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

[peacegirl]

Stop bringing in things that don't relate. SCIENCE SAYS: BABIES CAN TASTE WHEN BORN. Go argue with the scientists, not me.

Yeah, and they can see, smell, hear, etc. at birth, only their eyes, being more complex, need more time to develop.

This doesn't answer the question as to why ALL the other senses are in full working order but the eyes are not.

The baby is really tiny at birth, too — does that mean it’s not human? Babies’ hand are really tiny and can’t do much — does that mean they’re not hands?? Do you have any idea how utterly cringeworthy this nonsense you are spouting is? Rhetorical question.

This is coming from someone who believes that a bee can identify his beekeeper in a lineup. Talk about cringeworthy nonsense!

 

[pood]

There are no means or mechanisms by which instant vision could be possible. Light being radiated from stars simply cannot just be 'at the eye' without travel time.

You just don’t get why efferent vision

Vision is afferent.

makes it possible for the wavelength to be at the eye

A length can’t be at the eye.

when the object is in one’s field of view.

Yes, when an object is in the “field of view,” we are seeing it as it was in the past.

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.

We would see the image without a telescope? But only if we see in delayed time … Wow. Your cluelessness is getting more clueless by the post. There are plenty of very distant objects we can’t see without a telescope, but if we saw light instantly, we would see EVERYTHING without a telescope — the exactly opposite of your claim above! We explained this to you, too, at FF, but in one ear and out the other! If we saw in real time, the whole night sky would be white, the temperature of the earth would equal that of the sun, and we’d all be dead! DUH!

 

[peacegirl]

There are no means or mechanisms by which instant vision could be possible. Light being radiated from stars simply cannot just be 'at the eye' without travel time.

You just don’t get why efferent vision

Vision is afferent.

makes it possible for the wavelength to be at the eye

A length can’t be at the eye.

when the object is in one’s field of view.

Yes, when an object is in the “field of view,” we are seeing it as it was in the past.

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.

We would see the image without a telescope? But only if we see in delayed time … Wow. Your cluelessness is getting more clueless by the post. There are plenty of very distant objects we can’t see without a telescope, but if we saw light instantly, we would see EVERYTHING without a telescope — the exactly opposite of your claim above! We explained this to you, too, at FF, but in one ear and out the other! If we saw in real time, the whole night sky would be white, the temperature of the earth would equal that of the sun, and we’d all be dead! DUH!

 

[peacegirl]

There are no means or mechanisms by which instant vision could be possible. Light being radiated from stars simply cannot just be 'at the eye' without travel time.

You just don’t get why efferent vision

Vision is afferent.

makes it possible for the wavelength to be at the eye

A length can’t be at the eye.

when the object is in one’s field of view.

Yes, when an object is in the “field of view,” we are seeing it as it was in the past.

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.

We would see the image without a telescope? But only if we see in delayed time … Wow. Your cluelessness is getting more clueless by the post. There are plenty of very distant objects we can’t see without a telescope, but if we saw light instantly, we would see EVERYTHING without a telescope — the exactly opposite of your claim above!

No Pood. We wouldn’t be able to see an object without a telescope if it was not in the telescope’s field of view. How can anything be magnified without an object (not an image) to magnify? I’m sure you believe that we would just be seeing the dinosaurs reaching our eyes if we were on the star Rigel.

We explained this to you, too, at FF, but in one ear and out the other! If we saw in real time, the whole night sky would be white, the temperature of the earth would equal that of the sun, and we’d all be dead! DUH!

No it wouldn’t Pood. The sun, being 93 million miles away, would not burn us up! That’s just another story to support your belief in delayed vision. It’s called confirmation bias. You're the poster child!

 

[peacegirl]

There are no means or mechanisms by which instant vision could be possible. Light being radiated from stars simply cannot just be 'at the eye' without travel time.

You just don’t get why efferent vision

Vision is afferent.

makes it possible for the wavelength to be at the eye

A length can’t be at the eye.

when the object is in one’s field of view.

Yes, when an object is in the “field of view,” we are seeing it as it was in the past.

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.

We would see the image without a telescope? But only if we see in delayed time … Wow. Your cluelessness is getting more clueless by the post. There are plenty of very distant objects we can’t see without a telescope, but if we saw light instantly, we would see EVERYTHING without a telescope — the exactly opposite of your claim above!

