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

[peacegirl]

The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums, whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of light to impinge on our optic nerve.

Sorry, no, this is not good enough. “Sound” is NOT carried to eardrums, AIR PRESSURE WAVES are.

If you want to get technical, that's fine. It doesn't change the fact that light does not transmit images through space/time.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe><p>This animated video illustrates how sounds travel from the ear to the brain, where they are interpreted and understood. Also available: <a href="https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/how-do-we-hear">How Do We Hear?</a>, a step-by-step explanation.</p>

Journey of Sound to the Brain

Learn how sounds make their way from the source to your brain.

www.nidcd.nih.gov

A “picture” is NOT being carried to our eyes, LIGHT is arriving at our eyes. LIGHT IS NOT A PICTURE,

Light is not a picture, but that's basically what you're saying when you describe light as bouncing off of objects and bringing that information through space/time to the eye.

AND AIR PRESSURE WAVES ARE NOT SOUND.

No they aren't, but they are carrying the air pressure that creates sound. Light doesn't do that.

Sound waves carry air pressure to the ear1234. Vibrating objects create pressure waves in the air, which reach the ear and are transduced into nerve impulses by the ear2. The eardrum vibrates, moving the ossicles and transmitting sound further into the ear4.

Peacegirl, please fill in the missing blanks in this post.

Nothing changes in your post other than the last blank where "impulses from the retina transmute into signals that are believed to be interpreted by the visual cortex as virtual images rather than seeing the real thing."

 

[DBT]

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.

Light is a condition of sight, Pood. He never refuted this, but this does not prove what happens in the brain. Do you understand why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ, or are you just ignoring this chapter? You will go to great lengths to prove him wrong, even to say that dogs, and even bees, are able to recognize their caregivers from a lineup or a picture -- without any other cues to inform them. Did you ever consider that it is YOU who is in denial?

The brain processes the information acquired by the eyes, which was transmitted by the optic nerve to the visual cortex, integrated with memory to enable recognition and represented as subjective conscious imagery of the external world.

How can it be otherwise?

By a different observation that says the brain does not process the information that supposedly represents a subjective imagery of the external world. If it did, then we would not be conditioned by words. We would see this beauty and ugliness in the light itself as it is carried to our eyes. I know it sounds crazy, and it is because light does not carry information of any kind, let alone values. He shows why in his demonstration. We see objects in the real world due to light's presence, not the other way around.

That makes no sense. Those who are born blind are still conditioned by the society in which they were born, values, attitudes, life experiences, etc, contribute to shape a person's interactions with the world. The absence of vision obviously effects their experience, but not in the way that you believe.

 

[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.

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

Light is a condition of sight, Pood. He never refuted this, but this does not prove what happens in the brain. Do you understand why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ, or are you just ignoring this chapter? You will go to great lengths to prove him wrong, even to say that dogs, and even bees, are able to recognize their caregivers from a lineup or a picture -- without any other cues to inform them. Did you ever consider that it is YOU who is in denial?

The brain processes the information acquired by the eyes, which was transmitted by the optic nerve to the visual cortex, integrated with memory to enable recognition and represented as subjective conscious imagery of the external world.

How can it be otherwise?

By a different observation that says the brain does not process the information that supposedly represents a subjective imagery of the external world. If it did, then we would not be conditioned by words. We would see this beauty and ugliness in the light itself as it is carried to our eyes. I know it sounds crazy, and it is because light does not carry information of any kind, let alone values. He shows why in his demonstration. We see objects in the real world due to light's presence, not the other way around.

That makes no sense. Those who are born blind are still conditioned by the society in which they were born, values, attitudes, life experiences, etc, contribute to shape a person's interactions with the world. The absence of vision obviously effects their experience, but not in the way that you believe.

The conditioning you’re talking about is real but it’s not related to the conditioning that occurs with the eyes.

 

[DBT]

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.

Light is a condition of sight, Pood. He never refuted this, but this does not prove what happens in the brain. Do you understand why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ, or are you just ignoring this chapter? You will go to great lengths to prove him wrong, even to say that dogs, and even bees, are able to recognize their caregivers from a lineup or a picture -- without any other cues to inform them. Did you ever consider that it is YOU who is in denial?

The brain processes the information acquired by the eyes, which was transmitted by the optic nerve to the visual cortex, integrated with memory to enable recognition and represented as subjective conscious imagery of the external world.

How can it be otherwise?

