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

[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"

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

There is nothing implausible about seeing an object in real time, which still involves light and acquiring information. You're making it sound like it's a crazy idea, but it's far from it. I know you are so positive that he's wrong, there's nothing more I can say, so I'm letting you off the hook and anyone else who thinks this is all a bunch of baloney. You are free to find another thread.

 

[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.

There is nothing implausible about seeing an object in real time, which still involves light and acquiring information. You're making it sound like it's a crazy idea, but it's far from it. I know you are so positive that he's wrong, there's nothing more I can say, so I'm letting you off the hook and anyone else who thinks this is all a bunch of baloney. You are free to find another thread.

I participate as I please. You have no say on the matter.

This has nothing to do with me being positive that he was wrong, but that the claim is demonstrably wrong.

 

[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"

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

There is nothing implausible about seeing an object in real time, which still involves light and acquiring information. You're making it sound like it's a crazy idea, but it's far from it. I know you are so positive that he's wrong, there's nothing more I can say, so I'm letting you off the hook and anyone else who thinks this is all a bunch of baloney. You are free to find another thread.

I participate as I please. You have no say on the matter.

I wasn't telling you that you have to leave. I just thought you might want to, if this claim is not to your liking. There is so much more to discuss regarding this discovery, but I can't make headway because people will not let me switch gears.

This has nothing to do with me being positive that he was wrong, but that the claim is demonstrably wrong.

Nothing has been demonstrated to prove him wrong. Hopefully, you will stay open to the idea that he might not have been wrong after all. The problem is that you are thinking in terms of time and distance, which is the antithesis of how efferent vision works. Until you can see that there is no violation of physics because there is no gap between light and the eyes -- due to a complete reversal in the direction we see -- it will never make sense to you.

 

[peacegirl]

The problem that I see is with the word “reflect” which means “to throw back.” In this ACCURATE account, there is no throwback. I’ve been trying to accommodate all of you by using the word “reflection” to mean light bouncing off of an object. But that is not what is occurring. It is revealing what is left after the object absorbs the light. I know this will be shot down and because of this, his entire discovery will be suspect. The conclusion regarding the eyes will be enough to throw out everything he ever wrote. I’m not begging for anyone’s sympathy, but the verdict is still out. I know I’ll be gone when this knowledge is finally brought to light, whether in 100 or 1000 years from now. That is not something I can accurately predict. What I do know is that the truth will win, as it always does. I hope I played a small part in planting a small seed that will eventually lead to a world of peace and prosperity for all.

 

[peacegirl]

NA

 

[steve_bank]

The problem that I see is with the word “reflect” which means “to throw back.” In this ACCURATE account, there is no throwback. I’ve been trying to accommodate all of you by using the word “reflection” to mean light bouncing off of an object. But that is not what is occurring. It is revealing what is left after the object absorbs the light. I know this will be shot down and because of this, his entire discovery will be suspect. The conclusion regarding the eyes will be enough to throw out everything he ever wrote. I’m not begging for anyone’s sympathy, but the verdict is still out. I know I’ll be gone when this knowledge is finally brought to light, whether in 100 or 1000 years from now. That is not something I can accurately predict. What I do know is that the truth will win, as it always does. I hope I played a small part in planting a small seed that will eventually lead to a world of peace and prosperity for all.

Upon deep reflection on your post will ask, is it really that basic for you?

Does your post reflect a lack of understanding of language along with science?

Are you a refection of Lessans?

Words have multiple meangs and uses.

It is not technically correct but it is common to say light and electricity flow using water as an analogy. .The alternative is to al;ways be literal precise, which would be mind numbing and complicated.

So, light bucing off an object is a good image, simple to grasp.

The word light is a high level abstraction.

In free space light is a transverse wave with alternating orthogonal electric and magnet fields. The ration of electric to magnetic fields is 377 giving free space an impedance of 377 Ohms.

I can repeat that in convsrtionn or I can just say 'light'.

When I say light reelects off an object there are several levels that go beneath that.

The simplest level is geometric optics which models light as straight lne rays.

When dealing with a photoreceptor like the retina or an electronic photodetector the interaction with matter is doe with photons. Wen dealingg with an antenna to receive radio signals light is treat5ed like a wave.

That is called rte wave particle duality.

How light interacts with the surface of an object is called physical optics. I only have an overview of the theories.