No Pood. We wouldn’t be able to see an object without a telescope if it was not in the telescope’s field of view. How can anything be magnified without an object (not an image) to magnify? I’m sure you believe that we would just be seeing the Spanish Inquisition coming into view if you were on the star Rigel.

We explained this to you, too, at FF, but in one ear and out the other! If we saw in real time, the whole night sky would be white, the temperature of the earth would equal that of the sun, and we’d all be dead!

The sun, being 93 million miles away, would not burn us up, nor would the whole night sky be white. The night sky is vast and stars are so far apart that this could not happen.

 

[bilby]

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.

The only way to see reality as it is is to use the scientific method. Science is ALL ABOUT prediction. An hypothesis is a set of predictions. A theory is a set of predictions.

Even "seeing reality for what it is" is a prediction; You are predicting that looking at reality will reveal what it is.

As I already said, of your claim that what you are doing is not prediction:

Then it's not science at all.

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.

Traditional optics (and other fields of physics, such as relativity) predict that any information about any event will take time to travel from the source, to the observer; And that the maximum speed of that information is that of electromagnetic radiation (of which light is a part) in a vacuum.

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.

I am asking you this, because this is the centrepiece of any and all scientific investigation of the real world. New ideas supplant old ideas if, and only if, they make more accurate predictions about what we will observe than the old ideas made.

Any other approach to finding out how reality really is, fails. We use science, not because we love it, or have faith in it, or trust it; But because it works. Science puts men on the Moon. Faith flies them into skyscrapers.

The Theory of Relativity predicts that any test of the time elapsed between a distant event, and our seeing that event, will show that there is a gap of at least the time required to transit that distance at lightspeed.

All the observations of which I am aware are in concert with this prediction.

However, Lessans is predicting that the elapsed time will be zero.

So I want to know what erroneous prediction of current theories this new idea (of how eyes work and what they do) resolves.

What result or observation is routinely made, that is out of step with the predictions made by the Theory of Relativity?

The ONLY reason why a new theory is ever needed is that the old one makes predictions that fail to match routine results or observations - this was why Relativity replaced Newtonian Gravitation, because Newtonian Gravitation predicted a position for the planet Mercury that did not match the observed position of that planet.

You are asking us to replace Relativity with a new theory of instantaneous vision. In order to do that, you first need to show what erroneous prediction of current theories this new idea (of how eyes work and what they do) resolves.

If there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the old theory, then the new theory is useless, and (insofar as it disagrees with the old) logically must also be wrong.

Only by showing that the old theory is wrong - ie that it makes erroneous predictions - can your new theory even start on the road to acceptance.

 

[bilby]

Current theories believe value exists in the light, and they will deny that it doesn't.

Not only do theories not believe this; They are not even the kind of thing that can believe anything.

Nothing in optics, relativity, or anywhere else in physics, even mentions 'value' in the sense of beauty, ugliness, etc. Those are emotional products of living organisms, and have zero bearing on the physical question of whether we see distant objects as they were in the past, or as they are in the present.

Eyes detect light. They do not detect beauty; Beauty is in the brain and endocrine system of the beholder.

'Value' is a trait studied by psychology and psychiatry, not by physics. Optics is a branch of physics.

The eye is just a sense organ.

 

[bilby]

That is true, but it isn't about prediction at all. It is either true or not.

If you say "that is true", that's a prediction. You are predicting that whenever we test to see if that is true, the answer will be "yes".

This is how science works.

 

[bilby]

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.

I do get it. It is a declaration that you have no interest whatsoever in scientific study of any kind, and are rejecting any such study of your claims.

That is, it's an admission that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I sense that you do not grasp that this is what you are doing when you say "it doesn't make predictions at all", but that's just because you have a woeful ignorance of epistemology.

The Philosophy Department at the University of Queensland have T-shirts that simply say: 'What part of "know" don't you understand?'

 

[bilby]

You just don’t get why efferent vision makes it possible for the wavelength to be at the eye when the object is in one’s field of view.

His observations were not ridiculous.

These two posts contradict each other.

What two posts contradict each other?

The two I quoted.

 

[bilby]

I’m sure you believe that we would just be seeing the dinosaurs reaching our eyes if we were on the star Rigel.

I’m sure you believe that we would just be seeing the Spanish Inquisition coming into view if you were on the star Rigel.