By a different observation that says the brain does not process the information that supposedly represents a subjective imagery of the external world. If it did, then we would not be conditioned by words. We would see this beauty and ugliness in the light itself as it is carried to our eyes. I know it sounds crazy, and it is because light does not carry information of any kind, let alone values. He shows why in his demonstration. We see objects in the real world due to light's presence, not the other way around.

That makes no sense. Those who are born blind are still conditioned by the society in which they were born, values, attitudes, life experiences, etc, contribute to shape a person's interactions with the world. The absence of vision obviously effects their experience, but not in the way that you believe.

The conditioning you’re talking about is real but it’s not related to the conditioning that occurs with the eyes.

Yet visual information is conveyed by the eyes to the brain via the optic nerve to be processed and integrated into a comprehensive body of information about the external world and self. It adds to an understanding of our environment and our response to its events.

Making the assumption that light is simply 'at the eye' and we see events without delay adds nothing to the issue. Say we did see without delay...so what? The event is still the same. We see a car crash where some rush to help, others stand and watch while others keep moving without involvement. Seeing 'in real time' changes nothing.

 

[bilby]

the brain does not process the information that supposedly represents a subjective imagery of the external world. If it did, then we would not be conditioned by words.

You missed a few steps here.

IF...
1) The brain processes information (that supposedly represents a subjective imagery of the external world).
2) ...
3) ...
THEN IT FOLLOWS THAT...
4) We are not conditioned by words

The sole premise seems completely unconnected to the conclusion. How do you get from 1) to 4)?

I know it sounds crazy, and it is

Quote mining is probably beneath my dignity, and I feel slightly ashamed of myself; But this one was just too good to ignore.

 

[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.

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

Light is a condition of sight, Pood. He never refuted this, but this does not prove what happens in the brain. Do you understand why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ, or are you just ignoring this chapter? You will go to great lengths to prove him wrong, even to say that dogs, and even bees, are able to recognize their caregivers from a lineup or a picture -- without any other cues to inform them. Did you ever consider that it is YOU who is in denial?

The brain processes the information acquired by the eyes, which was transmitted by the optic nerve to the visual cortex, integrated with memory to enable recognition and represented as subjective conscious imagery of the external world.

How can it be otherwise?

By a different observation that says the brain does not process the information that supposedly represents a subjective imagery of the external world. If it did, then we would not be conditioned by words. We would see this beauty and ugliness in the light itself as it is carried to our eyes. I know it sounds crazy, and it is because light does not carry information of any kind, let alone values. He shows why in his demonstration. We see objects in the real world due to light's presence, not the other way around.

That makes no sense. Those who are born blind are still conditioned by the society in which they were born, values, attitudes, life experiences, etc, contribute to shape a person's interactions with the world. The absence of vision obviously effects their experience, but not in the way that you believe.

The conditioning you’re talking about is real but it’s not related to the conditioning that occurs with the eyes.

Yet visual information is conveyed by the eyes to the brain via the optic nerve to be processed and integrated into a comprehensive body of information about the external world and self. It adds to an understanding of our environment and our response to its events.

Making the assumption that light is simply 'at the eye' and we see events without delay adds nothing to the issue.

Light is benign. It’s just a medium. It does not transmit values, but that’s what scientists are saying it does. How can they explain that we don’t receive these values in light? This is so hard for me because you are totally dismissing this essential proof that you believe proves nothing.

Say we did see without delay...so what? The event is still the same. We see a car crash where some rush to help, others stand and watch while others keep moving without involvement. Seeing 'in real time' changes nothing.

 

[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.

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

Light is a condition of sight, Pood. He never refuted this, but this does not prove what happens in the brain. Do you understand why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ, or are you just ignoring this chapter? You will go to great lengths to prove him wrong, even to say that dogs, and even bees, are able to recognize their caregivers from a lineup or a picture -- without any other cues to inform them. Did you ever consider that it is YOU who is in denial?

The brain processes the information acquired by the eyes, which was transmitted by the optic nerve to the visual cortex, integrated with memory to enable recognition and represented as subjective conscious imagery of the external world.

How can it be otherwise?

By a different observation that says the brain does not process the information that supposedly represents a subjective imagery of the external world. If it did, then we would not be conditioned by words. We would see this beauty and ugliness in the light itself as it is carried to our eyes. I know it sounds crazy, and it is because light does not carry information of any kind, let alone values. He shows why in his demonstration. We see objects in the real world due to light's presence, not the other way around.

That makes no sense. Those who are born blind are still conditioned by the society in which they were born, values, attitudes, life experiences, etc, contribute to shape a person's interactions with the world. The absence of vision obviously effects their experience, but not in the way that you believe.

The conditioning you’re talking about is real but it’s not related to the conditioning that occurs with the eyes.

Yet visual information is conveyed by the eyes to the brain via the optic nerve to be processed and integrated into a comprehensive body of information about the external world and self. It adds to an understanding of our environment and our response to its events.

Our receiving information about the world and our understanding of our environment have nothing to do with whether we see in real time or not. Obviously, we base our everyday actions on our ability to adjust to our environment. In fact, this is exactly what he demonstrates in the rest of the book.

Making the assumption that light is simply 'at the eye' and we see events without delay adds nothing to the issue.

DBT, it is you who is making an assertion. You have no idea what this knowledge brings to the issue, so I suggest you stop jumping to conclusions, as the author urged.

Say we did see without delay...so what? The event is still the same. We see a car crash where some rush to help, others stand and watch while others keep moving without involvement. Seeing 'in real time' changes nothing.

This comment is ignorant because it shows the premature conclusions drawn when people have no real understanding and have no desire to understand. I don't mean to be rude DBT, but you are typical of someone who doesn't get it because you really haven't taken the time to digest why he said what he did.

“Well, I say, what difference does it make whether we have four senses and a pair of eyes instead of five senses? I certainly don’t feel any different, and I still see you just as before.”

“Once it is understood that something existing in the external world makes contact with the brain through the four senses, but that the brain contacts the various objects by peering through the eyes, it makes a huge difference, and many things can be clarified.

 

[peacegirl]

the brain does not process the information that supposedly represents a subjective imagery of the external world. If it did, then we would not be conditioned by words.

You missed a few steps here.

IF...
1) The brain processes information (that supposedly represents a subjective imagery of the external world).
2) ...
3) ...
THEN IT FOLLOWS THAT...
4) We are not conditioned by words

The sole premise seems completely unconnected to the conclusion. How do you get from 1) to 4)?

I know it sounds crazy, and it is

Quote mining is probably beneath my dignity, and I feel slightly ashamed of myself; But this one was just too good to ignore.

I cannot help but ignore you. Did you scroll up to see what I wrote to Pood? Of course you didn't, because you don't read.

 

[pood]

Light is benign. It’s just a medium. It does not transmit values, but that’s what scientists are saying it does.

NO, THEY DO NOT SAY THAT!

Did you even watch the short video I linked, explaining to kid how eye works? No, you didn’t, did you? It explains at the end that the brain, not the eye or the light, make these discriminations!

 

[peacegirl]

Light is benign. It’s just a medium. It does not transmit values, but that’s what scientists are saying it does.

NO, THEY DO NOT SAY THAT!

I already corrected that. YOU are the one that said dogs and bees can recognize facial features of their caregivers in a lineup, which is obviously wrong. Lessans went on to show that certain features that are favored over others do not come from the transmission of light. If these beautiful and ugly people don't come from images that are interpreted in the brain, where do they come from? Answer: They come from how the brain works. It is capable of projecting onto substance words that have no reality but appear that way due to conditioning. You just shove this off as making no sense, but it makes a lot of sense.

Did you even watch the short video I linked, explaining to kid how eye works? No, you didn’t, did you? It explains at the end that the brain, not the eye or the light, make these discriminations!

Send it again, I must have missed it. Anyway, after all this time, you never read the book, not even the first three chapters that I linked so many times. You are so confused that when he said, "they are compelled, of their own free will," you stated that this was a contradiction, which showed me you did not understand what he even meant.

 

[pood]

Light is benign. It’s just a medium. It does not transmit values, but that’s what scientists are saying it does.

NO, THEY DO NOT SAY THAT!

I already corrected that. YOU are the one that said dogs and bees can recognize facial features of their caregivers in a lineup, which is obviously wrong.

The inanity, it is just breathtaking!

I did not say “in a lineup.” I said the recognition comes when they are working together. I have already corrected you once on this. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Scientific evidence shows that bees can do this, and so can a number of other animals, including many birds, pigeons among them.

But here is the point. Try to read carefully. I will put it in bold for you, and UPPER CASE.

THE RECOGNITION IS NOT IN THE LIGHT. THE LIGHT CARRIES NOTHING, NO IMAGE, NO VALUES, NOTHING AT ALL. IT IS JUST AN ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE, AND THAT’S IT. THE RECOGNITION OCCURS IN THE BRAIN.

See? I even underlined the last part of it for you, for special emphasis.

Think you can at last follow what is being said to you, as a bare minimum?

 

[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.

Light is a condition of sight, Pood. He never refuted this, but this does not prove what happens in the brain. Do you understand why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ, or are you just ignoring this chapter? You will go to great lengths to prove him wrong, even to say that dogs, and even bees, are able to recognize their caregivers from a lineup or a picture -- without any other cues to inform them. Did you ever consider that it is YOU who is in denial?

Peacegirl, please attend to the posts above. He agrees with the standard model that light passes through the cornea and enters the hole of the pupil, which expands or contracts according to brightness. So far, so good. What happens next, on his model??

We have the standard model, in the video I linked you to:

1. Light enters pupils
2. Lens focuses light on retina
3. Retina, consisting of vast numbers of photoreceptors for color and light/dark, converts the light into electrical signals.
4. Optical nerve sends these signals to the brain for processing.
5. Brain interprets the patterns of light as images and assigns meanings to them based on experience.

So far you and your author have:

1. Light enters pupils
2.
3.
4.
5.
More??

Please be good enough to fill in those missing steps for us, because your genius author appears to have forgotten to do so. Thanks in advance!

Bump for peacegirl.

You seem to have somehow forgotten to attend to this.

 

[pood]

Oh, and, Bees Recognize Human Faces.

 

[peacegirl]

Light is benign. It’s just a medium. It does not transmit values, but that’s what scientists are saying it does.

NO, THEY DO NOT SAY THAT!

I already corrected that. YOU are the one that said dogs and bees can recognize facial features of their caregivers in a lineup, which is obviously wrong.

The inanity, it is just breathtaking.

I did not say “in a lineup.” I said the recognition comes when they are working together. I have already corrected you once on this. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Scientific evidence shows that bees can do this, and so can a number of other animals, including many birds, pigeons among them.

This is not even what is being tested, and you know that. A bee or a swarm of bees, without environmental cues, would not recognize their beekeepers and especially not their faces. This is as inane as you can get.

But here is the point. Try to read carefully. I will put it in bold for you, and UPPER CASE.

THE RECOGNITION IS NOT IN THE LIGHT. THE LIGHT CARRIES NOTHING, NO IMAGE, NO VALUES, NOTHING AT ALL. IT IS JUST AN ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE, AND THAT’S IT. THE RECOGNITION OCCURS IN THE BRAIN.

I never said that recognition was in the light: I said that light is a condition of sight. The light gives us information. Call it whatever you want: image, wavelength, lightwave, electromagnetic wave; it doesn't matter; the point being made is that without the wavelength, we would be unable to interpret an image in the brain (according to the present belief in delayed vision) or for the brain to look through the eyes to see the object in real time.

 

[DBT]

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.

Light is a condition of sight, Pood. He never refuted this, but this does not prove what happens in the brain. Do you understand why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ, or are you just ignoring this chapter? You will go to great lengths to prove him wrong, even to say that dogs, and even bees, are able to recognize their caregivers from a lineup or a picture -- without any other cues to inform them. Did you ever consider that it is YOU who is in denial?

The brain processes the information acquired by the eyes, which was transmitted by the optic nerve to the visual cortex, integrated with memory to enable recognition and represented as subjective conscious imagery of the external world.

How can it be otherwise?

By a different observation that says the brain does not process the information that supposedly represents a subjective imagery of the external world. If it did, then we would not be conditioned by words. We would see this beauty and ugliness in the light itself as it is carried to our eyes. I know it sounds crazy, and it is because light does not carry information of any kind, let alone values. He shows why in his demonstration. We see objects in the real world due to light's presence, not the other way around.

That makes no sense. Those who are born blind are still conditioned by the society in which they were born, values, attitudes, life experiences, etc, contribute to shape a person's interactions with the world. The absence of vision obviously effects their experience, but not in the way that you believe.

The conditioning you’re talking about is real but it’s not related to the conditioning that occurs with the eyes.

Yet visual information is conveyed by the eyes to the brain via the optic nerve to be processed and integrated into a comprehensive body of information about the external world and self. It adds to an understanding of our environment and our response to its events.

Our receiving information about the world and our understanding of our environment have nothing to do with whether we see in real time or not. Obviously, we base our everyday actions on our ability to adjust to our environment. In fact, this is exactly what he demonstrates in the rest of the book.

Making the assumption that light is simply 'at the eye' and we see events without delay adds nothing to the issue.

DBT, it is you who is making an assertion. You have no idea what this knowledge brings to the issue, so I suggest you stop jumping to conclusions, as the author urged.

Say we did see without delay...so what? The event is still the same. We see a car crash where some rush to help, others stand and watch while others keep moving without involvement. Seeing 'in real time' changes nothing.

This comment is ignorant because it shows the premature conclusions drawn when people have no real understanding and have no desire to understand. I don't mean to be rude DBT, but you are typical of someone who doesn't get it because you really haven't taken the time to digest why he said what he did.

“Well, I say, what difference does it make whether we have four senses and a pair of eyes instead of five senses? I certainly don’t feel any different, and I still see you just as before.”

“Once it is understood that something existing in the external world makes contact with the brain through the four senses, but that the brain contacts the various objects by peering through the eyes, it makes a huge difference, and many things can be clarified.

The speed of light is not an assertion.

That objects radiate or reflect light is not an assertion

That the eye evolved to detect light is not an assertion.

That it's the evolved role of a brain to process information from the senses, including the eyes, and represent it in conscious form is not an assertion.

This is not controversial. It is evidence based.

The claim of instant vision, light at the eye, is controversial, and worse, it has no evidence to support it.

 

[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.

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

Light is a condition of sight, Pood. He never refuted this, but this does not prove what happens in the brain. Do you understand why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ, or are you just ignoring this chapter? You will go to great lengths to prove him wrong, even to say that dogs, and even bees, are able to recognize their caregivers from a lineup or a picture -- without any other cues to inform them. Did you ever consider that it is YOU who is in denial?

The brain processes the information acquired by the eyes, which was transmitted by the optic nerve to the visual cortex, integrated with memory to enable recognition and represented as subjective conscious imagery of the external world.

How can it be otherwise?

By a different observation that says the brain does not process the information that supposedly represents a subjective imagery of the external world. If it did, then we would not be conditioned by words. We would see this beauty and ugliness in the light itself as it is carried to our eyes. I know it sounds crazy, and it is because light does not carry information of any kind, let alone values. He shows why in his demonstration. We see objects in the real world due to light's presence, not the other way around.

That makes no sense. Those who are born blind are still conditioned by the society in which they were born, values, attitudes, life experiences, etc, contribute to shape a person's interactions with the world. The absence of vision obviously effects their experience, but not in the way that you believe.

The conditioning you’re talking about is real but it’s not related to the conditioning that occurs with the eyes.

Yet visual information is conveyed by the eyes to the brain via the optic nerve to be processed and integrated into a comprehensive body of information about the external world and self. It adds to an understanding of our environment and our response to its events.

Our receiving information about the world and our understanding of our environment have nothing to do with whether we see in real time or not. Obviously, we base our everyday actions on our ability to adjust to our environment. In fact, this is exactly what he demonstrates in the rest of the book.

Making the assumption that light is simply 'at the eye' and we see events without delay adds nothing to the issue.

DBT, it is you who is making an assertion. You have no idea what this knowledge brings to the issue, so I suggest you stop jumping to conclusions, as the author urged.

Say we did see without delay...so what? The event is still the same. We see a car crash where some rush to help, others stand and watch while others keep moving without involvement. Seeing 'in real time' changes nothing.

This comment is ignorant because it shows the premature conclusions drawn when people have no real understanding and have no desire to understand. I don't mean to be rude DBT, but you are typical of someone who doesn't get it because you really haven't taken the time to digest why he said what he did.

“Well, I say, what difference does it make whether we have four senses and a pair of eyes instead of five senses? I certainly don’t feel any different, and I still see you just as before.”

“Once it is understood that something existing in the external world makes contact with the brain through the four senses, but that the brain contacts the various objects by peering through the eyes, it makes a huge difference, and many things can be clarified.

The speed of light is not an assertion.

He never said that it was.

That objects radiate or reflect light is not an assertion

That IS what he is contesting.

That the eye evolved to detect light is not an assertion.

This is NOT what he is contesting.

That it's the evolved role of a brain to process information from the senses, including the eyes, and represent it in conscious form is not an assertion.

This is not controversial. It is evidence based.

Of course the brain processes information but in a different way than what has been surmised. There is nothing far-fetched about his claim. And, btw, the scientific model does not prove the brain is doing what they believe. It’s a supposition.

The claim of instant vision, light at the eye, is controversial, and worse, it has no evidence to support it.

You’re wrong DBT. If you only understood his evidence, you wouldn’t say that.

 

[DBT]

What is the evidence for light at the eye/instant vision?

 

[pood]

A bunch of animals can recognize individual humans.

This is called “science,” peacegirl. You should check it out some time.

Also, we await you giving your author’s “model” for how the eyes work. How are you coming along with that project?