• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?
I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very comforting though because he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.
I think we beat determinism to death. Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

Compatibilists are determinists by definition.
Compatibilism is incoherent. It’s an effort to make free will compatible with determinism by defining free will as being able to choose “appropriately” in their estimation and it disregards a person’s internal reasons for doing what they do altogether. They do this to keep the status quo of holding people accountable. It’s a semantic shift in an effort to look coherent but, by definition, these two ideologies are opposites. You have one, you can’t have the other.

Light at the eye/ instant vision is incoherent. It doesn't relate to how the world works, or determinism.

If the world is deterministic, light must be radiated by its source, have a travel time to the eye where it is detected, absorbed and the information used by the brain to form mental visual imagery.
 
Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?
I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very comforting though because he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.
I think we beat determinism to death. Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

Compatibilists are determinists by definition.
Compatibilism is incoherent. It’s an effort to make free will compatible with determinism by defining free will as being able to choose “appropriately” in their estimation and it disregards a person’s internal reasons for doing what they do altogether. They do this to keep the status quo of holding people accountable. It’s a semantic shift in an effort to look coherent but, by definition, these two ideologies are opposites. You have one, you can’t have the other.

Light at the eye/ instant vision is incoherent. It doesn't relate to how the world works, or determinism.

If the world is deterministic, light must be radiated by its source, have a travel time to the eye where it is detected, absorbed and the information used by the brain to form mental visual imagery.
Light is radiated by its source but is not reflected. That is why we can see an object when viewing it directly due to the fact that the wavelength of light is revealing the object. There is nothing far-fetched about this version of sight. This account does not involve physics since the information is not traveling through space/time. Light is traveling, but again, it does not bounce off of objects and take the wavelength of light with it to be processed as an image. Information in this account can still form mental imagery in the brain. Seeing in real time doesn't take away from experiences that produce mental imagery in our mind's eye that relates to those experiences.



The Brain and Mental Imagery

Mental imagery is the ability to visualize things and scenarios in your mind, without actual physical input.

For example, when you think about your best friends, you may automatically picture their faces in your head without actually seeing them in front of you. When you daydream about an upcoming vacation, you may see yourself on the sunny beach.

People who dream about taking a penalty kick could visualize themselves like they are watching a video of it in their mind. They may even experience the smell of the turf or hear the sounds that fans would make.

Scientists believe your primary visual cortex, located in the back of your brain, is involved in internal visualization. This is the same part of the brain that processes visual information from the eyes and that lets you see the world around you.

 
Last edited:
Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?
I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very comforting though because he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.
I think we beat determinism to death. Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

Compatibilists are determinists by definition.
Compatibilism is incoherent. It’s an effort to make free will compatible with determinism by defining free will as being able to choose “appropriately” in their estimation and it disregards a person’s internal reasons for doing what they do altogether. They do this to keep the status quo of holding people accountable. It’s a semantic shift in an effort to look coherent but, by definition, these two ideologies are opposites. You have one, you can’t have the other.

Light at the eye/ instant vision is incoherent. It doesn't relate to how the world works, or determinism.

If the world is deterministic, light must be radiated by its source, have a travel time to the eye where it is detected, absorbed and the information used by the brain to form mental visual imagery.
Light is radiated by its source but is not reflected. That is why we can see an object when viewing it directly due to the fact that the wavelength of light is revealing the object. There is nothing far-fetched about this version of sight. This account does not involve physics since the information is not traveling through space/time. Light is traveling, but again, it does not bounce off of objects and take the wavelength of light with it to be processed as an image. Information in this account can still form mental imagery in the brain. Seeing in real time doesn't take away from experiences that produce mental imagery in our mind's eye that relates to those experiences.



The Brain and Mental Imagery

Mental imagery is the ability to visualize things and scenarios in your mind, without actual physical input.

For example, when you think about your best friends, you may automatically picture their faces in your head without actually seeing them in front of you. When you daydream about an upcoming vacation, you may see yourself on the sunny beach.

People who dream about taking a penalty kick could visualize themselves like they are watching a video of it in their mind. They may even experience the smell of the turf or hear the sounds that fans would make.

Scientists believe your primary visual cortex, located in the back of your brain, is involved in internal visualization. This is the same part of the brain that processes visual information from the eyes and that lets you see the world around you.



Consciousness includes thoughts, feelings, sight, sound, smell, touch, etc.....which is all brain generated, inputs, memory.

None of this supports the idea of 'light at the eye/instant vision,' and that was the point, that the idea contradicts physics and determinism.
 
Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?
I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very comforting though because he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.
I think we beat determinism to death. Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

Compatibilists are determinists by definition.
Compatibilism is incoherent. It’s an effort to make free will compatible with determinism by defining free will as being able to choose “appropriately” in their estimation and it disregards a person’s internal reasons for doing what they do altogether. They do this to keep the status quo of holding people accountable. It’s a semantic shift in an effort to look coherent but, by definition, these two ideologies are opposites. You have one, you can’t have the other.

Light at the eye/ instant vision is incoherent. It doesn't relate to how the world works, or determinism.

If the world is deterministic, light must be radiated by its source, have a travel time to the eye where it is detected, absorbed and the information used by the brain to form mental visual imagery.
Light is radiated by its source but is not reflected. That is why we can see an object when viewing it directly due to the fact that the wavelength of light is revealing the object. There is nothing far-fetched about this version of sight. This account does not involve physics since the information is not traveling through space/time. Light is traveling, but again, it does not bounce off of objects and take the wavelength of light with it to be processed as an image. Information in this account can still form mental imagery in the brain. Seeing in real time doesn't take away from experiences that produce mental imagery in our mind's eye that relates to those experiences.



The Brain and Mental Imagery

Mental imagery is the ability to visualize things and scenarios in your mind, without actual physical input.

For example, when you think about your best friends, you may automatically picture their faces in your head without actually seeing them in front of you. When you daydream about an upcoming vacation, you may see yourself on the sunny beach.

People who dream about taking a penalty kick could visualize themselves like they are watching a video of it in their mind. They may even experience the smell of the turf or hear the sounds that fans would make.

Scientists believe your primary visual cortex, located in the back of your brain, is involved in internal visualization. This is the same part of the brain that processes visual information from the eyes and that lets you see the world around you.



Consciousness includes thoughts, feelings, sight, sound, smell, touch, etc.....which is all brain generated, inputs, memory.

