is saying what you think it is saying, so back off, Pood. We can measure the speed of light, but this has nothing to do with the brain and how it works.

How does the brain 'work'?

I already know anatomy

Toe bone connected to the foot bone
Foot bone connected to the heel bone
Heel bone connected to the ankle bone
Ankle bone connected to the leg bone
Leg bone connected to the knee bone
Knee bone connected to the thigh bone
Thigh bone connected to the hip bone
Hip bone connected to the back bone
Back bone connected to the shoulder bone
Shoulder bone connected to the neck bone
Neck bone connected to the head bone
Hear the word of the Lord.

Hear the word of the Lord.

Phooey!

 

[steve_bank]

Pg, you have free will an can choose to post or not post.

Pg, you are deterministically bound to post or not post. You have no choice.

Pg, you sort of have free will and are sort of deterministically bound. You are conditioned to post or not post.

 

[peacegirl]

The only flaw is with the idea that the object's wavelength/frequency (IMAGE) travels to the brain rather than the brain looking through the eye to see the object itself. That's it.

Nope, that's not it. That's not anything, because literally nobody is saying that "the object's wavelength/frequency (IMAGE) travels to the brain", and the parenthetical "(IMAGE)" is a bizarre non-sequitur.

It is not a non-sequitur. It is central to this discussion. When I say the object's wavelength/frequency, I mean the light that has the potential to bring to the eye the image of the object. It might not be the words you use, but you should know what I mean by now.

Light reflects off objects, and travels to the brain.

Okay.

Light consists of a number of photons; Each has a frequency that, for visible light, we call colour (in the US, "color").

Got it.

As photons are constrained to travel at c, the frequency and wavelength of light become interchangeable; A photon of known frequency has a known wavelength and vice-versa.

So far so good.

Unless the object in question has a pure colour, or is illuminated by a pure colour source (such as a laser), the photons that reflect from it will have a wide range of individual frequencies, the average of which we call the colour(s) of the object's surface.

Right.

The pattern formed by these photons can be resolved into an image of the object. An image is a pattern on a plane through the straight-line path that light takes from object to that plane; By focussing the light through a lens, the pattern can be made to match the suface pattern of the object, and such a matching pattern is called an image of the object.

This is where we part ways. By focusing the light through the lens, we see the object through the pattern, which is called seeing in real time.

When a retina lies exactly on the focal plane of the lens, the pattern of light on the retinal cells matches the pattern of light on the surface of the object. If the retina is offset from the focal plane, then the image formed will be blurry, and will not match the pattern of the surface of the object - this can be corrected by interposing additional lenses to bring the focal plane more accurately onto the retina.

Correct.

This is what you are denying. (It is also how spectacles and contact lenses work).

Not at all. Corrective lenses work when the retina is offset from the focal plane, which can be corrected by bringing the focal plane more accurately on the retina. I'm not sure where you think this disproves efferent vision.

Now, please provide your similarly detailed description of what you are claiming.

How does "the brain [look] through the eye to see the object itself"? What role does light play in this, exactly?

I can only give you what he wrote because I can't say it any better, especially when I'm under a microscope. I am sure this won't satisfy you, but I'll keep trying.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

At a very early age, our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but also photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation, whereas a dog is incapable of this. When he sees the features of his master without any accompanying sound or smell, he cannot identify them because no photograph was taken. A dog identifies through his sense of sound and smell and what he sees in relation to these sense experiences, just as we identify most of the differences that exist through words and names. If the negative plate on which the relation is formed is temporarily disconnected — in man’s case the words and names and in a dog’s case the sounds and smells — both would have a case of amnesia. This gives conclusive evidence as to why an animal cannot identify too well with his eyes. As we have seen, if a vicious dog accustomed to attacking any person who should open the fence at night were to have two senses, hearing and smell, temporarily disconnected, and assuming that no relation was developed as to the way in which an individual walked, he would actually have amnesia, and even though he saw with his eyes his master come through the gate, he would have no way of recognizing him and would attack. But a baby, having already developed negatives of relations that act as a slide in a movie projector, can recognize at a very early age. The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts as a tape recorder through our ears and the other three senses and a camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as a movie projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded, they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since the eyes are the binoculars of the brain, all words that are placed in front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world, and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses, man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and if words correctly describe, then he will be made conscious of actual differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for those who do not know the words.

How do spectacles or contact lenses enable the brain to look through the eye to see the object clearly, when it could not be seen clearly without them, and without light taking time to travel the (short but non-zero) distance from retina to lens?

Light travels to the lens, but this doesn't explain how the brain and eyes see. They are two different things.