So, saying light reflects off an object and carries the image to he eye is a perfectly acct able picture for the purpose of discussion.

Light reflecting off objects creates interference patterns when light waves, reflecting from different surfaces or different parts of a surface, superimpose (combine) to create regions of reinforcement (bright bands) and cancellation (dark bands). This phenomenon, known as thin-film interference, is common when the reflecting surfaces are separated by a distance comparable to the wavelength of light, such as in soap bubbles, oil films on water, or between two pieces of glass.

The interference pasterns, peaks and valleys. created by reflection across the wavefront is detecd by retina which results in vision.

There are methods and instruments that can create images of interference patters created by refection. It is called interferometry.

One use is to measure the flatness of a surface like a mirror,

Interferometry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

Nothing has been done to prove Lessans is right.

A lot has been doe demonstrating existing theory.

 

[peacegirl]

The problem that I see is with the word “reflect” which means “to throw back.” In this ACCURATE account, there is no throwback. I’ve been trying to accommodate all of you by using the word “reflection” to mean light bouncing off of an object. But that is not what is occurring. It is revealing what is left after the object absorbs the light. I know this will be shot down and because of this, his entire discovery will be suspect. The conclusion regarding the eyes will be enough to throw out everything he ever wrote. I’m not begging for anyone’s sympathy, but the verdict is still out. I know I’ll be gone when this knowledge is finally brought to light, whether in 100 or 1000 years from now. That is not something I can accurately predict. What I do know is that the truth will win, as it always does. I hope I played a small part in planting a small seed that will eventually lead to a world of peace and prosperity for all.

Upon deep reflection on your post will ask, is it really that basic for you?

Does your post reflect a lack of understanding of language along with science?

Are you a refection of Lessans?

Words have multiple meangs and uses.

That is true, which is why the words "efferent" and "afferent" can be given a second meaning when it's used in a different way, and why the meaning of determinism can be more accurately defined.

It is not technically correct but it is common to say light and electricity flow using water as an analogy. .The alternative is to al;ways be literal precise, which would be mind numbing and complicated.

Which is why it's easier for me to use the term "image," which everyone knows is synonymous with wavelength/frequency.

So, light bucing off an object is a good image, simple to grasp.

PEACEGIRL: But that isn't what is happening. Light isn't bouncing off or being reflected off. It is being absorbed, which allows the object to reveal itself through the remaining light that is at our retina when we are looking at it. This account does not contradict the fact that light travels.

STEVE: The word light is a high level abstraction.
Break it down any way you want. The way it works doesn't change.

In free space light is a transverse wave with alternating orthogonal electric and magnet fields. The ration of electric to magnetic fields is 377 giving free space an impedance of 377 Ohms.

I can repeat that in convsrtionn or I can just say 'light'.

I appreciate your knowledge, but for the purposes of this discovery, the word "light" is all that is needed.

When I say light reelects off an object there are several levels that go beneath that.

The simplest level is geometric optics which models light as straight lne rays.

When dealing with a photoreceptor like the retina or an electronic photodetector the interaction with matter is doe with photons. Wen dealingg with an antenna to receive radio signals light is treat5ed like a wave.

That is called rte wave particle duality.

How light interacts with the surface of an object is called physical optics. I only have an overview of the theories.

So, saying light reflects off an object and carries the image to he eye is a perfectly acct able picture for the purpose of discussion.

If you understand what is meant by the word "image," and there is no misunderstanding, it should not be a problem at all. But...the image of the object is not being carried in the light. The light reveals the object as we are looking at it. The word "reflection" is giving a false picture because the image is not being reflected in the light over space/time.

Light reflecting off objects creates interference patterns when light waves, reflecting from different surfaces or different parts of a surface, superimpose (combine) to create regions of reinforcement (bright bands) and cancellation (dark bands). This phenomenon, known as thin-film interference, is common when the reflecting surfaces are separated by a distance comparable to the wavelength of light, such as in soap bubbles, oil films on water, or between two pieces of glass.

The interference pasterns, peaks and valleys. created by reflection across the wavefront is detecd by retina which results in vision.

Nothing changes here. We see the same thing in efferent vision that we would see in afferent vision. The same light would still be magnified on a telescope lens to allow us to see the object with the same peaks and valleys.