Are you of the impression that the Spanish Inquisition and the dinosaurs were contemporaries?

This pair of claims is perhaps the most egregious example of the "everything that happened in the past happened at the same time" fallacy that I have yet had the misfortune to encounter.

Rigel is about 860 light years from the Sun. An observer located that far from the Sun right now would see our solar system as it was in about 1164CE, and would therefore see neither dinosaurs (which had been extinct for over 64 million years), nor the Spanish Inquisition, which wasn't established until 1478CE.

 

[pood]

Stop bringing in things that don't relate. SCIENCE SAYS: BABIES CAN TASTE WHEN BORN. Go argue with the scientists, not me.

Yeah, and they can see, smell, hear, etc. at birth, only their eyes, being more complex, need more time to develop.

This doesn't answer the question as to why ALL the other senses are in full working order but the eyes are not.

The baby is really tiny at birth, too — does that mean it’s not human? Babies’ hand are really tiny and can’t do much — does that mean they’re not hands?? Do you have any idea how utterly cringeworthy this nonsense you are spouting is? Rhetorical question.

This is coming from someone who believes that a bee can identify his beekeeper in a lineup. Talk about cringeworthy nonsense!

Not in a lineup, they can identify their bee keepers by sight where they are together. I don’t “believe” anything — the scientific evidence SHOWS that bees can do this, just as it shows that the eye is a sense organ, and that we see in delayed tine, contrary to the nonsensical claims of your kooky author. You don’t understand what science is, and how it differs from belief. You think science means, “I believe what my father wrote.”

 

[pood]

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.

The only way to see reality as it is is to use the scientific method. Science is ALL ABOUT prediction. An hypothesis is a set of predictions. A theory is a set of predictions.

Even "seeing reality for what it is" is a prediction; You are predicting that looking at reality will reveal what it is.

As I already said, of your claim that what you are doing is not prediction:

Then it's not science at all.

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.

Traditional optics (and other fields of physics, such as relativity) predict that any information about any event will take time to travel from the source, to the observer; And that the maximum speed of that information is that of electromagnetic radiation (of which light is a part) in a vacuum.

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.

I am asking you this, because this is the centrepiece of any and all scientific investigation of the real world. New ideas supplant old ideas if, and only if, they make more accurate predictions about what we will observe than the old ideas made.

Any other approach to finding out how reality really is, fails. We use science, not because we love it, or have faith in it, or trust it; But because it works. Science puts men on the Moon. Faith flies them into skyscrapers.

The Theory of Relativity predicts that any test of the time elapsed between a distant event, and our seeing that event, will show that there is a gap of at least the time required to transit that distance at lightspeed.

All the observations of which I am aware are in concert with this prediction.

However, Lessans is predicting that the elapsed time will be zero.

So I want to know what erroneous prediction of current theories this new idea (of how eyes work and what they do) resolves.

What result or observation is routinely made, that is out of step with the predictions made by the Theory of Relativity?

The ONLY reason why a new theory is ever needed is that the old one makes predictions that fail to match routine results or observations - this was why Relativity replaced Newtonian Gravitation, because Newtonian Gravitation predicted a position for the planet Mercury that did not match the observed position of that planet.

You are asking us to replace Relativity with a new theory of instantaneous vision. In order to do that, you first need to show what erroneous prediction of current theories this new idea (of how eyes work and what they do) resolves.

If there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the old theory, then the new theory is useless, and (insofar as it disagrees with the old) logically must also be wrong.

Only by showing that the old theory is wrong - ie that it makes erroneous predictions - can your new theory even start on the road to acceptance.

The above is way, WAY too complicated for peacegirl. She has zero clue what science is, how it works, or why it works and works as it does.

 

[pood]

There are no means or mechanisms by which instant vision could be possible. Light being radiated from stars simply cannot just be 'at the eye' without travel time.

You just don’t get why efferent vision

Vision is afferent.

makes it possible for the wavelength to be at the eye

A length can’t be at the eye.

when the object is in one’s field of view.

Yes, when an object is in the “field of view,” we are seeing it as it was in the past.

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.

We would see the image without a telescope? But only if we see in delayed time … Wow. Your cluelessness is getting more clueless by the post. There are plenty of very distant objects we can’t see without a telescope, but if we saw light instantly, we would see EVERYTHING without a telescope — the exactly opposite of your claim above!