None of this supports the idea of 'light at the eye/instant vision,' and that was the point, that the idea contradicts physics and determinism.
No it doesn’t, not in the slightest. You are just having a hard time understanding efferent vision and how the brain works. He demonstrated how this occurs but you don’t seem to see the connection using a movie projector and how the brain is able to project words — whether they correlate with reality or not. This is what causes physical conditioning which does not take place in incoming light.
 
Last edited:
Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?
I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very comforting though because he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.
I think we beat determinism to death. Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

Compatibilists are determinists by definition.
Compatibilism is incoherent. It’s an effort to make free will compatible with determinism by defining free will as being able to choose “appropriately” in their estimation and it disregards a person’s internal reasons for doing what they do altogether. They do this to keep the status quo of holding people accountable. It’s a semantic shift in an effort to look coherent but, by definition, these two ideologies are opposites. You have one, you can’t have the other.

Light at the eye/ instant vision is incoherent. It doesn't relate to how the world works, or determinism.

If the world is deterministic, light must be radiated by its source, have a travel time to the eye where it is detected, absorbed and the information used by the brain to form mental visual imagery.
Light is radiated by its source but is not reflected. That is why we can see an object when viewing it directly due to the fact that the wavelength of light is revealing the object. There is nothing far-fetched about this version of sight. This account does not involve physics since the information is not traveling through space/time. Light is traveling, but again, it does not bounce off of objects and take the wavelength of light with it to be processed as an image. Information in this account can still form mental imagery in the brain. Seeing in real time doesn't take away from experiences that produce mental imagery in our mind's eye that relates to those experiences.



The Brain and Mental Imagery

Mental imagery is the ability to visualize things and scenarios in your mind, without actual physical input.

For example, when you think about your best friends, you may automatically picture their faces in your head without actually seeing them in front of you. When you daydream about an upcoming vacation, you may see yourself on the sunny beach.

People who dream about taking a penalty kick could visualize themselves like they are watching a video of it in their mind. They may even experience the smell of the turf or hear the sounds that fans would make.

Scientists believe your primary visual cortex, located in the back of your brain, is involved in internal visualization. This is the same part of the brain that processes visual information from the eyes and that lets you see the world around you.



Consciousness includes thoughts, feelings, sight, sound, smell, touch, etc.....which is all brain generated, inputs, memory.

None of this supports the idea of 'light at the eye/instant vision,' and that was the point, that the idea contradicts physics and determinism.
No it doesn’t, not in the slightest. You are just having a hard time understanding efferent vision and how the brain works.

Right. So are you. Because after 20 years of trying you can’t come close to explaining it. And that’s because it’s wrong.
He demonstrated how this occurs but you don’t seem to see the connection using a movie projector and how the brain is able to project words — whether they correlate with reality or not.

There is no connection because the above is gibberish.
This is what causes physical conditioning which does not take place in incoming light.

ALL-CAPS ALERT: NOBODY EVERY SAID THAT CONDITIONING TAKES PLACE IN INCOMING LIGHT.

But you will just keep repeating this swill as if scientists actually say that, won’t you? No matter how many times you are corrected.
 
Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?
I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very comforting though because he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.
I think we beat determinism to death. Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

Compatibilists are determinists by definition.
Compatibilism is incoherent. It’s an effort to make free will compatible with determinism by defining free will as being able to choose “appropriately” in their estimation and it disregards a person’s internal reasons for doing what they do altogether. They do this to keep the status quo of holding people accountable. It’s a semantic shift in an effort to look coherent but, by definition, these two ideologies are opposites. You have one, you can’t have the other.

Light at the eye/ instant vision is incoherent. It doesn't relate to how the world works, or determinism.

If the world is deterministic, light must be radiated by its source, have a travel time to the eye where it is detected, absorbed and the information used by the brain to form mental visual imagery.
Light is radiated by its source but is not reflected. That is why we can see an object when viewing it directly due to the fact that the wavelength of light is revealing the object. There is nothing far-fetched about this version of sight. This account does not involve physics since the information is not traveling through space/time. Light is traveling, but again, it does not bounce off of objects and take the wavelength of light with it to be processed as an image. Information in this account can still form mental imagery in the brain. Seeing in real time doesn't take away from experiences that produce mental imagery in our mind's eye that relates to those experiences.



The Brain and Mental Imagery

Mental imagery is the ability to visualize things and scenarios in your mind, without actual physical input.

For example, when you think about your best friends, you may automatically picture their faces in your head without actually seeing them in front of you. When you daydream about an upcoming vacation, you may see yourself on the sunny beach.

People who dream about taking a penalty kick could visualize themselves like they are watching a video of it in their mind. They may even experience the smell of the turf or hear the sounds that fans would make.

Scientists believe your primary visual cortex, located in the back of your brain, is involved in internal visualization. This is the same part of the brain that processes visual information from the eyes and that lets you see the world around you.



Consciousness includes thoughts, feelings, sight, sound, smell, touch, etc.....which is all brain generated, inputs, memory.

None of this supports the idea of 'light at the eye/instant vision,' and that was the point, that the idea contradicts physics and determinism.
No it doesn’t, not in the slightest. You are just having a hard time understanding efferent vision and how the brain works.

Right. So are you. Because after 20 years of trying you can’t come close to explaining it. And that’s because it’s wrong.
How long I’ve been trying on these type forums matters not.
He demonstrated how this occurs but you don’t seem to see the connection using a movie projector and how the brain is able to project words — whether they correlate with reality or not.

There is no connection because the above is gibberish.
This is what causes physical conditioning which does not take place in incoming light.

ALL-CAPS ALERT: NOBODY EVERY SAID THAT CONDITIONING TAKES PLACE IN INCOMING LIGHT.

But you will just keep repeating this swill as if scientists actually say that, won’t you? No matter how many times you are corrected.
We know that values don’t come to us in light. He never said scientists say that. He was trying to show how this conditioning does occur. After all this time you still don’t get it.
 
Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?
I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very comforting though because he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.
I think we beat determinism to death. Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

Compatibilists are determinists by definition.
Compatibilism is incoherent. It’s an effort to make free will compatible with determinism by defining free will as being able to choose “appropriately” in their estimation and it disregards a person’s internal reasons for doing what they do altogether. They do this to keep the status quo of holding people accountable. It’s a semantic shift in an effort to look coherent but, by definition, these two ideologies are opposites. You have one, you can’t have the other.

Light at the eye/ instant vision is incoherent. It doesn't relate to how the world works, or determinism.