There are methods and instruments that can create images of interference patters created by refection. It is called interferometry.

One use is to measure the flatness of a surface like a mirror,

Interferometry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I love all of the amazing things we can learn from light, but none of this is in conflict with his claim. This should give people pause rather than expressing a premature assuredness that he couldn't be right.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

You made a long running argument that light does not convey image to eye. I gave you the basic principle of wave interference that explains how images are formed by reflection in light and carried to eye.

Do you still maintgain that is wrong? If so despite all your protestations you are disputing physics.

Your clam has been it is not the light, the object’s wavelength/frequency is at the eye without delay

Do you wish to amend that?

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

I came across a patient case summary in a blog entry which strikes me as very interesting. I am not the least bit concerned that anyone might regard this as giving credence to there being an actual efferent-afferent "question".

The part that I found particularly interesting is this:

the doctors studying her did something interesting – they performed a visual evoked potential (VEP) on her while she was exhibiting a personality that was blind and again while she was exhibiting a personality that could see. What a rare opportunity to compare the two states. The VEP essentially is a test in which a flash of light is given to the patient while electrodes record the response from her visual cortex. There is typically a delay of about 100 ms. If this is significantly slow or absent that could indicate a lesion in the visual pathway. ... They found that the VEP was present and normal while she expressed a personality that could see, but was absent when she had a personality with persistent psychogenic blindness. That is a rather incredible result, indicating that there is some process in her brain that is actually suppressing her visual system. To be clear, there is no conscious way to do this (again, at least not known, but I guess this could be the way in which she is very neuroatypical). So it seems that her psychogenic blindness was [due] to a reversible inhibition of her visual pathway, in a way that would block the VEP.

[This was in contrast to] a 2001 study of 72 subjects with psychogenic blindness found that every one had normal VEPs. VEPs are still used to assess these patients – a normal VEP does suggest a nonorganic cause of blindness, however it is recognized that an abnormal VEP does not rule out a psychogenic cause.

 

[bilby]

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.

Light is reflected off the object.

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

What are you talking about?

At the instant that a given photon is reflected off an object, that photon is "at the object", and is some distance from the eye.

Right?

And we know that (in your own words):

If it is not at the eye in that instant, we won't be able to see the object. You are still looking at this from the point of view of afferent vision, but what I'm trying to get you to see is that if we see the object, the light has to be at the eye.

So it follows that at the instant that that photon reflects off the object, it is not at the eye (because we just noted that it is at the object); And therefore, as "it is not at the eye in that instant, we won't be able to see the object" as it is in that instant; Instead, we will see it as it was at some earlier instant, when the photons that were "at the object" then have arrived at the eye now.

In other words, we see the object as it was in the past.

If the light is switched off, the photons at the lightsource the instant before it is switched off will travel to the object (taking time to do so); Then will reflect off the object, and travel to the eye (taking more time to do that), and will therefore be "at the eye" allowing us to see the object for a brief time after the light goes out.

And the reverse is also true. When the light is switched on, the photons at the lightsource the instant after it is switched on will travel to the object (taking time to do so); Then will reflect off the object, and travel to the eye (taking more time to do that), and will therefore not be "at the eye" allowing us to see the object for a brief time after the light comes on.

Instant vision cannot be possible, if everything else you say is true:

Light is reflected off the object.

If it is not at the eye in that instant, we won't be able to see the object

How is light reflected off the object unless that light is "at the object"? If it is "at the object", it is not "at the eye", and cannot be until it travels the distance between object and eye. And as we know:

light travels at a finite speed.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

You made a long running argument that light does not convey image to eye. I gave you the basic principle of wave interference that explains how images are formed by reflection in light and carried to eye.

Wave interference would cause a distortion in what we see, regardless of which version of sight we're discussing.

Wave interference can indeed cause an image to appear distorted. This occurs when two waves meet and interact, leading to a net effect that alters the shape of the medium. Constructive interference, where the waves align and reinforce each other, results in a larger wave, while destructive interference, where the waves cancel each other out, leads to a smaller wave or no wave at all. These interactions can distort images by altering the wave patterns that create the visual representation. For example, when light waves from two different sources interfere, they can create patterns that are not present in the original light source, leading to a visually distorted image.

OpenStax+4

Light conveys images on surfaces and is time-related, but this does not translate to images being interpreted as normal sight in the brain. That is why all of the technological advances that use light are not being contested.