No Pood. We wouldn’t be able to see an object without a telescope if it was not in the telescope’s field of view. How can anything be magnified without an object (not an image) to magnify? I’m sure you believe that we would just be seeing the dinosaurs reaching our eyes if we were on the star Rigel.

We explained this to you, too, at FF, but in one ear and out the other! If we saw in real time, the whole night sky would be white, the temperature of the earth would equal that of the sun, and we’d all be dead! DUH!

No it wouldn’t Pood. The sun, being 93 million miles away, would not burn us up! That’s just another story to support your belief in delayed vision. It’s called confirmation bias. You're the poster child!

Your posts are becoming progressively more zany, out of touch with reality, and downright incoherent. The only thing you have going for you is the lulz factor (lulz for your interlocutors).

The reason the entire night sky is not white, and we don’t burn up, is because of delayed-time seeing. Edgar Alan Poe, a writer not a scientist, figured this out in 1848. There is more to the story, called Olber’s Paradox, but we explained this to you, and everything else, at FF, and here you are back again

And no, dinosaurs did not live on earth in the year 1160. I bet you didn’t even know that, did you? If someone on Rigel had a powerful enough telescope, they would see the earth as it was in 1160. Edited to correct: 1164.

 

[pood]

It just occurred to me that peacegirl might be a young-earth creationist, too. In addition to believing her author’s codswallop she is also an anti-vaxxer and a Trump supporter. Hey, peacegirl, contact RFK Jr., who is now in charge of abolishing America’s health. He’s as dumb as a box of rocks. Maybe he’ll give the coveted “stamp of truth” to your writer’s book.

 

[pood]

Right now we are seeing Rigel as it was 860 years ago as measured in our frame. The question of what is really happening NOW on Rigel is meaningless, courtesy of Einstein. Peacegirl would overturn the entire theory of relativity, indeed the entirety of established science, in favor of an author who thought light was made of molecules.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

The only way to see reality as it is is to use the scientific method. Science is ALL ABOUT prediction. An hypothesis is a set of predictions. A theory is a set of predictions.

I already said that he did not come by way of a hypothesis. That doesn't mean his findings were incorrect. You don't have to call it the scientific method then but, again, that does not mean his findings were incorrect.

Even "seeing reality for what it is" is a prediction; You are predicting that looking at reality will reveal what it is.

As I already said, of your claim that what you are doing is not prediction:

I can predict that when these principles (not just the eyes but the corollary to no free will) are put into practice, the human race will have made a major leap toward a golden age that was never thought possible. That prediction will prove that Lessans was right all along.

Then it's not science at all.

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.

That is true. And if the light hadn't reached us 81/2 minutes later, we would not be able to see each other even though we were a few inches apart. It isn't the size or distance that matters in this account, which is hard for people to understand. If the eyes didn't function the way Lessans explained, then it would be a different story.

Traditional optics (and other fields of physics, such as relativity) predict that any information about any event will take time to travel from the source, to the observer; And that the maximum speed of that information is that of electromagnetic radiation (of which light is a part) in a vacuum.

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.

I am asking you this, because this is the centrepiece of any and all scientific investigation of the real world. New ideas supplant old ideas if, and only if, they make more accurate predictions about what we will observe than the old ideas made.

I get that. I tried to explain that as a result of the projection of values onto real substance, we have been conditioned to seeing with our eyes this beauty and this ugliness, not realizing what the eyes were capable of doing. Not only is it hurtful to those who feel they are inferior phsiognomic productions of the human race, but it is inaccurate because they are not inferior physiognomically or any other way, as you will see in a later chapter. When we stop using these words because we now have learned they are not symbolic of reality, we will not be conditioned to seeing this beauty and ugliness as if it existed as part of the real world since the brain will no longer be taking a picture of certain features as better-looking and bad-looking. We will have personal preferences, but that is much different than this stratification that makes some people less valuable than others INTRINSICALLY.

Any other approach to finding out how reality really is, fails. We use science, not because we love it, or have faith in it, or trust it; But because it works. Science puts men on the Moon. Faith flies them into skyscrapers.

The Theory of Relativity predicts that any test of the time elapsed between a distant event, and our seeing that event, will show that there is a gap of at least the time required to transit that distance at lightspeed.

All the observations of which I am aware are in concert with this prediction.

However, Lessans is predicting that the elapsed time will be zero.