If the world is deterministic, light must be radiated by its source, have a travel time to the eye where it is detected, absorbed and the information used by the brain to form mental visual imagery.
Light is radiated by its source but is not reflected. That is why we can see an object when viewing it directly due to the fact that the wavelength of light is revealing the object. There is nothing far-fetched about this version of sight. This account does not involve physics since the information is not traveling through space/time. Light is traveling, but again, it does not bounce off of objects and take the wavelength of light with it to be processed as an image. Information in this account can still form mental imagery in the brain. Seeing in real time doesn't take away from experiences that produce mental imagery in our mind's eye that relates to those experiences.



The Brain and Mental Imagery

Mental imagery is the ability to visualize things and scenarios in your mind, without actual physical input.

For example, when you think about your best friends, you may automatically picture their faces in your head without actually seeing them in front of you. When you daydream about an upcoming vacation, you may see yourself on the sunny beach.

People who dream about taking a penalty kick could visualize themselves like they are watching a video of it in their mind. They may even experience the smell of the turf or hear the sounds that fans would make.

Scientists believe your primary visual cortex, located in the back of your brain, is involved in internal visualization. This is the same part of the brain that processes visual information from the eyes and that lets you see the world around you.



Consciousness includes thoughts, feelings, sight, sound, smell, touch, etc.....which is all brain generated, inputs, memory.

None of this supports the idea of 'light at the eye/instant vision,' and that was the point, that the idea contradicts physics and determinism.
But it doesn’t contradict either because it isn’t like light (i.e. the information) is traveling and I say we see in real time. That would defy physics and would be wrong, nor does it contradict determinism, at least the way he correctly defines it. Cause/effect still works. Moreover, if the past doesn’t exist, how can it bring the past to us in light?. The past is part of our memory ONLY. That’s why memory is so important. It’s our identity.

I know I know, people believe that if we were on the star Rigel, we would see Columbus discovering America striking our eyes or some other long ago event. It sounds nutty when you think of it that way. But people will tell me that I’m the one that is defying logic. You people are like Christians saying Jesus rose from the dead and you can’t convince them otherwise. How can I even compete with this craziness? 🫤
 
Last edited:
Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?
I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very comforting though because he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.
I think we beat determinism to death. Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

Compatibilists are determinists by definition.
Compatibilism is incoherent. It’s an effort to make free will compatible with determinism by defining free will as being able to choose “appropriately” in their estimation and it disregards a person’s internal reasons for doing what they do altogether. They do this to keep the status quo of holding people accountable. It’s a semantic shift in an effort to look coherent but, by definition, these two ideologies are opposites. You have one, you can’t have the other.

Light at the eye/ instant vision is incoherent. It doesn't relate to how the world works, or determinism.

If the world is deterministic, light must be radiated by its source, have a travel time to the eye where it is detected, absorbed and the information used by the brain to form mental visual imagery.
Light is radiated by its source but is not reflected. That is why we can see an object when viewing it directly due to the fact that the wavelength of light is revealing the object. There is nothing far-fetched about this version of sight. This account does not involve physics since the information is not traveling through space/time. Light is traveling, but again, it does not bounce off of objects and take the wavelength of light with it to be processed as an image. Information in this account can still form mental imagery in the brain. Seeing in real time doesn't take away from experiences that produce mental imagery in our mind's eye that relates to those experiences.



The Brain and Mental Imagery

Mental imagery is the ability to visualize things and scenarios in your mind, without actual physical input.

For example, when you think about your best friends, you may automatically picture their faces in your head without actually seeing them in front of you. When you daydream about an upcoming vacation, you may see yourself on the sunny beach.

People who dream about taking a penalty kick could visualize themselves like they are watching a video of it in their mind. They may even experience the smell of the turf or hear the sounds that fans would make.

Scientists believe your primary visual cortex, located in the back of your brain, is involved in internal visualization. This is the same part of the brain that processes visual information from the eyes and that lets you see the world around you.



Consciousness includes thoughts, feelings, sight, sound, smell, touch, etc.....which is all brain generated, inputs, memory.

None of this supports the idea of 'light at the eye/instant vision,' and that was the point, that the idea contradicts physics and determinism.
But it doesn’t contradict either because it isn’t like light (i.e. the information) is traveling and I say we see in real time. That would defy physics and would be wrong, nor does it contradict determinism, at least the way he correctly defines it. Cause/effect still works. Moreover, if the past doesn’t exist, how can it bring the past to us in light?. The past is part of our memory ONLY. That’s why memory is so important. It’s our identity.
Please read this very carefully, and respond to this post with an edit.
 
Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?
I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very comforting though because he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.
I think we beat determinism to death. Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

Compatibilists are determinists by definition.
Compatibilism is incoherent. It’s an effort to make free will compatible with determinism by defining free will as being able to choose “appropriately” in their estimation and it disregards a person’s internal reasons for doing what they do altogether. They do this to keep the status quo of holding people accountable. It’s a semantic shift in an effort to look coherent but, by definition, these two ideologies are opposites. You have one, you can’t have the other.

Light at the eye/ instant vision is incoherent. It doesn't relate to how the world works, or determinism.

If the world is deterministic, light must be radiated by its source, have a travel time to the eye where it is detected, absorbed and the information used by the brain to form mental visual imagery.
Light is radiated by its source but is not reflected. That is why we can see an object when viewing it directly due to the fact that the wavelength of light is revealing the object. There is nothing far-fetched about this version of sight. This account does not involve physics since the information is not traveling through space/time. Light is traveling, but again, it does not bounce off of objects and take the wavelength of light with it to be processed as an image. Information in this account can still form mental imagery in the brain. Seeing in real time doesn't take away from experiences that produce mental imagery in our mind's eye that relates to those experiences.



The Brain and Mental Imagery

Mental imagery is the ability to visualize things and scenarios in your mind, without actual physical input.

For example, when you think about your best friends, you may automatically picture their faces in your head without actually seeing them in front of you. When you daydream about an upcoming vacation, you may see yourself on the sunny beach.

People who dream about taking a penalty kick could visualize themselves like they are watching a video of it in their mind. They may even experience the smell of the turf or hear the sounds that fans would make.

Scientists believe your primary visual cortex, located in the back of your brain, is involved in internal visualization. This is the same part of the brain that processes visual information from the eyes and that lets you see the world around you.



Consciousness includes thoughts, feelings, sight, sound, smell, touch, etc.....which is all brain generated, inputs, memory.

