You don’t understand why physics has nothing to do with it.
Physics has everything to do with how light works and how we see. Your author’s claim has nothing to do with physics, though, and by the principle of transitivity, nothing to do with how light works and how we see.
When you say eye/instant vision, you still have the mindset that light has to reach our eyes through travel like in a car.
Because that is exactly what it does.
You are missing the entire reason as to why this is not so.
Could you give that alleged reason for the first time ever, in all the years you have been promoting these claims? Because the author certainly doesn’t.
He gave a demonstration of what he described is happening. The neural networks would remain the same but instead of the brain converting the signals into images, it would use those signals that connect the retina and optic nerve to see the world as it is now. IOW, the signals do not get transduced as images because nothing in the signal contains that information. That’s why he said nothing in the light strikes the optic nerve. Rather, the optic nerve allows the brain to look through the eyes (the retina), as a window to see existence.
The brain and eyes are part of the central nervous system which gives further evidence how the eyes are different from the other 4 senses. Science has already mapped out how the eyes work in great detail and they are correct except for this one misstep which has huge implications as to how we see the world and each other. When we stop using words that don’t symbolize reality but have caused a distorted view of what we think we see (because we cannot deny that we see these differences with our very eyes), we will be living in a world that brings everyone up to a level of equality that was never before possible. Once this new understanding is confirmed to be sound, science can do more testing in order to map out this alternative view in much more detail.
Sorry, still no model. A nice display of gibberish, though.
Your author says the light enters the pupil.
What happens to it then?
Total blank out from him and you.
Earlier you said the optic nerve has no nerve ending, and that “ought to be a clue” of something or other, lol. Except, the optic nerve has up to
1.7 million nerve endings, and the are all afferent, not efferent. The lens focus the light on the retina after it enters the pupil. The retina consists of
photoreceptors. You used the word yourself earlier. Did you notice the “receptors” part in there? That means RECEIVE. The photoreceptors RECEIVE the focused light and convert it to electrical signals that are sent to the brain for processing.
Nor is any of this guesswork, assumption, or dogma. It’s well-tested reality.
How does your “model” enable us to see? Where does the light go after it enters the eye? How can the optic nerve transmit signals when it is entirely afferent? Even if it did transmit signals outward, how would that enable us to see?? How would these signals interact with the incoming light?? How would this inane patchwork of falsities enable us not just to see but to see in
real time??
You have no idea. You’re just making shit up, throwing at a wall, and praying some of it sticks.