In his account, time and distance are not involved. That is why he says that we see the present, not the past. We can only see the object through the light (or wavelength) that is at the eye when we look in that direction, but the light does not bounce off of the object with the information and travel through space/time.

So I want to know what erroneous prediction of current theories this new idea (of how eyes work and what they do) resolves.

What result or observation is routinely made, that is out of step with the predictions made by the Theory of Relativity?

The ONLY reason why a new theory is ever needed is that the old one makes predictions that fail to match routine results or observations - this was why Relativity replaced Newtonian Gravitation, because Newtonian Gravitation predicted a position for the planet Mercury that did not match the observed position of that planet.

You are asking us to replace Relativity with a new theory of instantaneous vision. In order to do that, you first need to show what erroneous prediction of current theories this new idea (of how eyes work and what they do) resolves.

If there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the old theory, then the new theory is useless, and (insofar as it disagrees with the old) logically must also be wrong.

Only by showing that the old theory is wrong - ie that it makes erroneous predictions - can your new theory even start on the road to acceptance.

All I can do is show you how he came to his conclusions and why. If this causes a conflict, then who is right will have to be determined, but that's not my job. It's hard enough to explain why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ and why this changes what we think we see with our eyes. So far, all four senses are in full working order, but not the eyes. Those in the field have their theories as to why this is so, but they don't disagree that the eyes are not fully functioning at birth.

 

[peacegirl]

I’m sure you believe that we would just be seeing the dinosaurs reaching our eyes if we were on the star Rigel.

I’m sure you believe that we would just be seeing the Spanish Inquisition coming into view if you were on the star Rigel.

Are you of the impression that the Spanish Inquisition and the dinosaurs were contemporaries?

No, these examples just came into my head. It doesn't matter what time period I used because it was just a hypothetical example of the absurdity that delayed time leads to.

This pair of claims is perhaps the most egregious example of the "everything that happened in the past happened at the same time" fallacy that I have yet had the misfortune to encounter.

Rigel is about 860 light years from the Sun. An observer located that far from the Sun right now would see our solar system as it was in about 1164CE, and would therefore see neither dinosaurs (which had been extinct for over 64 million years), nor the Spanish Inquisition, which wasn't established until 1478CE.

Regardless of the examples, it's an absurdity to think that we would just be seeing Columbus coming to America (or any other past event that is long gone) if we were on the star Rigel.

 

[peacegirl]

Stop bringing in things that don't relate. SCIENCE SAYS: BABIES CAN TASTE WHEN BORN. Go argue with the scientists, not me.

Yeah, and they can see, smell, hear, etc. at birth, only their eyes, being more complex, need more time to develop.

This doesn't answer the question as to why ALL the other senses are in full working order but the eyes are not.

The baby is really tiny at birth, too — does that mean it’s not human? Babies’ hand are really tiny and can’t do much — does that mean they’re not hands?? Do you have any idea how utterly cringeworthy this nonsense you are spouting is? Rhetorical question.

This is coming from someone who believes that a bee can identify his beekeeper in a lineup. Talk about cringeworthy nonsense!

Not in a lineup, they can identify their bee keepers by sight where they are together. I don’t “believe” anything — the scientific evidence SHOWS that bees can do this, just as it shows that the eye is a sense organ, and that we see in delayed tine, contrary to the nonsensical claims of your kooky author. You don’t understand what science is, and how it differs from belief. You think science means, “I believe what my father wrote.”

I'd like to see a bunch of bees together in a lineup (in a different environment with no other cues) showing excitement over their beekeeper's features. This is as looney as it gets. This has nothing to do with belief Pood. His claims are not nonsensical. Who are you to say this when you believe a person has the free will to do otherwise by creating a definition of soft determinism that doesn't exist? We cannot be free and unfree at the same time. No matter how hard you try to make these two ideologies appear compatible, they are not and mean nothing when it comes to reality. I'm asking you to kindly refrain from calling him names. Thanks in advance.

 

[pood]

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.

The only way to see reality as it is is to use the scientific method. Science is ALL ABOUT prediction. An hypothesis is a set of predictions. A theory is a set of predictions.

I already said that he did not come by way of a hypothesis.

No hypothesis, no science. Yet you keep saying he was doing science.

That doesn't mean his findings were incorrect.

They’re not findings, they are claims. And they are incorrect.

You don't have to call it the scientific method then but, again, that does not mean his findings were incorrect.