None of this supports the idea of 'light at the eye/instant vision,' and that was the point, that the idea contradicts physics and determinism.
But it doesn’t contradict either because it isn’t like light (i.e. the information) is traveling and I say we see in real time. That would defy physics and would be wrong, nor does it contradict determinism, at least the way he correctly defines it. Cause/effect still works. Moreover, if the past doesn’t exist, how can it bring the past to us in light?. The past is part of our memory ONLY. That’s why memory is so important. It’s our identity.
Please read this very carefully, and respond to this post with an edit.
No.
 
Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?
I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.
I think we beat determinism to death. Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

Compatibilists are determinists by definition.
Compatibilism is incoherent. It’s an effort to make free will compatible with determinism by defining free will as being able to choose “appropriately” in their estimation and it disregards a person’s internal reasons for doing what they do altogether. They do this to keep the status quo of holding people accountable. It’s a semantic shift in an effort to look coherent but, by definition, these two ideologies are opposites. You have one, you can’t have the other.

Light at the eye/ instant vision is incoherent. It doesn't relate to how the world works, or determinism.

If the world is deterministic, light must be radiated by its source, have a travel time to the eye where it is detected, absorbed and the information used by the brain to form mental visual imagery.
Light is radiated by its source but is not reflected. That is why we can see an object when viewing it directly due to the fact that the wavelength of light is revealing the object. There is nothing far-fetched about this version of sight. This account does not involve physics since the information is not traveling through space/time. Light is traveling, but again, it does not bounce off of objects and take the wavelength of light with it to be processed as an image. Information in this account can still form mental imagery in the brain. Seeing in real time doesn't take away from experiences that produce mental imagery in our mind's eye that relates to those experiences.



The Brain and Mental Imagery

Mental imagery is the ability to visualize things and scenarios in your mind, without actual physical input.

For example, when you think about your best friends, you may automatically picture their faces in your head without actually seeing them in front of you. When you daydream about an upcoming vacation, you may see yourself on the sunny beach.

People who dream about taking a penalty kick could visualize themselves like they are watching a video of it in their mind. They may even experience the smell of the turf or hear the sounds that fans would make.

Scientists believe your primary visual cortex, located in the back of your brain, is involved in internal visualization. This is the same part of the brain that processes visual information from the eyes and that lets you see the world around you.



Consciousness includes thoughts, feelings, sight, sound, smell, touch, etc.....which is all brain generated, inputs, memory.

None of this supports the idea of 'light at the eye/instant vision,' and that was the point, that the idea contradicts physics and determinism.
But it doesn’t contradict either because it isn’t like light (i.e. the information) is traveling and I say we see in real time. That would defy physics and would be wrong, nor does it contradict determinism, at least the way he correctly defines it. Cause/effect still works. Moreover, if the past doesn’t exist, how can it bring the past to us in light?. The past is part of our memory ONLY. That’s why memory is so important. It’s our identity.

I know I know, people believe that if we were on the star Rigel, we would see Columbus discovering America striking our eyes or some other long ago event. It sounds nutty when you think of it that way. But people will tell me that I’m the one that is defying logic. You people are like Christians saying Jesus rose from the dead and you can’t convince them otherwise. How can I even compete with this craziness? 🫤

That light travels is well established. The speed that it travels has been measured, and that it scatters and reflects from surrounding objects is not controversial.

It is your authors contention - light at the eye - that is not only controversial, but unfounded.
 
Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?
I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very comforting though because he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.
I think we beat determinism to death. Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

Compatibilists are determinists by definition.
Compatibilism is incoherent. It’s an effort to make free will compatible with determinism by defining free will as being able to choose “appropriately” in their estimation and it disregards a person’s internal reasons for doing what they do altogether. They do this to keep the status quo of holding people accountable. It’s a semantic shift in an effort to look coherent but, by definition, these two ideologies are opposites. You have one, you can’t have the other.

Light at the eye/ instant vision is incoherent. It doesn't relate to how the world works, or determinism.

If the world is deterministic, light must be radiated by its source, have a travel time to the eye where it is detected, absorbed and the information used by the brain to form mental visual imagery.
Light is radiated by its source but is not reflected. That is why we can see an object when viewing it directly due to the fact that the wavelength of light is revealing the object. There is nothing far-fetched about this version of sight. This account does not involve physics since the information is not traveling through space/time. Light is traveling, but again, it does not bounce off of objects and take the wavelength of light with it to be processed as an image. Information in this account can still form mental imagery in the brain. Seeing in real time doesn't take away from experiences that produce mental imagery in our mind's eye that relates to those experiences.



The Brain and Mental Imagery

Mental imagery is the ability to visualize things and scenarios in your mind, without actual physical input.

For example, when you think about your best friends, you may automatically picture their faces in your head without actually seeing them in front of you. When you daydream about an upcoming vacation, you may see yourself on the sunny beach.

People who dream about taking a penalty kick could visualize themselves like they are watching a video of it in their mind. They may even experience the smell of the turf or hear the sounds that fans would make.

Scientists believe your primary visual cortex, located in the back of your brain, is involved in internal visualization. This is the same part of the brain that processes visual information from the eyes and that lets you see the world around you.



Consciousness includes thoughts, feelings, sight, sound, smell, touch, etc.....which is all brain generated, inputs, memory.

None of this supports the idea of 'light at the eye/instant vision,' and that was the point, that the idea contradicts physics and determinism.
But it doesn’t contradict either because it isn’t like light (i.e. the information) is traveling and I say we see in real time. That would defy physics and would be wrong, nor does it contradict determinism, at least the way he correctly defines it. Cause/effect still works. Moreover, if the past doesn’t exist, how can it bring the past to us in light?. The past is part of our memory ONLY. That’s why memory is so important. It’s our identity.

I know I know, people believe that if we were on the star Rigel, we would see Columbus discovering America striking our eyes or some other long ago event. It sounds nutty when you think of it that way. But people will tell me that I’m the one that is defying logic. You people are like Christians saying Jesus rose from the dead and you can’t convince them otherwise. How can I even compete with this craziness? 🫤


You are defying logic because your contention does not take well established physics into account.

You say you support determinism, yet contradict its terms, that effect follows cause, that light must be radiated before it is detected or perceived.
 
Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?
I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.
I think we beat determinism to death. Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

Compatibilists are determinists by definition.
Compatibilism is incoherent. It’s an effort to make free will compatible with determinism by defining free will as being able to choose “appropriately” in their estimation and it disregards a person’s internal reasons for doing what they do altogether. They do this to keep the status quo of holding people accountable. It’s a semantic shift in an effort to look coherent but, by definition, these two ideologies are opposites. You have one, you can’t have the other.

Light at the eye/ instant vision is incoherent. It doesn't relate to how the world works, or determinism.

If the world is deterministic, light must be radiated by its source, have a travel time to the eye where it is detected, absorbed and the information used by the brain to form mental visual imagery.
Light is radiated by its source but is not reflected. That is why we can see an object when viewing it directly due to the fact that the wavelength of light is revealing the object. There is nothing far-fetched about this version of sight. This account does not involve physics since the information is not traveling through space/time. Light is traveling, but again, it does not bounce off of objects and take the wavelength of light with it to be processed as an image. Information in this account can still form mental imagery in the brain. Seeing in real time doesn't take away from experiences that produce mental imagery in our mind's eye that relates to those experiences.



The Brain and Mental Imagery

Mental imagery is the ability to visualize things and scenarios in your mind, without actual physical input.

For example, when you think about your best friends, you may automatically picture their faces in your head without actually seeing them in front of you. When you daydream about an upcoming vacation, you may see yourself on the sunny beach.

People who dream about taking a penalty kick could visualize themselves like they are watching a video of it in their mind. They may even experience the smell of the turf or hear the sounds that fans would make.

Scientists believe your primary visual cortex, located in the back of your brain, is involved in internal visualization. This is the same part of the brain that processes visual information from the eyes and that lets you see the world around you.



Consciousness includes thoughts, feelings, sight, sound, smell, touch, etc.....which is all brain generated, inputs, memory.

None of this supports the idea of 'light at the eye/instant vision,' and that was the point, that the idea contradicts physics and determinism.
But it doesn’t contradict either because it isn’t like light (i.e. the information) is traveling and I say we see in real time. That would defy physics and would be wrong, nor does it contradict determinism, at least the way he correctly defines it. Cause/effect still works. Moreover, if the past doesn’t exist, how can it bring the past to us in light?. The past is part of our memory ONLY. That’s why memory is so important. It’s our identity.

I know I know, people believe that if we were on the star Rigel, we would see Columbus discovering America striking our eyes or some other long ago event. It sounds nutty when you think of it that way. But people will tell me that I’m the one that is defying logic. You people are like Christians saying Jesus rose from the dead and you can’t convince them otherwise. How can I even compete with this craziness? 🫤

That light travels is well established.
He never disputed this.
The speed that it travels has been measured, and that it scatters and reflects from surrounding objects is not controversial.
He never disputed this either.
It is your authors contention - light at the eye - that is not only controversial, but unfounded.
This is never going to work because you don't understand the concept of efferent vision. You don't understand his demonstration and what he was showing. You just keep going back to afferent vision, which is why you will never grasp this concept. I'm sorry DBT, but I really tried.:sadcheer:
 
Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?
I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very comforting though because he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.
I think we beat determinism to death. Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

Compatibilists are determinists by definition.
Compatibilism is incoherent. It’s an effort to make free will compatible with determinism by defining free will as being able to choose “appropriately” in their estimation and it disregards a person’s internal reasons for doing what they do altogether. They do this to keep the status quo of holding people accountable. It’s a semantic shift in an effort to look coherent but, by definition, these two ideologies are opposites. You have one, you can’t have the other.

Light at the eye/ instant vision is incoherent. It doesn't relate to how the world works, or determinism.

If the world is deterministic, light must be radiated by its source, have a travel time to the eye where it is detected, absorbed and the information used by the brain to form mental visual imagery.
Light is radiated by its source but is not reflected. That is why we can see an object when viewing it directly due to the fact that the wavelength of light is revealing the object. There is nothing far-fetched about this version of sight. This account does not involve physics since the information is not traveling through space/time. Light is traveling, but again, it does not bounce off of objects and take the wavelength of light with it to be processed as an image. Information in this account can still form mental imagery in the brain. Seeing in real time doesn't take away from experiences that produce mental imagery in our mind's eye that relates to those experiences.



The Brain and Mental Imagery

Mental imagery is the ability to visualize things and scenarios in your mind, without actual physical input.

For example, when you think about your best friends, you may automatically picture their faces in your head without actually seeing them in front of you. When you daydream about an upcoming vacation, you may see yourself on the sunny beach.

People who dream about taking a penalty kick could visualize themselves like they are watching a video of it in their mind. They may even experience the smell of the turf or hear the sounds that fans would make.

Scientists believe your primary visual cortex, located in the back of your brain, is involved in internal visualization. This is the same part of the brain that processes visual information from the eyes and that lets you see the world around you.



Consciousness includes thoughts, feelings, sight, sound, smell, touch, etc.....which is all brain generated, inputs, memory.

None of this supports the idea of 'light at the eye/instant vision,' and that was the point, that the idea contradicts physics and determinism.
But it doesn’t contradict either because it isn’t like light (i.e. the information) is traveling and I say we see in real time. That would defy physics and would be wrong, nor does it contradict determinism, at least the way he correctly defines it. Cause/effect still works. Moreover, if the past doesn’t exist, how can it bring the past to us in light?. The past is part of our memory ONLY. That’s why memory is so important. It’s our identity.

I know I know, people believe that if we were on the star Rigel, we would see Columbus discovering America striking our eyes or some other long ago event. It sounds nutty when you think of it that way. But people will tell me that I’m the one that is defying logic. You people are like Christians saying Jesus rose from the dead and you can’t convince them otherwise. How can I even compete with this craziness? 🫤


You are defying logic because your contention does not take well established physics into account.

You say you support determinism, yet contradict its terms, that effect follows cause, that light must be radiated before it is detected or perceived.
You really don't get it. This does not contradict determinism at all. Effect does follow cause in the present. The past does not cause the present if all we have is the present. This is a problem with the standard definition. I do not contradict its terms.

The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because, in order to be developed and have meaning, it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not describe reality unless interpreted properly. Nothing causes man to build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man, who is always developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he is always learning from previous experience. The fact that will is not free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate, and during every moment of his progress, was doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two; it is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two opposing principles have never been reconciled until now. The amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, and the millions that criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system; but these systems are not caused by; they are these laws.
 
Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?
I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very comforting though because he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.
I think we beat determinism to death. Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

Compatibilists are determinists by definition.
Compatibilism is incoherent. It’s an effort to make free will compatible with determinism by defining free will as being able to choose “appropriately” in their estimation and it disregards a person’s internal reasons for doing what they do altogether. They do this to keep the status quo of holding people accountable. It’s a semantic shift in an effort to look coherent but, by definition, these two ideologies are opposites. You have one, you can’t have the other.

Light at the eye/ instant vision is incoherent. It doesn't relate to how the world works, or determinism.

If the world is deterministic, light must be radiated by its source, have a travel time to the eye where it is detected, absorbed and the information used by the brain to form mental visual imagery.
Light is radiated by its source but is not reflected. That is why we can see an object when viewing it directly due to the fact that the wavelength of light is revealing the object. There is nothing far-fetched about this version of sight. This account does not involve physics since the information is not traveling through space/time. Light is traveling, but again, it does not bounce off of objects and take the wavelength of light with it to be processed as an image. Information in this account can still form mental imagery in the brain. Seeing in real time doesn't take away from experiences that produce mental imagery in our mind's eye that relates to those experiences.



The Brain and Mental Imagery

Mental imagery is the ability to visualize things and scenarios in your mind, without actual physical input.

For example, when you think about your best friends, you may automatically picture their faces in your head without actually seeing them in front of you. When you daydream about an upcoming vacation, you may see yourself on the sunny beach.

People who dream about taking a penalty kick could visualize themselves like they are watching a video of it in their mind. They may even experience the smell of the turf or hear the sounds that fans would make.

Scientists believe your primary visual cortex, located in the back of your brain, is involved in internal visualization. This is the same part of the brain that processes visual information from the eyes and that lets you see the world around you.



Consciousness includes thoughts, feelings, sight, sound, smell, touch, etc.....which is all brain generated, inputs, memory.

None of this supports the idea of 'light at the eye/instant vision,' and that was the point, that the idea contradicts physics and determinism.
But it doesn’t contradict either because it isn’t like light (i.e. the information) is traveling and I say we see in real time. That would defy physics and would be wrong, nor does it contradict determinism, at least the way he correctly defines it. Cause/effect still works. Moreover, if the past doesn’t exist, how can it bring the past to us in light?. The past is part of our memory ONLY. That’s why memory is so important. It’s our identity.
Please read this very carefully, and respond to this post with an edit.
No.
Come on. Take a crack at it. Just try even editing the first sentence. It would help at least recover readability. That first sentence doesn't even PARSE!

The rest doesn't follow, and at the very end there is a comedy of errors? The past doesn't exist? No, the past very much exists. That's a known feature of determinism: something specific happened in the past; it is a location in spacetime the same way "over there" is... It's just a location with causal relation to later locations but not earlier ones.
 
Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?
I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very comforting though because he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.
I think we beat determinism to death. Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

Compatibilists are determinists by definition.
Compatibilism is incoherent. It’s an effort to make free will compatible with determinism by defining free will as being able to choose “appropriately” in their estimation and it disregards a person’s internal reasons for doing what they do altogether. They do this to keep the status quo of holding people accountable. It’s a semantic shift in an effort to look coherent but, by definition, these two ideologies are opposites. You have one, you can’t have the other.

Light at the eye/ instant vision is incoherent. It doesn't relate to how the world works, or determinism.

If the world is deterministic, light must be radiated by its source, have a travel time to the eye where it is detected, absorbed and the information used by the brain to form mental visual imagery.
Light is radiated by its source but is not reflected. That is why we can see an object when viewing it directly due to the fact that the wavelength of light is revealing the object. There is nothing far-fetched about this version of sight. This account does not involve physics since the information is not traveling through space/time. Light is traveling, but again, it does not bounce off of objects and take the wavelength of light with it to be processed as an image. Information in this account can still form mental imagery in the brain. Seeing in real time doesn't take away from experiences that produce mental imagery in our mind's eye that relates to those experiences.



The Brain and Mental Imagery

Mental imagery is the ability to visualize things and scenarios in your mind, without actual physical input.

For example, when you think about your best friends, you may automatically picture their faces in your head without actually seeing them in front of you. When you daydream about an upcoming vacation, you may see yourself on the sunny beach.

People who dream about taking a penalty kick could visualize themselves like they are watching a video of it in their mind. They may even experience the smell of the turf or hear the sounds that fans would make.

Scientists believe your primary visual cortex, located in the back of your brain, is involved in internal visualization. This is the same part of the brain that processes visual information from the eyes and that lets you see the world around you.



Consciousness includes thoughts, feelings, sight, sound, smell, touch, etc.....which is all brain generated, inputs, memory.

None of this supports the idea of 'light at the eye/instant vision,' and that was the point, that the idea contradicts physics and determinism.
But it doesn’t contradict either because it isn’t like light (i.e. the information) is traveling and I say we see in real time. That would defy physics and would be wrong, nor does it contradict determinism, at least the way he correctly defines it. Cause/effect still works. Moreover, if the past doesn’t exist, how can it bring the past to us in light?. The past is part of our memory ONLY. That’s why memory is so important. It’s our identity.
Please read this very carefully, and respond to this post with an edit.
No.
Come on. Take a crack at it. Just try even editing the first sentence. It would help at least recover readability. That first sentence doesn't even PARSE!

The rest doesn't follow, and at the very end there is a comedy of errors? The past doesn't exist? No, the past very much exists. That's a known feature of determinism: something specific happened in the past; it is a location in spacetime the same way "over there" is... It's just a location with causal relation to later locations but not earlier ones.
No, you don’t understand his knowledge whatsoever. You are using the standard definition and he is not. There is no meeting of the minds when you have never read anything that he’s written. Am I on candid camera? 😳
 
Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?
I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.
I think we beat determinism to death. Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

Compatibilists are determinists by definition.
Compatibilism is incoherent. It’s an effort to make free will compatible with determinism by defining free will as being able to choose “appropriately” in their estimation and it disregards a person’s internal reasons for doing what they do altogether. They do this to keep the status quo of holding people accountable. It’s a semantic shift in an effort to look coherent but, by definition, these two ideologies are opposites. You have one, you can’t have the other.

Light at the eye/ instant vision is incoherent. It doesn't relate to how the world works, or determinism.

