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

[peacegirl]

Obviously, if two premises contradict each other, something is wrong, but nothing in his proof has contradicted itself.

P1: Light takes time to get to the eye.

P2: Light is at the eye instantly.

Light flows.

No, it moves in straight lines at c. Water flows.

The only thing that is at the eye instantly is the light that is reflected onto our photoreceptors.

That's nonsense. Reflected light is at the reflecting object, in the instant of its reflection, and then takes time to travel from there to the eye.

No, you're missing the concept entirely.

OK.

Light is reflected off the object.

At which instant, the light is "at the object", right?

ADDING TO THIS POST FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION: It isn't that light doesn't get reflected off the object. It's that we wouldn't see the object if that object's reflection weren't already at the eye. This reflection has nothing to do with the speed of light because the light is not what we're interpreting.

There is no time involved when looking at the object because light has to be at the retina in this version of sight or we would not be able to see said object. It's the necessary condition to see anything at all.

Well, there must be time involved, because light "at the object" is not also "at the eye" (given that the object is not "at the eye"). So time is required for the light to get from "at the object" to "at the eye".

If the light is at the object in that instant when it is reflected off the object, then it is NOT at the eye at that instant.

You're still not getting it. If we can see the object, the light has to be at the eye. There is no gap.

And "because light has to be at the retina in this version of sight or we would not be able to see said object", we therefore cannot see instantly.

Of course we can. It doesn't mean that light doesn't travel. It's just that we wouldn't see the object if light were not already at the eye.

This is unavoidable from what you yourself just said.

Light travels; therefore, you have concluded that what we see cannot be instantaneous, but that's not correct when seen from a different perspective.

So, to summarize, there is absolutely no gap between the object seen and the light because time is not involved, even though light travels.

That not only does not follow from what you wrote; It is directly opposed to what you wrote. It's not a "summary"; It's a contradiction of what you just finished saying.

There is no contradiction. Light travels, and we see in real time.

 

[peacegirl]

Why cling to an idea that is obviously wrong? Why not come to terms with it being wrong and let it go?

No DBT, not because I wouldn't let it go if it was wrong, but because IT'S NOT BEEN PROVEN WRONG.

It has been shown to be wrong. Physics falsifies it, biology falsifies it. There is no doubt that it's wrong.

If it’s important to you, believe whatever you like, but the world at large is never going to agree.

It may not. The resistance is palpable, especially when it disrupts a worldview that has never been challenged.

Resistance? You are saying that there is something wrong with our understanding of Physics or Biology?

How does an image of a distant object appear instantly at the eye?

How does it get there?

Have you been sleeping this whole time?

Oy!

Why oy? He must not be listening because I've explained my position clearly. It's like all my posts have been deleted in one fell swoop. It's disheartening.

 

[pood]

Why oy? He must not be listening because I've explained my position clearly. It's like all my posts have been deleted in one fell swoop. It's disheartening.

No, you have not. You have waffled, evaded, confabulated, and ignored questions.

How is light at the eye instantly, when you concede it takes light time to get to the eye?

 

[steve_bank]

She must think we are a bunch of schmucks.

Sher has been schlepping this stuff around for Lessans all her life complaining abut the burden.

 

[peacegirl]

Why oy? He must not be listening because I've explained my position clearly. It's like all my posts have been deleted in one fell swoop. It's disheartening.

No, you have not. You have waffled, evaded, confabulated, and ignored questions.

How is light at the eye instantly, when you concede it takes light time to get to the eye?

Because they are two different things. I didn't say light is instantly at the eye when it is reflected off an object. I said the light that has been reflected has to be at the eye for the object to be seen.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
Because they are two different things. I didn't say light is instantly at the eye when it is reflected off an object. I said the light that has been reflected has to be at the eye for the object to be seen.g

Sop again.

If elected light is required for vision and light is delayed at the eye, how can there be instant vision with no delay?

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
Because they are two different things. I didn't say light is instantly at the eye when it is reflected off an object. I said the light that has been reflected has to be at the eye for the object to be seen.g

Sop again.

If elected light is required for vision and light is delayed at the eye, how can there be instant vision with no delay?