In order for the mechanism you claim to supplant the mechanism you are denying, it must explain all of the things that we observe, including such phenomena as correcting vision with spectacles; And it must explain them as well as, or better than, our existing explanation, while also explaining something else that the existing explanation does not.

If it can't, it would be unreasonable to adopt a new explanation or to give credence to a new mechanism.

Seeing in real time does not disrupt the way lenses work to correct vision. It has nothing to do with it. It has other important implications, but does not dispute any of the applications that use light in their technologies that are proven to work.

Memory function doesn't store information in the form of photographs. Light does not transmit information in the form of photographs.

How do you know what the brain is doing that proves that a photograph is not taken that forms a memory? Light is not what transmits information in the form of photographs. Light is a condition of sight, not a cause that transmits information (which claim you're entirely ignoring).

The brain does not take photographs. Memory is not stored in the form of photographs.

It's the connection between the word and the object. It's not an actual photograph DBT. You're not following him.

When we see something, we are not looking at photographs.

No, we're not. He never said we are.

Our experience is being generated by the brain using information detected/acquired by the eyes, with the information integrated with memory, which enables recognition .

Saying "information detected/acquired by the eyes" could be used in the afferent version of vision as well. In both accounts, whether we interpret an image or see the thing in real time doesn't change how our memories work or what the brain does with the information. Our experience is generated by the brain using what it sees, through the eyes, which is then integrated with memory, enabling recognition.

That is shown when memory function breaks down and the patient can no longer recognize what they see. There eyes are functioning, the information is transmitted to the visual cortex, but memory function fails to integrate the information in order to enable recognition.

This is true. It's called aphasia, I believe. Memory is essential. I don't know where you got the idea that vision is all that is needed without other parts of the brain to make sense of what is seen. Obviously, the memory portion of our brain that recognizes, categorizes, and integrates what is seen (whether in delayed or real time) is essential for a functioning human being to respond to his environment.

Nothing you say here, being full of errors and made up stuff that has no relationship to how the world works, supports real time/instant vision.

You keep saying it's full of errors, but you haven't shown where those errors are other than saying there is a gap between light and the eye. I think this claim is so repugnant to you, because you believe that vision cannot work the way Lessans described, that you're unwilling to listen to anything more.

Why that is so has been repeated countless times, only to be casually brushed aside without consideration.

I have not casually brushed anything aside, but I believe Lessans was right. What can I say to you (other than admitting he was wrong, which I will not do) that will keep you here before closing the door?

 

[peacegirl]

Pg, you have free will an can choose to post or not post.

Of course, I can choose to post or not to post, but today I decided to post IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION THAN NOT TO POST, which gives me no free will at all.

Pg, you are deterministically bound to post or not post. You have no choice.

Once I made the choice, it could not have been otherwise.

Pg, you sort of have free will and are sort of deterministically bound. You are conditioned to post or not post.

We are all deterministically bound. The free will you are talking about just means "doing something of your own desire; nothing forced or made you do something against your will." But that does not make will free.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted due to the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because they wanted to, this in no way indicates that their will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?”

“You must be kidding! Here you are in the process of demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”

“This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural compulsion of his nature.

 

[bilby]

You know what I mean.

I can assure you that I don't.

At this point, I have serious doubts that even YOU know what you mean.

Particularly when you come out with utter drivel like:

The "image" is the light that is the precursor that allows the brain to see in delayed time, according to science.

Literally every part of this is wrong.

Particularly the idea that any of it is "according to science"

 

[bilby]

If there is something opaque between the object and our eyes, there is no brightness

So, if I stand in a shadow, everyone else sees the Sun go dim?

The more you know...

 

[bilby]

If we can't focus, we won't see the world clearly. Where you are incorrect is that the light landing on our retina has to arrive through time and space.

Well, there's a non-zero space between the lens and cornea (which do the focussing) and the retina.

So how does light "land" on our retinae without arriving through space (a process which you concur takes time)?

 

[bilby]

light is traveling. It never stops, so there is no gap

So, if I drive non-stop from Brisbane to Sydney, it takes zero time because they are in the same location as long as I don't stop?

 

[bilby]

We see the world in real time, which doesn't require light to bring anything.

The object is THERE; Our eyes are HERE. How does the information that the object even exists, much less any information about what it looks like, cross that gap?

There IS no gap. That is what you're not understanding. Hopefully in time (no pun intended) you will.

There fucking well is a gap; I can measure it.

Damn good thing too; If there was no gap between the Sun and your eye, the entire Earth would be incinerated.

 

[bilby]

You are still thinking in terms of a gap between the object and the eye. That is because you have not fully grasped this account of vision. there is a measurable and bloody obvious gap between the object and the eye

FTFY.