Why not? What does it matter that we are further away? If light doesn't have to travel across that distance, what is it about distance that makes it hard to see 160,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes of plasma emitting 300,000,000,000,000,000,000W of light and heat energy?
It's honorable that you took all these classes and studied the learning and inference process itself. What does this prove? That the author was wrong? Hell, you don't know a thing about him.
You're off on a tangent.
Even if science is right about most things, that doesn't make science right about all things. People are so offended because they think this claim somehow discredits science itself, but it doesn't. Jarhyn, you come in here like a bull in a china shop but know nothing about the book and have the gall to tell me it's magic. That is extremely myopic and contrary to an inquisitive mind.
If it's still wrong, why are you attempting to figure out my thought process?
The photon doesn't allow us to discover it; it allows us to see it. Do you not agree that objects are there, seen or unseen, if they exist? If there is no light, we cannot see existing objects. What is your point?
It would not prevent it from being an act of informational exchange, but it's just plain wrong, according to this author. Please don't tell me that he's wrong because science is right. I don't need to hear this for the umpteenth time.
It makes it hard to see without a telescope. That's what telescopes are for—to magnify what cannot be seen at such a great distance. There is no way this author can challenge a belief that is so entrenched in scientific thinking that he really doesn't have a chance. He claims that we are not seeing the light of a celestial body that has traveled for millions, if not billions, of light years, and we are just getting a glimpse of the past due to the light reaching our telescope. We are seeing the actual celestial body because it is within the field of view of this powerful telescope. Sometimes new ideas take a long time to consider, so it's no surprise that people are taken aback.
science.nasa.gov
I have to correct this guy. After all this time, he doesn't understand what his claim was and why he claimed it. To say it was an assertion or a proclamation is just plain BS.
This is such a joke, I can't help but laugh. Pood has done so many things to hurt me by bringing up stuff out of context that it behooves me to let you know the vindictiveness he is displaying and the lengths he will go to slander this author.
I think he really believed that my coming here would somehow rehabilitate me. Now that he sees that he can't because I don't believe Lessans was wrong, he's completely lost it. He has nothing left in his toolbox, and he's very disgruntled as a result!
Wrong. They need to know what his observations were that caused him to make this claim. You know, a demonstration? You never read the chapter or the book. This is what happens when people are so committed to their ideas that they cannot entertain the possibility their ideas could be wrong. I've entertained the idea that Lessans could be wrong, and so far, he wasn't.
Where you got this idea, I don't have a clue. This is not an appeal to authority. You are using this against me for no reason. That you constantly say I agreed because it was my daddy is just another one of your accusations. I could never do what I'm doing—in my own right—if I didn't understand why he made the claims he did and what he demonstrated to prove it.
It is not necessary to know a thing about a person in order to assess the validity of their ideas.
That's 100% absolutely true.
No, they really aren't. And no, it really doesn't.
Thank you! In fact it helps in evaluating any individual claims he makes to not know who he is.
He said that light travels at 186,000 miles a second, so why are you misrepresenting his words? The light does not bounce off the object, taking the information with it through space/time. The wavelength is at the eye or telescope instantly (no time is involved) when it meets the requirements of luminosity and size. I don't want to keep repeating myself (it gets boring) for people who come into this thread without having a clue what it's about.
Light is a condition of sight, Pood. He never refuted this, but this does not prove what happens in the brain. Do you understand why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ, or are you just ignoring this chapter? You will go to great lengths to prove him wrong, even to say that dogs, and even bees, are able to recognize their caregivers from a lineup or a picture -- without any other cues to inform them. Did you ever consider that it is YOU who is in denial?So the eye detects and absorbs light, but … it’s not a sense organ.
Peacegirl, please attend to the posts above. He agrees with the standard model that light passes through the cornea and enters the hole of the pupil, which expands or contracts according to brightness. So far, so good. What happens next, on his model??
We have the standard model, in the video I linked you to:
1. Light enters pupils
2. Lens focuses light on retina
3. Retina, consisting of vast numbers of photoreceptors for color and light/dark, converts the light into electrical signals.
4. Optical nerve sends these signals to the brain for processing.
5. Brain interprets the patterns of light as images and assigns meanings to them based on experience.
So far you and your author have:
1. Light enters pupils
2.
3.
4.
5.
More??
Please be good enough to fill in those missing steps for us, because your genius author appears to have forgotten to do so. Thanks in advance!
Bump for peacegirl.
You seem to have somehow forgotten to attend to this.
To be fair, the tiniest things are often the hardest to get right and also often the reasons why right explanations go wrong.
There is much to learn about the brain. Nothing is set in stone.
www.nei.nih.gov
That's fine, but you cannot observe what the brain is doing directly. This is an inference based on what is believed to be happening inside the brain.
Not true. Nerve impulses are generated, true, but to say that the nerve impulses are transduced into an image that the brain sees is being challenged.
Again, there is no way you can determine conclusively what the brain is doing, just like science cannot detect free will or determinism inside of the brain. The proof has to come in some other way. Comparing neural groups on neural signals does NOT prove that the brain is interpreting the signal as an image rather than what the author claims.
I'm sure there can be much learned from fly brains and how the neural processing works, but human brains are not fly brains, just as scientists cannot completely depend on tests with animals and transfer those conclusions to humans.
The problem with this comment is that in this case, it does matter because people have judged him negatively because the idea that we see the past as sacrosanct. It's untouchable. Look at what they have said about him without knowing him or his intellect. This has a major effect on how people view his claim.
I understand all this, and I would probably make the mistake of prejudgment as well. I was taught by Lessans to take everything with a grain of salt. I have taken that advice seriously.