You just need to bear in mind that if an object can be seen, the light has to be at the eye. You are thinking that the reflected light is traveling so there has to be a delay, but this goes right back to the afferent account of vision, which is the very thing being disputed. This doesn’t mean light isn’t traveling at 186,000 miles a second. It just means the light isn’t bringing the wavelength/frequency to us through space/time. We can see a celestial object in real time, as long as it meets the requirements of brightness and size, which would be in proportion to the inverse square law. Conclusion: There is no conflict between the speed of light and real-time vision.

 

[DBT]

Why cling to an idea that is obviously wrong? Why not come to terms with it being wrong and let it go?

No DBT, not because I wouldn't let it go if it was wrong, but because IT'S NOT BEEN PROVEN WRONG.

It has been shown to be wrong. Physics falsifies it, biology falsifies it. There is no doubt that it's wrong.

If it’s important to you, believe whatever you like, but the world at large is never going to agree.

It may not. The resistance is palpable, especially when it disrupts a worldview that has never been challenged.

Resistance? You are saying that there is something wrong with our understanding of Physics or Biology?

How does an image of a distant object appear instantly at the eye?

How does it get there?

Have you been sleeping this whole time?

It's something you have never explained. You dodge the issue, just like now.

 

[DBT]

Pg
Because they are two different things. I didn't say light is instantly at the eye when it is reflected off an object. I said the light that has been reflected has to be at the eye for the object to be seen.g

Sop again.

If elected light is required for vision and light is delayed at the eye, how can there be instant vision with no delay?

You just need to bear in mind that if an object can be seen, the light has to be at the eye. You are thinking that the reflected light is traveling so there has to be a delay, but this goes right back to the afferent account of vision, which is the very thing being disputed. This doesn’t mean light isn’t traveling at 186,000 miles a second. It just means the light isn’t bringing the wavelength/frequency to us through space/time. We can see a celestial object in real time, as long as it meets the requirements of brightness and size, which would be in proportion to the inverse square law. Conclusion: There is no conflict between the speed of light and real-time vision.

As an explanation, it doesn't make sense.

 

[DBT]

Why oy? He must not be listening because I've explained my position clearly. It's like all my posts have been deleted in one fell swoop. It's disheartening.

No, you have not. You have waffled, evaded, confabulated, and ignored questions.

How is light at the eye instantly, when you concede it takes light time to get to the eye?

Because they are two different things. I didn't say light is instantly at the eye when it is reflected off an object. I said the light that has been reflected has to be at the eye for the object to be seen.

Of course it does, light is at the eye after its travel time from the object to the eye, which is not instant.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
Because they are two different things. I didn't say light is instantly at the eye when it is reflected off an object. I said the light that has been reflected has to be at the eye for the object to be seen.g

Sop again.

If elected light is required for vision and light is delayed at the eye, how can there be instant vision with no delay?

You just need to bear in mind that if an object can be seen, the light has to be at the eye. You are thinking that the reflected light is traveling so there has to be a delay, but this goes right back to the afferent account of vision, which is the very thing being disputed. This doesn’t mean light isn’t traveling at 186,000 miles a second. It just means the light isn’t bringing the wavelength/frequency to us through space/time. We can see a celestial object in real time, as long as it meets the requirements of brightness and size, which would be in proportion to the inverse square law. Conclusion: There is no conflict between the speed of light and real-time vision.

As an explanation, it doesn't make sense.

It does make sense, but only if you imagine (even temporarily) that the eyes are efferent; otherwise, there's no way it will make sense to you. It's difficult to let go of something that has been based on "fact" and is non-negotiable. It probably feels blasphemous, yet this account does not violate anything. All the applications that involve light still work.


https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=0dca...WEub3JnL3dpa2kvSW52ZXJzZS1zcXVhcmVfbGF3&ntb=1

 

[DBT]

Pg
Because they are two different things. I didn't say light is instantly at the eye when it is reflected off an object. I said the light that has been reflected has to be at the eye for the object to be seen.g

Sop again.

If elected light is required for vision and light is delayed at the eye, how can there be instant vision with no delay?

