I am seriously saying that. A flashlight allows us to see in the dark as far as the light allows. I'm not sure where this proves that light is reflected off of objects.Reverse engineering may show that light travels and strikes the retina, but it cannot show that the light bounces off an object, taking the information with it through space/time. They cannot prove this.
You are seriously saying that we can’t prove that light is reflected off of objects??? OMFG there are about a million ways to prove it. You can easily prove it yourself with a flashlight!
I am seriously saying that. A flashlight will only show what Lessans tried to explain. We would see the wavelength of light projected, but we would not see that same wavelength traveling through space/time without the actual object present.Reverse engineering may show that light travels and strikes the retina, but it cannot show that the light bounces off an object, taking the information with it through space/time. They cannot prove this.
You are seriously saying that we can’t prove that light is reflected off of objects??? OMFG there are about a million ways to prove it. You can easily prove it yourself with a flashlight!
I saw the part you told me to go. Reflection only means the wavelength of light that allows us to see ourselves in the mirror as it is reflected back to us, but the light does travel with that image of myself beyond what my eyes can see. If I backed up far enough from the mirror, my image would be too far away to be seen. If my reflection bounced off the mirror, why wouldn't I see it if I was in a direct path of the mirror?I am seriously saying that. A flashlight will only show what Lessans tried to explain. We would see the wavelength of light projected, but we would not see that same wavelength traveling through space/time without the actual object present.Reverse engineering may show that light travels and strikes the retina, but it cannot show that the light bounces off an object, taking the information with it through space/time. They cannot prove this.
You are seriously saying that we can’t prove that light is reflected off of objects??? OMFG there are about a million ways to prove it. You can easily prove it yourself with a flashlight!
You can see for yourself light being reflected off a mirror, starting at about 1:51 in the video.
Are we in Flat Earth territory at this point?Peacegirl, have you ever seen your own shadow?? You are blocking the light. Where does that light go?? Most of it reflects off of you — which is why other people can see you! If you absorbed it all, you would burn up!
I saw the part you told me to go. Reflection only means the wavelength of light that allows us to see ourselves in the mirror as it is reflected back to us, but the light does travel with that image of myself beyond what my eyes can see. If I backed up far enough from the mirror, my image would be too far away to be seen. If my reflection bounced off the mirror, why wouldn't I see it if I was in a direct path of the mirror?
You can see for yourself light being reflected off a mirror, starting at about 1:51 in the video.
I am not debating how light works—whether it's blocking the light and is reflected off of me or whether I am seeing myself in a mirror. I am only debating one thing, and one thing only. It is true that light travels at 186,000 miles a second, but when it strikes an object, it does not take the information through space/time with it as it travels. The light allows us to see the object by its reflective properties, but, once again, it does not bounce off of the object taking the image (or information) with it over long distances. That's also why the object looks smaller the farther away it is. That's what he meant when he wrote the following. I know you've read this and you may disagree, but what he said made absolute sense. It is not gobbledegook.Peacegirl, have you ever seen your own shadow?? You are blocking the light. Where does that light go?? Most of it reflects off of you — which is why other people can see you! If you absorbed it all, you would burn up!
Huh? So the object reflects the light, but the light does not bounce off the object??The light allows us to see the object by its reflective properties, but it does not bounce off of the object, taking the image (or information) with it.
No, it isn't.Consciousness is a prerequisite for life itself.
The brain IS an information processor but this does not explain how we see. Memory is also an integral and essential part of how information is retained and used to connect what is learned in everyday life in order to make sense of the world. Without memory nothing would make sense because there would be no way to categorize our experiences to be used for later reference. Consciousness is a prerequisite for life itself. Without consciousness, we would be unaware of our very existence or who we are as individuals.It actually is. If you read and reread what he wrote, you would have understood more thoroughly why he was so confident in his claim. He did not say light impulses don't do what they do. They do everything science states, from entering the retina to the optic nerve to being transduced into impulses that the brain receives. What does not occur is the brain's ability to turn these impulses into images. Light does not bounce off of objects taking the information with it through space/time. This is an assumption on the part of science, which Lessans refutes. As far as being logical, it's just as logical as any other version of sight.
Light at the eye/instant vision is not logical.
That's what doesn't make sense. Light does in fact convey information. The brain as an information processor does in fact generate consciousness based on information acquired by the senses that is integrated with memory function to enable recognition.
So, I find the question of qualia specifically to be similar, perhaps *identical* to the idea in computer science of *enumerative values*.Peacegirl, when you see a rose, what happens?
Is the rose red? No, it is not. “Redness” exists entirely in the mind, and it is called a quale. Multiple quale are qualia.