They’re not the scientific method, they’re not findings, they are claims. The claims are incorrect.

Even "seeing reality for what it is" is a prediction; You are predicting that looking at reality will reveal what it is.

As I already said, of your claim that what you are doing is not prediction:

I can predict that when these principles (not just the eyes but the corollary to no free will) are put into practice, the human race will have made a major leap toward a golden age that was never thought possible. That prediction will prove that Lessans was right all along.

No, you are predicting that evidence shows we see in real time. It shows the opposite, all of it.

Then it's not science at all.

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.

That is true. And if the light hadn't reached us 81/2 minutes later, we would not be able to see each other even though we were a few inches apart. It isn't the size or distance that matters in this account, which is hard for people to understand.

It’s hard to understand because it is impossible to understand. The claim is both physically and logically impossible.

If the eyes didn't function the way Lessans explained, then it would be a different story.

They don’t function the way he claimed (not “explained.”)

Traditional optics (and other fields of physics, such as relativity) predict that any information about any event will take time to travel from the source, to the observer; And that the maximum speed of that information is that of electromagnetic radiation (of which light is a part) in a vacuum.

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.

I am asking you this, because this is the centrepiece of any and all scientific investigation of the real world. New ideas supplant old ideas if, and only if, they make more accurate predictions about what we will observe than the old ideas made.

I get that. I tried to explain that as a result of the projection of values onto real substance, we have been conditioned to seeing with our eyes this beauty and this ugliness, not realizing what the eyes were capable of doing. Not only is it hurtful to those who feel they are inferior phsiognomic productions of the human race, but it is inaccurate because they are not inferior physiognomically or any other way, as you will see in a later chapter. When we stop using these words because we now have learned they are not symbolic of reality, we will not be conditioned to seeing this beauty and ugliness as if it existed as part of the real world since the brain will no longer be taking a picture of certain features as better-looking and bad-looking. We will have personal preferences, but that is much different than this stratification that makes some people less valuable than others INTRINSICALLY.

All of which has nothing to do with light, because beauty and value and images are not in light.

Any other approach to finding out how reality really is, fails. We use science, not because we love it, or have faith in it, or trust it; But because it works. Science puts men on the Moon. Faith flies them into skyscrapers.

The Theory of Relativity predicts that any test of the time elapsed between a distant event, and our seeing that event, will show that there is a gap of at least the time required to transit that distance at lightspeed.

All the observations of which I am aware are in concert with this prediction.

However, Lessans is predicting that the elapsed time will be zero.

In his account, time and distance are not involved. That is why he says that we see the present, not the past. We can only see the object through the light (or wavelength) that is at the eye when we look in that direction, but the light does not bounce off of the object with the information and travel through space/time.

Yes, it does. We see an object reflecting light with a time delay that grows with distance, because the farther away a thing is, the farther light has to travel to reach our eyes.

So I want to know what erroneous prediction of current theories this new idea (of how eyes work and what they do) resolves.

What result or observation is routinely made, that is out of step with the predictions made by the Theory of Relativity?

The ONLY reason why a new theory is ever needed is that the old one makes predictions that fail to match routine results or observations - this was why Relativity replaced Newtonian Gravitation, because Newtonian Gravitation predicted a position for the planet Mercury that did not match the observed position of that planet.

You are asking us to replace Relativity with a new theory of instantaneous vision. In order to do that, you first need to show what erroneous prediction of current theories this new idea (of how eyes work and what they do) resolves.

If there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the old theory, then the new theory is useless, and (insofar as it disagrees with the old) logically must also be wrong.

Only by showing that the old theory is wrong - ie that it makes erroneous predictions - can your new theory even start on the road to acceptance.

All I can do is show you how he came to his conclusions and why.

You have shown neither. They are not conclusions. They are empty claims that are demonstrably wrong.

If this causes a conflict, then who is right will have to be determined,

Already determined, hundreds of years ago. HIs stuff was ruled out by the moons of Jupiter.

but that's not my job. It's hard enough to explain why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ and why this changes what we think we see with our eyes.

It is impossible to explain something that is not and indeed cannot be true.

So far, all four senses are in full working order, but not the eyes. Those in the field have their theories as to why this is so, but they don't disagree that the eyes are not fully functioning at birth.

And a baby is not full grown at birth, either. Does that mean it’s not human?