You just need to bear in mind that if an object can be seen, the light has to be at the eye. You are thinking that the reflected light is traveling so there has to be a delay, but this goes right back to the afferent account of vision, which is the very thing being disputed. This doesn’t mean light isn’t traveling at 186,000 miles a second. It just means the light isn’t bringing the wavelength/frequency to us through space/time. We can see a celestial object in real time, as long as it meets the requirements of brightness and size, which would be in proportion to the inverse square law. Conclusion: There is no conflict between the speed of light and real-time vision.

As an explanation, it doesn't make sense.

It does make sense, but only if you imagine (even for a second) that the eyes are efferent; otherwise, there's no way it will make sense to you at all.

Efferent and Afferent just refers to different aspects of neuron and nerve function. It doesn't mean that light is somehow at the eye without travel time, which is is wrong. Not only just wrong, but very badly wrong.

 

[peacegirl]

Why oy? He must not be listening because I've explained my position clearly. It's like all my posts have been deleted in one fell swoop. It's disheartening.

No, you have not. You have waffled, evaded, confabulated, and ignored questions.

How is light at the eye instantly, when you concede it takes light time to get to the eye?

Because they are two different things. I didn't say light is instantly at the eye when it is reflected off an object. I said the light that has been reflected has to be at the eye for the object to be seen.

Of course it does, light is at the eye after its travel time from the object to the eye, which is not instant.

That's all you keep saying without even considering the possibility that he is right. It's probably too upsetting for you to even think that science may have gotten something so wrong. That's the only thing I can think of.

 

[pood]

That's all you keep saying without even considering the possibility that he is right. It's probably too upsetting for you to even think that science may have gotten something so wrong. That's the only thing I can think of.

Ad hom again. You really are contemptible.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
Because they are two different things. I didn't say light is instantly at the eye when it is reflected off an object. I said the light that has been reflected has to be at the eye for the object to be seen.g

Sop again.

If elected light is required for vision and light is delayed at the eye, how can there be instant vision with no delay?

You just need to bear in mind that if an object can be seen, the light has to be at the eye. You are thinking that the reflected light is traveling so there has to be a delay, but this goes right back to the afferent account of vision, which is the very thing being disputed. This doesn’t mean light isn’t traveling at 186,000 miles a second. It just means the light isn’t bringing the wavelength/frequency to us through space/time. We can see a celestial object in real time, as long as it meets the requirements of brightness and size, which would be in proportion to the inverse square law. Conclusion: There is no conflict between the speed of light and real-time vision.

As an explanation, it doesn't make sense.

It does make sense, but only if you imagine (even for a second) that the eyes are efferent; otherwise, there's no way it will make sense to you at all.

Efferent and Afferent just refers to different aspects of neuron and nerve function. It doesn't mean that light is somehow at the eye without travel time, which is is wrong. Not only just wrong, but very badly wrong.

How else could he explain what he was talking about without using these words? There are no replacement words that come close to explaining the direction we see. These words were not defined to mean anything other than how neurons function. Now the dictionaries can add a second definition for each of these words.

1. af·fer·ent

conducting or conducted inwards or towards something (for nerves, the central nervous system; for blood vessels, the organ supplied). The opposite of efferent

ef·fer·ent

1. conducted or conducting outwards or away from something (for nerves, the central nervous system; for blood vessels, the organ supplied). The opposite of afferent.
"efferent neurons carry impulses outwards to the effector organs"

 

[peacegirl]

That's all you keep saying without even considering the possibility that he is right. It's probably too upsetting for you to even think that science may have gotten something so wrong. That's the only thing I can think of.

Ad hom again. You really are contemptible.

But that's probably the reason. I am not trying to be mean. It would be hard for anyone who first hears about something that challenges what has been taken for granted as true for millennia.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
Because they are two different things. I didn't say light is instantly at the eye when it is reflected off an object. I said the light that has been reflected has to be at the eye for the object to be seen.g

Sop again.

If elected light is required for vision and light is delayed at the eye, how can there be instant vision with no delay?