If the world is deterministic, light must be radiated by its source, have a travel time to the eye where it is detected, absorbed and the information used by the brain to form mental visual imagery.
Light is radiated by its source but is not reflected. That is why we can see an object when viewing it directly due to the fact that the wavelength of light is revealing the object. There is nothing far-fetched about this version of sight. This account does not involve physics since the information is not traveling through space/time. Light is traveling, but again, it does not bounce off of objects and take the wavelength of light with it to be processed as an image. Information in this account can still form mental imagery in the brain. Seeing in real time doesn't take away from experiences that produce mental imagery in our mind's eye that relates to those experiences.



The Brain and Mental Imagery

Mental imagery is the ability to visualize things and scenarios in your mind, without actual physical input.

For example, when you think about your best friends, you may automatically picture their faces in your head without actually seeing them in front of you. When you daydream about an upcoming vacation, you may see yourself on the sunny beach.

People who dream about taking a penalty kick could visualize themselves like they are watching a video of it in their mind. They may even experience the smell of the turf or hear the sounds that fans would make.

Scientists believe your primary visual cortex, located in the back of your brain, is involved in internal visualization. This is the same part of the brain that processes visual information from the eyes and that lets you see the world around you.



Consciousness includes thoughts, feelings, sight, sound, smell, touch, etc.....which is all brain generated, inputs, memory.

None of this supports the idea of 'light at the eye/instant vision,' and that was the point, that the idea contradicts physics and determinism.
But it doesn’t contradict either because it isn’t like light (i.e. the information) is traveling and I say we see in real time. That would defy physics and would be wrong, nor does it contradict determinism, at least the way he correctly defines it. Cause/effect still works. Moreover, if the past doesn’t exist, how can it bring the past to us in light?. The past is part of our memory ONLY. That’s why memory is so important. It’s our identity.

I know I know, people believe that if we were on the star Rigel, we would see Columbus discovering America striking our eyes or some other long ago event. It sounds nutty when you think of it that way. But people will tell me that I’m the one that is defying logic. You people are like Christians saying Jesus rose from the dead and you can’t convince them otherwise. How can I even compete with this craziness? 🫤

That light travels is well established.
He never disputed this.
The speed that it travels has been measured, and that it scatters and reflects from surrounding objects is not controversial.
He never disputed this either.
It is your authors contention - light at the eye - that is not only controversial, but unfounded.
This is never going to work because you don't understand the concept of efferent vision. You don't understand his demonstration and what he was showing. You just keep going back to afferent vision, which is why you will never grasp this concept. I'm sorry DBT, but I really tried.:sadcheer:

Vision is not efferent. There is demonstration of efferent vision. The eye does not work like that. Vision does not work like that.

The eye is a sense organ that has evolved to detect and absorb light and transmit information via the optic nerve to the brain for processing and forming vision.

That's simply how it works.

The authors claim cannot even be seriously considered to be valid because there is no mechanism for 'light at the eye/instant vision' in physics or determinism.




''Afferent neurons are sensory neurons that carry nerve impulses from sensory stimuli towards the central nervous system and brain, while efferent neurons are motor neurons that carry neural impulses away from the central nervous system and towards muscles to cause movement.

AP Biology : Understanding Afferent and Efferent Neurons​


Varsity Tutors
https://www.varsitytutors.com › ap_biology-help › und...












 
So knowing the actual reason the term "efferent" was used makes me think the whole concept is even dumber.
 
Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?
I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.
I think we beat determinism to death. Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

Compatibilists are determinists by definition.
Compatibilism is incoherent. It’s an effort to make free will compatible with determinism by defining free will as being able to choose “appropriately” in their estimation and it disregards a person’s internal reasons for doing what they do altogether. They do this to keep the status quo of holding people accountable. It’s a semantic shift in an effort to look coherent but, by definition, these two ideologies are opposites. You have one, you can’t have the other.

Light at the eye/ instant vision is incoherent. It doesn't relate to how the world works, or determinism.

If the world is deterministic, light must be radiated by its source, have a travel time to the eye where it is detected, absorbed and the information used by the brain to form mental visual imagery.
Light is radiated by its source but is not reflected. That is why we can see an object when viewing it directly due to the fact that the wavelength of light is revealing the object. There is nothing far-fetched about this version of sight. This account does not involve physics since the information is not traveling through space/time. Light is traveling, but again, it does not bounce off of objects and take the wavelength of light with it to be processed as an image. Information in this account can still form mental imagery in the brain. Seeing in real time doesn't take away from experiences that produce mental imagery in our mind's eye that relates to those experiences.



The Brain and Mental Imagery

Mental imagery is the ability to visualize things and scenarios in your mind, without actual physical input.

For example, when you think about your best friends, you may automatically picture their faces in your head without actually seeing them in front of you. When you daydream about an upcoming vacation, you may see yourself on the sunny beach.

People who dream about taking a penalty kick could visualize themselves like they are watching a video of it in their mind. They may even experience the smell of the turf or hear the sounds that fans would make.

Scientists believe your primary visual cortex, located in the back of your brain, is involved in internal visualization. This is the same part of the brain that processes visual information from the eyes and that lets you see the world around you.



Consciousness includes thoughts, feelings, sight, sound, smell, touch, etc.....which is all brain generated, inputs, memory.

None of this supports the idea of 'light at the eye/instant vision,' and that was the point, that the idea contradicts physics and determinism.
But it doesn’t contradict either because it isn’t like light (i.e. the information) is traveling and I say we see in real time. That would defy physics and would be wrong, nor does it contradict determinism, at least the way he correctly defines it. Cause/effect still works. Moreover, if the past doesn’t exist, how can it bring the past to us in light?. The past is part of our memory ONLY. That’s why memory is so important. It’s our identity.

I know I know, people believe that if we were on the star Rigel, we would see Columbus discovering America striking our eyes or some other long ago event. It sounds nutty when you think of it that way. But people will tell me that I’m the one that is defying logic. You people are like Christians saying Jesus rose from the dead and you can’t convince them otherwise. How can I even compete with this craziness? 🫤

That light travels is well established.
He never disputed this.
The speed that it travels has been measured, and that it scatters and reflects from surrounding objects is not controversial.
He never disputed this either.
It is your authors contention - light at the eye - that is not only controversial, but unfounded.
This is never going to work because you don't understand the concept of efferent vision. You don't understand his demonstration and what he was showing. You just keep going back to afferent vision, which is why you will never grasp this concept. I'm sorry DBT, but I really tried.:sadcheer:

Vision is not efferent. There is demonstration of efferent vision. The eye does not work like that. Vision does not work like that.

The eye is a sense organ that has evolved to detect and absorb light and transmit information via the optic nerve to the brain for processing and forming vision.