Do you still maintgain that is wrong? If so despite all your protestations you are disputing physics.

I'm disputing one thing, and that is the direction we see. None of physics is being challenged other than his observation regarding the eyes, which do not work like the other four senses.

Your clam has been it is not the light, the object’s wavelength/frequency is at the eye without delay

Once again, you are only thinking in terms of light traveling at 186,000 miles a second and assuming that light from events long gone is bringing that information to the eye and brain to be interpreted as a virtual image that is no longer here. And you think this idea is so sacred that it can never be challenged?

Do you wish to amend that?

No, I hope you understand that the physics of light is not being disputed. The only thing being disputed is that traveling light does not bounce off objects and take the images over eons until they strike another object. Interestingly, people think this author's observations are absurd, yet not absurd to imagine, for example, the Renaissance in the 14th century just arriving had we lived in another galaxy. This is a narrative that has become so deeply ingrained in our culture that daring to offer a different perspective is tantamount to heresy.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
No, I hope you understand that the physics of light is not being disputed. The only thing being disputed is that traveling light does not bounce off objects and take the images...

You are disputing very fundamental physics.

Despite all the information about demonstrated physics which shows images are formed bylight reflecting off oceanic you dispute it.

This is not arcane and obscure science theory. it is common in everyday science and engineering. Routine.

So gain according to Lessans how does image of an object get to tfe eye?

In a dark room is an object you have never seen. A light is switched on. What is the chain of events that lead to you seeing the object?

A causal chain like a cue ball hitting a pool ball setting off a chain of collisions in a combination shoot leading to sinking the ball.

 

[peacegirl]

I came across a patient case summary in a blog entry which strikes me as very interesting. I am not the least bit concerned that anyone might regard this as giving credence to there being an actual efferent-afferent "question".

The part that I found particularly interesting is this:

the doctors studying her did something interesting – they performed a visual evoked potential (VEP) on her while she was exhibiting a personality that was blind and again while she was exhibiting a personality that could see. What a rare opportunity to compare the two states. The VEP essentially is a test in which a flash of light is given to the patient while electrodes record the response from her visual cortex. There is typically a delay of about 100 ms. If this is significantly slow or absent that could indicate a lesion in the visual pathway. ... They found that the VEP was present and normal while she expressed a personality that could see, but was absent when she had a personality with persistent psychogenic blindness. That is a rather incredible result, indicating that there is some process in her brain that is actually suppressing her visual system. To be clear, there is no conscious way to do this (again, at least not known, but I guess this could be the way in which she is very neuroatypical). So it seems that her psychogenic blindness was [due] to a reversible inhibition of her visual pathway, in a way that would block the VEP.

[This was in contrast to] a 2001 study of 72 subjects with psychogenic blindness found that every one had normal VEPs. VEPs are still used to assess these patients – a normal VEP does suggest a nonorganic cause of blindness, however it is recognized that an abnormal VEP does not rule out a psychogenic cause.

This is a new one for me, that someone could actually cause psychogenic blindness depending on the personality that came forward.

 

[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.

Light is reflected off the object.

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

What are you talking about?

At the instant that a given photon is reflected off an object, that photon is "at the object", and is some distance from the eye.

Right?

And we know that (in your own words):

If it is not at the eye in that instant, we won't be able to see the object. You are still looking at this from the point of view of afferent vision, but what I'm trying to get you to see is that if we see the object, the light has to be at the eye.

So it follows that at the instant that that photon reflects off the object, it is not at the eye (because we just noted that it is at the object); And therefore, as "it is not at the eye in that instant, we won't be able to see the object" as it is in that instant; Instead, we will see it as it was at some earlier instant, when the photons that were "at the object" then have arrived at the eye now.

In other words, we see the object as it was in the past.

If the light is switched off, the photons at the lightsource the instant before it is switched off will travel to the object (taking time to do so); Then will reflect off the object, and travel to the eye (taking more time to do that), and will therefore be "at the eye" allowing us to see the object for a brief time after the light goes out.

And the reverse is also true. When the light is switched on, the photons at the lightsource the instant after it is switched on will travel to the object (taking time to do so); Then will reflect off the object, and travel to the eye (taking more time to do that), and will therefore not be "at the eye" allowing us to see the object for a brief time after the light comes on.

Instant vision cannot be possible, if everything else you say is true:

Light is reflected off the object.

If it is not at the eye in that instant, we won't be able to see the object

How is light reflected off the object unless that light is "at the object"? If it is "at the object", it is not "at the eye", and cannot be until it travels the distance between object and eye. And as we know:

light travels at a finite speed.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
How is light reflected off the object unless that light is "at the object"? If it is "at the object", it is not "at the eye", and cannot be until it travels the distance between object and eye. And as we know:

Throw a ball at a wall. It travels trough space, bonces off the wall, and goes in another direction hitting you in the eye.

Of course the ball can not bounce off the wall until it is at the wall, and cannot hit your eye until it is at your eye.

It is incorrect to say the ball is at your eye instantly and disregard how the ball got there.

No different with light and photons.

 

[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.

Light is reflected off the object.

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

What are you talking about?

At the instant that a given photon is reflected off an object, that photon is "at the object", and is some distance from the eye.

Right?

Let's be careful with words. Photons travel, so when you say "the photon is at the object", it isn't making sense. Remember, we are talking about two different things. One is light traveling at 186,000 miles per second. The other is unrelated to distance and time. Please stop conflating the two.

And we know that (in your own words):

If it is not at the eye in that instant, we won't be able to see the object. You are still looking at this from the point of view of afferent vision, but what I'm trying to get you to see is that if we see the object, the light has to be at the eye.

So it follows that at the instant that that photon reflects off the object, it is not at the eye (because we just noted that it is at the object); And therefore, as "it is not at the eye in that instant, we won't be able to see the object" as it is in that instant; Instead, we will see it as it was at some earlier instant, when the photons that were "at the object" then have arrived at the eye now.

No, this is wrong. There is no travel time. If we see the object, there is enough light in which to see it. This does not mean that photons don't travel at lightspeed. It just means that the object's light does not bounce and travel through space/time. The object is revealed through light as we turn our gaze toward it.

In other words, we see the object as it was in the past.

If the light is switched off, the photons at the lightsource the instant before it is switched off will travel to the object (taking time to do so); Then will reflect off the object, and travel to the eye (taking more time to do that), and will therefore be "at the eye" allowing us to see the object for a brief time after the light goes out.

And the reverse is also true. When the light is switched on, the photons at the lightsource the instant after it is switched on will travel to the object (taking time to do so); Then will reflect off the object, and travel to the eye (taking more time to do that), and will therefore not be "at the eye" allowing us to see the object for a brief time after the light comes on.

Instant vision cannot be possible, if everything else you say is true:

I don't know where the confusion began, probably when I used the word "reflected." All of the above is wrong because, as I said over many pages, duration is not part of this account. There is no travel time where the light is reflected, and contains the image through space/time. No matter how you try to slice it, it doesn't change reality.

Light is reflected off the object.

If it is not at the eye in that instant, we won't be able to see the object

How is light reflected off the object unless that light is "at the object"? If it is "at the object", it is not "at the eye", and cannot be until it travels the distance between object and eye. And as we know:

I don't want to use the word "reflected" anymore because it is misleading. Nothing gets reflected, therefore the image doesn't get reflected. We see the object because it is bright enough and large enough to be seen, period. Light travels at a finite speed, but, once again, it does not bounce off objects taking the images with it, which is a logical conclusion but it is not sound, according to this version of sight, which has never been carefully analyzed.

 

[bilby]

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.

What is an object's reflection supposed to be made of, if not light?

This doesn't clarify anything.

 

[bilby]

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.

Sure there is. The object is over there. The eye is over here. In between them is a gap.

The light has to be at the eye for us to see; The light had to be at the object to be reflected; These two places are separated by a 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.

Indeed. So we wouldn't see the object if the light were still at the object. So we cannot see the object instantaneously.

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.

What different perspective? There's no "perspective" wherein a given photon can be both "at the object" and "at the eye" simultaneously.

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.

Saying it doesn't make it so. The contradiction is blatant.

Light travels,

Yes.

and we see in real time.

No.

 

[bilby]

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.

I am reminded of the North Korean behaviour at the Panmunjom peace talks. They drove a series of UN negotiators literally insane, by simply refusing to ever acknowledge any fact that didn't suit their position, no matter how obvious and blatant it might be.