It doesn't mean they work just like an adult's though, either.
Yes, intentionally so. I am using the exact same "reasoning" that you used to show that eyes are not sense organs. And, as you correctly observe, it is ridiculous.
www.aoa.org
He never said they did. But they are in full working order.
His observations were not ridiculous.
These two posts contradict each other.
You have no idea the rigor it took to make these claims so don’t tell me about integrity!
He never made this accusation but he knew that if he dared try, he would be looked at as a looney. In fact, challenging delayed vision is pretty much off the table.
He was an observer and an astute one at that. He did not start out with a hypothesis therefore it was not his methodology. He was not looking for answers to anything but certain findings came to him after much thought and analysis. He also said his observations could be tested further.
Vision is afferent.
A length can’t be at the eye.
Yes, when an object is in the “field of view,” we are seeing it as it was in the past.
I have this entire thread as evidence.
YOU have repeatedly made this accusation in this very thread. And your hypothesis about how you are subsequently viewed has yet to be falsified.
Challenging delayed vision is not "off the table", but it is contradicted by some extraordinary successful and well tested theories, and so requires an even more successful and well tested theory to replace it.
To some people I may look that way, but no one is intrinsically inferior to anyone.Are you saying that our ability to see what you write here makes you look inferior?
I don't get when you keep saying "an erroneous prediction." This is not about any prediction; it's about seeing reality for what it is. Current theories believe value exists in the light, and they will deny that it doesn't. Don't we see beauty and ugliness with our very eyes? This is exactly what Lessans disproves, and he shows how these words developed and why they don't symbolize reality, yet they have hurt so many by the false standards that have developed as a consequence.
I understand what you're trying to figure out, but the "erroneous prediction" of current theories that this new idea of how the eyes work resolves doesn't make sense. This new understanding, as I already mentioned, changes the wording we use so that people are not stratified into layers of value that DO NOT exist.
I'm sorry but this is false. Please keep in mind that he wasn't denying that light travels. But if the eyes are efferent (which means the brain is looking through the retina or eyes as a window), the wavelength would be at the eye if the object was in our field of view. Why do we not see an object when it is beyond our field of view? Because it is too far away or too small to be seen. If the light was traveling to our eyes, we would continue to see the object, but light disperses and when this occurs, we can no longer see said object.
Science says that newborns can taste. Obviously, they can't taste the same as an adult because they were just born, but this has nothing to do with whether their tastebuds are in full working order.
Now who is slandering whom?
That is true, but it isn't about prediction at all. It is either true or not.Then it's not science at all.This is not about erroneous predictions from the present theories. It’s not about prediction at all.Are you saying that our ability to see what you write here makes you look inferior?
Seriously though, how is "the problem of inferiority" an erroneous prediction of current theories of how eyes work and what they do?
You appear to have forgotton my question while formulating your answer; Again: What I am asking you to do is to explain what erroneous prediction of current theories this new idea (of how eyes work and what they do) resolves.
"The problem of inferiority" isn't a prediction of current theories of how eyes work and what you do, so your new idea cannot be intended to address that prediction.
You appear to have only the vaguest notion of what science is, or does.
And of course, it is about prediction. You are predicting that if an object is large enough and luminous enough, it will be visible instantaneously regardless of its distance from us.
Again, this has nothing to do with prediction yet it is correct in its analysis.
Faith has nothing to do with this discovery.
Stop bringing in things that don't relate. SCIENCE SAYS: BABIES CAN TASTE WHEN BORN. Go argue with the scientists, not me.How could we possibly know this?You are wrong about so many things in this book, you will never understand it. All of the other sense organs are in full working order at birth.And that would be what?
The eye is a complex sense organ that takes time to develop. Other senses are not so complex. By your “logic,” something obviously is amiss that a baby does not come out of the womb a fully grown adult. Ergo, babies are not humans. By your “logic” something is obviously amiss that babies’ hands are so tiny, they cannot really grasp or manipulate things. Ergo, hands are not hands, but something else. Efferent hands, maybe?
Do you remember how things tasted when you were born? Did you even taste many things in your first few weeks of life? Most babies don't get to try spicy curries, so how do you know that they can taste them?
Most parts of a newborn baby are underdeveloped. Their sence of balance is woeful, and they are therefore rarely seen walking, running, or riding a bicycle.
This does not explain "what erroneous prediction of current theories this new idea resolves." In fact, it doesn't make predictions at all. I don't understand why you don't get this.
What two posts contradict each other?
No we are not. If we were, we would see the image without a telescope. We would see the image coming to us years later, but as was written in an encyclopedia many years ago: If we were on the star Rigel, we would just be seeing Columbus discovering America. Doesn't that sound odd to you, or are you so brainwashed, you can no longer see truth from fiction.