That's simply how it works.

The authors claim cannot even be seriously considered to be valid because there is no mechanism for 'light at the eye/instant vision' in physics or determinism.




''Afferent neurons are sensory neurons that carry nerve impulses from sensory stimuli towards the central nervous system and brain, while efferent neurons are motor neurons that carry neural impulses away from the central nervous system and towards muscles to cause movement.

AP Biology : Understanding Afferent and Efferent Neurons


Varsity Tutors
https://www.varsitytutors.com › ap_biology-help › und...

Maybe we should move on to the third discovery. Can you explain this one, peacegirl?
I really don’t want to get bombarded with questions when no one has read the chapter. It’s very he proves that death is not the end since we (not the same person) are born again and again. I’d rather go back to his discovery that lies locked behind the door of determinism because, when extended, has the power to bring about peace on earth.
I think we beat determinism to death. Some people in this thread are determinists. Can you post some of the writings of Lessans on this point? I'm curious as to how pronouns could have anything to do with evidence for being born again as another person.

Compatibilists are determinists by definition.
Compatibilism is incoherent. It’s an effort to make free will compatible with determinism by defining free will as being able to choose “appropriately” in their estimation and it disregards a person’s internal reasons for doing what they do altogether. They do this to keep the status quo of holding people accountable. It’s a semantic shift in an effort to look coherent but, by definition, these two ideologies are opposites. You have one, you can’t have the other.

Light at the eye/ instant vision is incoherent. It doesn't relate to how the world works, or determinism.

If the world is deterministic, light must be radiated by its source, have a travel time to the eye where it is detected, absorbed and the information used by the brain to form mental visual imagery.
Light is radiated by its source but is not reflected. That is why we can see an object when viewing it directly due to the fact that the wavelength of light is revealing the object. There is nothing far-fetched about this version of sight. This account does not involve physics since the information is not traveling through space/time. Light is traveling, but again, it does not bounce off of objects and take the wavelength of light with it to be processed as an image. Information in this account can still form mental imagery in the brain. Seeing in real time doesn't take away from experiences that produce mental imagery in our mind's eye that relates to those experiences.



The Brain and Mental Imagery

Mental imagery is the ability to visualize things and scenarios in your mind, without actual physical input.

For example, when you think about your best friends, you may automatically picture their faces in your head without actually seeing them in front of you. When you daydream about an upcoming vacation, you may see yourself on the sunny beach.

People who dream about taking a penalty kick could visualize themselves like they are watching a video of it in their mind. They may even experience the smell of the turf or hear the sounds that fans would make.

Scientists believe your primary visual cortex, located in the back of your brain, is involved in internal visualization. This is the same part of the brain that processes visual information from the eyes and that lets you see the world around you.



Consciousness includes thoughts, feelings, sight, sound, smell, touch, etc.....which is all brain generated, inputs, memory.

None of this supports the idea of 'light at the eye/instant vision,' and that was the point, that the idea contradicts physics and determinism.
But it doesn’t contradict either because it isn’t like light (i.e. the information) is traveling and I say we see in real time. That would defy physics and would be wrong, nor does it contradict determinism, at least the way he correctly defines it. Cause/effect still works. Moreover, if the past doesn’t exist, how can it bring the past to us in light?. The past is part of our memory ONLY. That’s why memory is so important. It’s our identity.

I know I know, people believe that if we were on the star Rigel, we would see Columbus discovering America striking our eyes or some other long ago event. It sounds nutty when you think of it that way. But people will tell me that I’m the one that is defying logic. You people are like Christians saying Jesus rose from the dead and you can’t convince them otherwise. How can I even compete with this craziness? 🫤

That light travels is well established.
He never disputed this.
The speed that it travels has been measured, and that it scatters and reflects from surrounding objects is not controversial.
He never disputed this either.
It is your authors contention - light at the eye - that is not only controversial, but unfounded.
This is never going to work because you don't understand the concept of efferent vision. You don't understand his demonstration and what he was showing. You just keep going back to afferent vision, which is why you will never grasp this concept. I'm sorry DBT, but I really tried.:sadcheer:

Vision is not efferent. There is demonstration of efferent vision. The eye does not work like that. Vision does not work like that.

The eye is a sense organ that has evolved to detect and absorb light and transmit information via the optic nerve to the brain for processing and forming vision.

That's simply how it works.

The authors claim cannot even be seriously considered to be valid because there is no mechanism for 'light at the eye/instant vision' in physics or determinism.




''Afferent neurons are sensory neurons that carry nerve impulses from sensory stimuli towards the central nervous system and brain, while efferent neurons are motor neurons that carry neural impulses away from the central nervous system and towards muscles to cause movement.

AP Biology : Understanding Afferent and Efferent Neurons


Varsity Tutors
https://www.varsitytutors.com › ap_biology-help › und...
Efferent means conducted outward. That word came the closest to what he was trying to explain. If he had found a better word that would have described what he was demonstrating, he would have used it. He was trying to make a distinction between what goes in and what goes out to make it as clear as he could.
 
Last edited:
Efferent means conducted outward. That word came the closest to what he was trying to explain. If he had found a better word that would have described what he was demonstrating, he would have used it.

Yes, and if he had been wrong about his claims, he would have said so; since he never said he was wrong, he must be right, right? :rolleyes:
 
Efferent means conducted outward. That word came the closest to what he was trying to explain. If he had found a better word that would have described what he was demonstrating, he would have used it.

Yes, and if he had been wrong about his claims, he would have said so; since he never said he was wrong, he must be right, right? :rolleyes:
It's not the same thing. This is what you're all doing. He had to be wrong because you are right, and there's no way this version of sight is even possible in your eyes. Question: If beautiful and ugly people are not traveling in the light, how do we see these beautiful and ugly features if not for conditioning? And how are we conditioned? Do you see the problem here? Either light is bringing this beauty and ugliness to us, or somehow we are conditioned to seeing this beauty and ugliness, which appears real. After all, don't we see that some people are more beautiful and more ugly than others? Don't we see this with our very eyes? How can we deny that what we see isn't real? The question then becomes, "How does this conditioning occur if it's not coming from the light?" What is the process by which this takes place? Let me go over this one more time: Beautiful and ugly features are either traveling in the light (which you admitted and science itself never said) or we are conditioned somehow to seeing certain features as more beautiful or more ugly than others. If it isn't through light itself, please explain to me how this conditioning occurs. It has to be one or the other.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom