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

[pood]

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.

The person on Rigel would see the earth as it was in 1164. That is not absurd, it’s reality, and even a kindergartner could grasp it. Not you, though.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

He was not an astrophysicist or an astronomer. So what? He was a voracious reader and thinker. This discovery didn't come out of thin air. It is such an insult to think that because he used the wrong word even though the concept was clearly stated, his entire life's work should be thrown out? Phooey on you! The concept remains true, so stop trying to belittle him by putting him in a terrible light. This man had more marbles in his head than you will ever have.

 

[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.

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

Observation and empirical testing are based on science. These principles can be verified through empirical testing.

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.

His claims are backed up and supported. They are not just assertions. Gosh, how many times do I have to repeat myself?

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.

No it doesn't. If he was wrong about how the brain and eyes work, then I would concede, but I don't believe he was wrong.

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.

I wouldn't trust your logic with a ten-foot pole.

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.”)

He explained exactly why, not claimed. You have conveniently left out all of his explanations. You never took the time.

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.

Sending information takes time. I am not saying that the speed of light is incorrect. But when they say it takes time to travel from the source to the observer, yes, if the information is transmitted through a video or audio signal. That's not what he was talking about though.

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.

That is true. That is what he was trying to explain and how we become conditioned through words, not through light. Thank you for FINALLY agreeing with him.

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.

No they are not. You just can't handle it.

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.

Believe what you want, Pood. May truth always prevail.

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.

You're wrong. There is nothing that says the brain and eyes cannot work the way he described. And if he is right, then seeing in real time would prove to 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?

What in god's name are you talking about? It's not human? Huh? We are talking about the senses. Four are in full working order. Why aren't the eyes? This question remains unanswered, and I'm trying to answer it whether you agree or not.

 

[DBT]

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 makes it possible for the wavelength to be at the eye when the object is in one’s field of view.

Can you explain it? We see light. Stars are light years away, which means the light from stars takes years to reach us......so how does instant vision/light at the eye bypass the physical process of travel time?

 

[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 makes it possible for the wavelength to be at the eye when the object is in one’s field of view.

Can you explain it? We see light. Stars are light years away, which means the light from stars takes years to reach us......so how does instant vision/light at the eye bypass the physical process of travel time?

It’s worse than that. She says light needs to be at the eye for us to see. But that if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it instantly even though it would take the light some eight minutes to get here, and according to her and her author, we would see nothing else except the sun until the light got here. So according to her the light from the sun is both at the eye, and not at the eye, at the same time — not just physically impossible, but logically impossible.

And no matter how many times Bílby corrects her, she goes merrily on her way saying that a “length” is at a “location,” when obviously length comprises locations. This is just classic peacegirl. Wholly uneducable even about tiny details.

 

[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.

He was not an astrophysicist or an astronomer. So what? He was a voracious reader and thinker. This discovery didn't come out of thin air. It is such an insult to think that because he used the wrong word even though the concept was clearly stated, his entire life's work should be thrown out? Phooey on you! The concept remains true, so stop trying to belittle him by putting him in a terrible light. This man had more marbles in his head than you will ever have.

No, not just because he used a wrong word, but because his entire corpus of claims on light and sight are demonstrably false. His thinking that light is a molecule is just the delightful little cherry on top on the milkshake of his moronic claims.

 

[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.

Observation and empirical testing are based on science. These principles can be verified through empirical testing.

Already tested, centuries ago with the moons of Jupiter. HIs claims were ruled out centuries ago.

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.

His claims are backed up and supported. They are not just assertions. Gosh, how many times do I have to repeat myself?

Till hell freezes over, I guess, because they ARE just assertions and they are NOT backed up and supported. Quite the opposite. Centuries of settled science shoots them down. Did you just think repeating a bunch of nonsense somehow makes it true?

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.

No it doesn't. If he was wrong about how the brain and eyes work, then I would concede, but I don't believe he was wrong.

It does’t matter what you believe, or what I believe. He was wrong as a matter of fact, not belief.

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.

I wouldn't trust your logic with a ten-foot pole.

How can light both be, and not be at the eye, at the same time? Violation of the principle of non-contradiction. It’s not MY logic. It’s just logic!

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.”)

He explained exactly why, not claimed. You have conveniently left out all of his explanations. You never took the time.

Point to one explanation, one scientific test, one anything. The few things he mentioned, like dogs and TVs, are absurdly wrong.

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.

Sending information takes time. I am not saying that the speed of light is incorrect. But when they say it takes time to travel from the source to the observer, yes, if the information is transmitted through a video or audio signal. That's not what he was talking about though.

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.

That is true. That is what he was trying to explain and how we become conditioned through words, not through light. Thank you for FINALLY agreeing with him.

AGREEING with him? Do you not even remember what you write? This very day you claimed he was challenging the scientific idea that human values are found in light! Of course, science says nothing of the kind!

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.

No they are not. You just can't handle it.

Pure ad hom attack. You do this because you know we are right and he and you are 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.

Believe what you want, Pood. May truth always prevail.

I don’t believe anything. I go by evidence. You should try it sometime.

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.

You're wrong. There is nothing that says the brain and eyes cannot work the way he described. And if he is right, then seeing in real time would prove to be true.

We already know the brain and eyes do not “work” the way he says, and anyway, he never explained any mechanism to support his cockamamie cliam.

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?

What in god's name are you talking about? It's not human? Huh? We are talking about the senses. Four are in full working order. Why aren't the eyes? This question remains unanswered, and I'm trying to answer it whether you agree or not.

That has already been explained to you. The eye is the most complex of our sense organs, and so takes longer to develop! What in God’s name am I talking about? I am showing that by your own stupid logic — that the eye is not a sense organ because it is not fully developed at birth — then a baby is not a human, because it too is not fully developed at birth!

 

[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 makes it possible for the wavelength to be at the eye when the object is in one’s field of view.

Can you explain it? We see light. Stars are light years away, which means the light from stars takes years to reach us......so how does instant vision/light at the eye bypass the physical process of travel time?

There is no way to explain it other than telling you that the brain peers through the eyes to see the external world. The light is not interpreted as an image in the brain. I know this is not going to be good enough but it should give you food for thought.

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.

Observation and empirical testing are based on science. These principles can be verified through empirical testing.

Already tested, centuries ago with the moons of Jupiter. HIs claims were ruled out centuries ago.

The reasons for his claim were never tested. Maybe some other claims were ruled out but it had nothing to do with his reasons.

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.

His claims are backed up and supported. They are not just assertions. Gosh, how many times do I have to repeat myself?

Till hell freezes over, I guess, because they ARE just assertions and they are NOT backed up and supported.

Thats your opinion. He gave a demonstration as to what is happening. I gave the excerpts so don’t tell me he didn’t back it up.

Quite the opposite. Centuries of settled science shoots them down. Did you just think repeating a bunch of nonsense somehow makes it true?

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.

No it doesn't. If he was wrong about how the brain and eyes work, then I would concede, but I don't believe he was wrong.

It does’t matter what you believe, or what I believe. He was wrong as a matter of fact, not belief.

You’re just blathering away. He was not wrong as a matter of fact no matter how many times you repeat 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.

I wouldn't trust your logic with a ten-foot pole.

How can light both be, and not be at the eye, at the same time? Violation of the principle of non-contradiction. It’s not MY logic. It’s just logic!

There is no contradiction other than your logic that says you can have no free will and free will at the same time.

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.”)

He explained exactly why, not claimed. You have conveniently left out all of his explanations. You never took the time.

Point to one explanation, one scientific test, one anything. The few things he mentioned, like dogs and TVs, are absurdly wrong.

No it isn’t wrong. And bees in a group cannot identify their beekeepers from their faces. Do you know how absurd this sounds or are you completely oblivious?

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.

Sending information takes time. I am not saying that the speed of light is incorrect. But when they say it takes time to travel from the source to the observer, yes, if the information is transmitted through a video or audio signal. That's not what he was talking about though.

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.

That is true. That is what he was trying to explain and how we become conditioned through words, not through light. Thank you for FINALLY agreeing with him.

AGREEING with him? Do you not even remember what you write? This very day you claimed he was challenging the scientific idea that human values are found in light! Of course, science says nothing of the kind!

Science does not understand how words condition us to see what doesn’t exist.

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.

As light disperses the farther away from the object it travels, we lose sight of the object because it’s out of range. How in the world can anyone believe that we would see a past event like Columbus discovering America if we were on the star Rigel? It’s absurd.

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.

No they are not. You just can't handle it.

Pure ad hom attack. You do this because you know we are right and he and you are wrong.

You are attacking me by telling me these are empty claims. I am justified to strike back at you because your attack has no basis.

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.

Believe what you want, Pood. May truth always prevail.

I don’t believe anything. I go by evidence. You should try it sometime

Your evidence does not shoot his evidence down. It doesn’t work that way.

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.

You're wrong. There is nothing that says the brain and eyes cannot work the way he described. And if he is right, then seeing in real time would prove to be true.

We already know the brain and eyes do not “work” the way he says, and anyway, he never explained any mechanism to support his cockamamie cliam.

I couldn’t get past your assertion that bees can recognize their beekeepers faces in a lineup let alone dogs being able to identify their masters in a picture. Both are absurd and I think you know it.

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?

What in god's name are you talking about? It's not human? Huh? We are talking about the senses. Four are in full working order. Why aren't the eyes? This question remains unanswered, and I'm trying to answer it whether you agree or not.

That has already been explained to you. The eye is the most complex of our sense organs, and so takes longer to develop!

It isn’t a sense organ, that’s why it’s different than the others.

What in God’s name am I talking about? I am showing that by your own stupid logic — that the eye is not a sense organ because it is not fully developed at birth — then a baby is not a human, because it too is not fully developed at birth!

Horrible analogy! It’s not a sense organ because it functions differently!

 

[DBT]

As the eye evolved to detect and absorb light, the eye is a sense organ.

 

[peacegirl]

As the eye evolved to detect and absorb light, the eye is a sense organ.

Detecting and absorbing light (which the eyes do) does not prove that impulses are interpreted as images in the brain in the way the term “sense organ” is defined.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

The person on Rigel would see the earth as it was in 1164. That is not absurd, it’s reality, and even a kindergartner could grasp it. Not you, though.

This belief hopefully makes people see how ludicrous it appears when seen in this light (no pun intended).

 

[peacegirl]

Let us continue our discussion to observe how our brain operates.”

At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation, whereas a dog is incapable of this. When he sees the features of his master without any accompanying sound or smell, he cannot identify them because no photograph was taken. A dog identifies through his sense of sound and smell and what he sees in relation to these sense experiences, just as we identify most of the differences that exist through words and names. If the negative plate on which the relation is formed is temporarily disconnected — in man’s case the words and names and in a dog’s case the sounds and smells — both would have a case of amnesia. This gives conclusive evidence as to why an animal cannot identify too well with his eyes. As we have seen, if a vicious dog accustomed to attacking any person who should open the fence at night were to have two senses, hearing and smell, temporarily disconnected, and assuming that no relation was developed as to the way in which an individual walked, he would actually have amnesia, and even though he saw with his eyes his master come through the gate, he would have no way of recognizing him and would attack. But a baby, having already developed negatives of relations that act as a slide in a movie projector, can recognize at a very early age. The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts as a tape recorder through our ears and the other three senses and a camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as a movie projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded, they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since the eyes are the binoculars of the brain, all words that are placed in front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world, and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses, man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and if words correctly describe, then he will be made conscious of actual differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for those who do not know the words. To understand this better, let us observe my granddaughter learning words.

 

[pood]

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.

The person on Rigel would see the earth as it was in 1164. That is not absurd, it’s reality, and even a kindergartner could grasp it. Not you, though.

This belief hopefully makes people see how ludicrous it appears when seen in this light (no pun intended).

You have a very forlorn hope, then, because every educated person on the planet knows what I wrote is a fact.

 

[pood]

As the eye evolved to detect and absorb light, the eye is a sense organ.

Detecting and absorbing light (which the eyes do) does not prove that impulses are interpreted as images in the brain in the way the term “sense organ” is defined.

So the eye detects and absorbs light, but … it’s not a sense organ.

 

[pood]

Let us continue our discussion to observe how our brain operates.”

At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation, whereas a dog is incapable of this. When he sees the features of his master without any accompanying sound or smell, he cannot identify them because no photograph was taken. A dog identifies through his sense of sound and smell and what he sees in relation to these sense experiences, just as we identify most of the differences that exist through words and names. If the negative plate on which the relation is formed is temporarily disconnected — in man’s case the words and names and in a dog’s case the sounds and smells — both would have a case of amnesia. This gives conclusive evidence as to why an animal cannot identify too well with his eyes. As we have seen, if a vicious dog accustomed to attacking any person who should open the fence at night were to have two senses, hearing and smell, temporarily disconnected, and assuming that no relation was developed as to the way in which an individual walked, he would actually have amnesia, and even though he saw with his eyes his master come through the gate, he would have no way of recognizing him and would attack. But a baby, having already developed negatives of relations that act as a slide in a movie projector, can recognize at a very early age. The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts as a tape recorder through our ears and the other three senses and a camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as a movie projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded, they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since the eyes are the binoculars of the brain, all words that are placed in front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world, and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses, man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and if words correctly describe, then he will be made conscious of actual differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for those who do not know the words. To understand this better, let us observe my granddaughter learning words.

So the eyes are cameras, and binoculars, and telescopes, and movie projectors! What else are they? Range Rovers? Refrigerators?

 

[pood]

I, myself, through careful observation and astute reasoning, have discovered that they eyes are, indeed, refrigerators. There is no other way to account for common phrases like, “She looks really cool,” and “I will consider this in the cold light of reason,” and, “He fixed her with any icy stare.” Now I just need an authority figure to put the stamp of truth on my amazing discovery.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

The person on Rigel would see the earth as it was in 1164. That is not absurd, it’s reality, and even a kindergartner could grasp it. Not you, though.

This belief hopefully makes people see how ludicrous it appears when seen in this light (no pun intended).

You have a very forlorn hope, then, because every educated person on the planet knows what I wrote is a fact.

So now you're implying the author was uneducated?

 

[peacegirl]

As my granddaughter’s eyes are focused on one of our canine friends, I shall repeat the word ‘dog’ rapidly in her ear. When she turns away, I stop. This will be continued until she looks for him when hearing the word, which indicates that a relation between this particular sound and object has been established and a photograph taken. Soon this relation is formed which makes her conscious of a particular difference that exists in the external world. As she learns more and more words such as cat, horse, bird, sun, moon, etc., she becomes conscious of these differences, which no one can deny because they are seen through words or slides that circumscribe accurately these various bits of substance. This is exactly how we learn words, only I am speeding up the process. Before long she learns house, tree, car, chair, door, kitchen, television, airplane, moon, stars, nose, teeth, eyes, hair, girl, boy, and so on. She soon learns that these bits of substance are different, and that is why they have different names. Until she learns the word cat, she could very easily point to a dog when hearing that word because a negative of the difference has not yet been developed, just as a fox cannot be differentiated from a dog until a photograph of the difference has been developed. She also learns the names of individuals: Mommy, Daddy, Linda, Janis, Marc, David, Elan, Justin, Shoshana, Adam, Jennifer, Meredith, etc. If a picture of her mother flashed on a screen, she would automatically say mommy. She is able to identify her mother because the word is a picture that was taken when the relation was formed and exists in her mind, through which she looks at the differences that exist in substance. My granddaughter can identify her mother from hundreds and hundreds of photographs because the difference is a negative that not only reveals who her mother is, but who she is not. In other words, as she learns these names and words, her brain takes a picture of the objects symbolized, and when she sees these differences again, she projects the word or name, but the brain will not take any picture until a relation is formed. Consequently, these differences that exist in the external world which are not identifiable through taste, touch, smell, or sounds are identifiable only because they are related to words, names, or slides that we project for recognition. If we lose certain names or words, we will have amnesia because, when we see these ordinarily familiar differences, we are unable to project the words or names necessary for recognition.
<snip?
If you were taught one word, orange, which included within that symbol a grapefruit and tangerine, you would hand me any one of the three if I asked for an orange, but when you learn the other two words, which photograph the difference, then you could not hand me a tangerine or grapefruit if I asked for an orange. The reason we have a word for the sun and a word for the moon is because these two bodies are different, and the reason we have a planet named Earth, one named Saturn, Venus, etc. is only because these are not one and the same planet, and we have separated them by calling them different names. However, the reason we do not call the moon a planet is because we learned it does not function like one, therefore it does not fall in the same category. Once it is understood as an undeniable law that nothing impinges on the optic nerve, even though the pupils dilate and contract according to the intensity of light, it becomes possible to separate what exists in the external world from that which is only a negative or word in our head. In the course of our children’s development, they learn other kinds of words that form inaccurate relations, not only because a judgment of personal value is given external reality by the symbol itself but also because the logic of unconscious syllogistic reasoning confirms the apparent validity of inaccurate observations. Let me show you how this was accomplished.

 

[pood]

. Once it is understood as an undeniable law that nothing impinges on the optic nerve, even though the pupils dilate and contract according to the intensity of light, it becomes possible to separate what exists in the external world from that which is only a negative or word in our head.

Just mind-blowing.

 

[pood]

. Once it is understood as an undeniable law that nothing impinges on the optic nerve, even though the pupils dilate and contract according to the intensity of light, it becomes possible to separate what exists in the external world from that which is only a negative or word in our head.

Just mind-blowing.

OK, so the author says that pupils dilate or not according to the intensity of the light. What does he, and you, peacegirl, what do you think happens next? Because so far, this is sounding like a sense organ to me.