You just need to bear in mind that if an object can be seen, the light has to be at the eye. You are thinking that the reflected light is traveling so there has to be a delay, but this goes right back to the afferent account of vision, which is the very thing being disputed. This doesn’t mean light isn’t traveling at 186,000 miles a second. It just means the light isn’t bringing the wavelength/frequency to us through space/time. We can see a celestial object in real time, as long as it meets the requirements of brightness and size, which would be in proportion to the inverse square law. Conclusion: There is no conflict between the speed of light and real-time vision.

Mashugana

You are not answering the repeated question,

If lighjtt from an object is required for vision how can there be instant vision with no delay?

The short answer is it can;t.

I have just had a profound revolutionary insight. Effervescent Vision.

In effervescent vision our vision bubble up from the bottom of the brain and condenses on the inside of the eyes, which is what we see.

 

[DBT]

Pg
Because they are two different things. I didn't say light is instantly at the eye when it is reflected off an object. I said the light that has been reflected has to be at the eye for the object to be seen.g

Sop again.

If elected light is required for vision and light is delayed at the eye, how can there be instant vision with no delay?

You just need to bear in mind that if an object can be seen, the light has to be at the eye. You are thinking that the reflected light is traveling so there has to be a delay, but this goes right back to the afferent account of vision, which is the very thing being disputed. This doesn’t mean light isn’t traveling at 186,000 miles a second. It just means the light isn’t bringing the wavelength/frequency to us through space/time. We can see a celestial object in real time, as long as it meets the requirements of brightness and size, which would be in proportion to the inverse square law. Conclusion: There is no conflict between the speed of light and real-time vision.

As an explanation, it doesn't make sense.

It does make sense, but only if you imagine (even for a second) that the eyes are efferent; otherwise, there's no way it will make sense to you at all.

Efferent and Afferent just refers to different aspects of neuron and nerve function. It doesn't mean that light is somehow at the eye without travel time, which is is wrong. Not only just wrong, but very badly wrong.

How else could he explain what he was talking about without using these words? There are no replacement words that come close to explaining the direction we see. These words were not defined to mean anything other than how neurons function. Now the dictionaries can add a second definition for each of these words.

1. af·fer·ent

conducting or conducted inwards or towards something (for nerves, the central nervous system; for blood vessels, the organ supplied). The opposite of efferent

ef·fer·ent

1. conducted or conducting outwards or away from something (for nerves, the central nervous system; for blood vessels, the organ supplied). The opposite of afferent.
"efferent neurons carry impulses outwards to the effector organs"

Yes, this process happens after the eyes detect light and acquire information, light that takes time to travel between the object and the eyes.

 

[DBT]

That's all you keep saying without even considering the possibility that he is right. It's probably too upsetting for you to even think that science may have gotten something so wrong. That's the only thing I can think of.

Ad hom again. You really are contemptible.

But that's probably the reason. I am not trying to be mean. It would be hard for anyone who first hears about something that challenges what has been taken for granted as true for millennia.

You are being defensive. Which, given an untenable position, is understandable but ultimately futile.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
Because they are two different things. I didn't say light is instantly at the eye when it is reflected off an object. I said the light that has been reflected has to be at the eye for the object to be seen.g

Sop again.

If elected light is required for vision and light is delayed at the eye, how can there be instant vision with no delay?

You just need to bear in mind that if an object can be seen, the light has to be at the eye. You are thinking that the reflected light is traveling so there has to be a delay, but this goes right back to the afferent account of vision, which is the very thing being disputed. This doesn’t mean light isn’t traveling at 186,000 miles a second. It just means the light isn’t bringing the wavelength/frequency to us through space/time. We can see a celestial object in real time, as long as it meets the requirements of brightness and size, which would be in proportion to the inverse square law. Conclusion: There is no conflict between the speed of light and real-time vision.

Mashugana

It's not mashugana, and I have answered the question.

You are not answering the repeated question,

If lighjtt from an object is required for vision how can there be instant vision with no delay?

BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INVOLVE DISTANCE OR TIME. PLEASE DON'T BLAME ME FOR YOUR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING.

The short answer is it can;t.

I have just had a profound revolutionary insight. Effervescent Vision.

In effervescent vision our vision bubble up from the bottom of the brain and condenses on the inside of the eyes, which is what we see.

I don't know what it's going to take if you think this observation came out of his hat!