Now why does the rose look red? Here is the correct use of the word “wavelength.” Each color we see has a distinctive wavelength associated with it. When we look at the rose, the flower absorbs all of the wavelengths associated with colors OTHER THAN red. It reflects to our eye the remaining light with a wavelength that the mind interprets as the color red.
This would be IMPOSSIBLE if light was not reflected! Your writer has no ALTERNATIVE explanation of how we see color.
And, happy b-day!
I meant to say the light does NOT travel with the image of myself. Light is a condition of sight, not a cause.I saw the part you told me to go. Reflection only means the wavelength of light that allows us to see ourselves in the mirror as it is reflected back to us, but the light does travel with that image of myself beyond what my eyes can see. If I backed up far enough from the mirror, my image would be too far away to be seen. If my reflection bounced off the mirror, why wouldn't I see it if I was in a direct path of the mirror?I am seriously saying that. A flashlight will only show what Lessans tried to explain. We would see the wavelength of light projected, but we would not see that same wavelength traveling through space/time without the actual object present.Reverse engineering may show that light travels and strikes the retina, but it cannot show that the light bounces off an object, taking the information with it through space/time. They cannot prove this.
You are seriously saying that we can’t prove that light is reflected off of objects??? OMFG there are about a million ways to prove it. You can easily prove it yourself with a flashlight!
You can see for yourself light being reflected off a mirror, starting at about 1:51 in the video.
Yes. Light is a reflection of the object when we look at it; It reveals what's there. Therefore it does not bounce off of the object and travel with the information to the eye over long distances. There is no time involved in this account. Therefore, it is not a violation of physics.Huh? So the object reflects the light, but the light does not bounce off the object??The light allows us to see the object by its reflective properties, but it does not bounce off of the object, taking the image (or information) with it.
It is very hard to define consciousness. All we can do is describe what consciousness is using language that may not be perfect in its description, sort of like defining God.No, it isn't.Consciousness is a prerequisite for life itself.
Yes. Light is a reflection of the object when we look at it; It reveals what's there. Therefore it does not bounce off of the object and travel with the information to the eye over long distances. There is no time involved in this account. Therefore, it is not a violation of physics.Huh? So the object reflects the light, but the light does not bounce off the object??The light allows us to see the object by its reflective properties, but it does not bounce off of the object, taking the image (or information) with it.
The brain IS an information processor but this does not explain how we see. Memory is also an integral and essential part of how information is retained and used to connect what is learned in everyday life in order to make sense of the world.It actually is. If you read and reread what he wrote, you would have understood more thoroughly why he was so confident in his claim. He did not say light impulses don't do what they do. They do everything science states, from entering the retina to the optic nerve to being transduced into impulses that the brain receives. What does not occur is the brain's ability to turn these impulses into images. Light does not bounce off of objects taking the information with it through space/time. This is an assumption on the part of science, which Lessans refutes. As far as being logical, it's just as logical as any other version of sight.
Light at the eye/instant vision is not logical.
That's what doesn't make sense. Light does in fact convey information. The brain as an information processor does in fact generate consciousness based on information acquired by the senses that is integrated with memory function to enable recognition.
Thank you for the rundown. Everything that was written I agree with except the way in which the brain uses the eyes to see the real world, not a virtual image. That's it!Without memory nothing would make sense because there would be no way to categorize our experiences to be used for later reference. Consciousness is a prerequisite for life itself. Without consciousness, we would be unaware of our very existence or who we are as individuals.
But that does nothing to explain 'light at the eye/instant vision.' What you say goes against the contention.
I hope this helps;
The central nervous system
''Every moment of the day your nervous system is active. It exchanges millions of signals corresponding with feeling, thoughts and actions. A simple example of how important the nervous system is in your behavior is meeting a friend.
First, the visual information of your eyes is sent to your brain by nervous cells. There the information is interpreted and translated into a signal to take action. Finally the brain sends a command to your voice or to another action system like muscles or glands. For example, you may start walking towards him.
Your nervous system enables this rapid recognition and action. ''
Well lets take just one of our senses, vision. Light enters through the cornea, reaches the retina and is converted to nerve impulses by complex chemical reactions (rod,cones, etc) and conveyed by the optic nerve to the visual cortex, from there it is propagated throughout the brain, gathering memory and information before the signals return to the visual cortex and a representation of that information is formed, a conscious image of what we see.
The visual information is interpreted by the various systems of the brain and translated into a signals to take action (visual,auditory,tactile reflexes) and on to the prefrontal cortex region which deal with complex responses, one's social values, cultural expectations, ethics, etc - the seat of one's personality and sense of self. Finally the brain forms conscious thoughts a deliberation and sends a commands to its motor neurons, muscle groups, glands... and the action is undertaken.''
Social Conditioning
''Human behavior is affected both by genetic inheritance and by experience. The ways in which people develop are shaped by social experience and circumstances within the context of their inherited genetic potential. The scientific question is just how experience and hereditary potential interact in producing human behavior.
Each person is born into a social and cultural setting, family, community, social class, language, religionand eventually develops many social connections. The characteristics of a child's social setting affect how he or she learns to think and behave, by means of instruction, rewards and punishment, and example.
This setting includes home, school, neighborhood, and also, perhaps, local religious and law enforcement agencies. Then there are also the child's mostly informal interactions with friends, other peers, relatives, and the entertainment and news media. How individuals will respond to all these influences, or even which influence will be the most potent, tends not to be predictable.
There is, however, some substantial similarity in how individuals respond to the same pattern of influences that is, to being raised in the same culture. Furthermore, culturally induced behavior patterns, such as speech patterns, body language, and forms of humor, become so deeply embedded in the human mind that they often operate without the individuals themselves being fully aware of them.''
Again, all of what was written is absolutely true except how the brain and eyes work. The brain processes all information. This version of sight changes nothing other than seeing in real time, which scientists can map out. There is method to the madness, even though people think it's impossible. If it were impossible, that would be a different story, but it isn't like flying pink elephants.The brain IS an information processor but this does not explain how we see. Memory is also an integral and essential part of how information is retained and used to connect what is learned in everyday life in order to make sense of the world. Without memory nothing would make sense because there would be no way to categorize our experiences to be used for later reference. Consciousness is a prerequisite for life itself. Without consciousness, we would be unaware of our very existence or who we are as individuals.It actually is. If you read and reread what he wrote, you would have understood more thoroughly why he was so confident in his claim. He did not say light impulses don't do what they do. They do everything science states, from entering the retina to the optic nerve to being transduced into impulses that the brain receives. What does not occur is the brain's ability to turn these impulses into images. Light does not bounce off of objects taking the information with it through space/time. This is an assumption on the part of science, which Lessans refutes. As far as being logical, it's just as logical as any other version of sight.
Light at the eye/instant vision is not logical.
That's what doesn't make sense. Light does in fact convey information. The brain as an information processor does in fact generate consciousness based on information acquired by the senses that is integrated with memory function to enable recognition.
But that does nothing to explain 'light at the eye/instant vision.' What you say goes against the contention.
I hope this helps;
The central nervous system
''Every moment of the day your nervous system is active. It exchanges millions of signals corresponding with feeling, thoughts and actions. A simple example of how important the nervous system is in your behavior is meeting a friend.
First, the visual information of your eyes is sent to your brain by nervous cells. There the information is interpreted and translated into a signal to take action. Finally the brain sends a command to your voice or to another action system like muscles or glands. For example, you may start walking towards him.
Your nervous system enables this rapid recognition and action. ''
Well lets take just one of our senses, vision. Light enters through the cornea, reaches the retina and is converted to nerve impulses by complex chemical reactions (rod,cones, etc) and conveyed by the optic nerve to the visual cortex, from there it is propagated throughout the brain, gathering memory and information before the signals return to the visual cortex and a representation of that information is formed, a conscious image of what we see.
The visual information is interpreted by the various systems of the brain and translated into a signals to take action (visual,auditory,tactile reflexes) and on to the prefrontal cortex region which deal with complex responses, one's social values, cultural expectations, ethics, etc - the seat of one's personality and sense of self. Finally the brain forms conscious thoughts a deliberation and sends a commands to its motor neurons, muscle groups, glands... and the action is undertaken.''
Social Conditioning
''Human behavior is affected both by genetic inheritance and by experience. The ways in which people develop are shaped by social experience and circumstances within the context of their inherited genetic potential. The scientific question is just how experience and hereditary potential interact in producing human behavior.
Each person is born into a social and cultural setting, family, community, social class, language, religionand eventually develops many social connections. The characteristics of a child's social setting affect how he or she learns to think and behave, by means of instruction, rewards and punishment, and example.
This setting includes home, school, neighborhood, and also, perhaps, local religious and law enforcement agencies. Then there are also the child's mostly informal interactions with friends, other peers, relatives, and the entertainment and news media. How individuals will respond to all these influences, or even which influence will be the most potent, tends not to be predictable.
There is, however, some substantial similarity in how individuals respond to the same pattern of influences that is, to being raised in the same culture. Furthermore, culturally induced behavior patterns, such as speech patterns, body language, and forms of humor, become so deeply embedded in the human mind that they often operate without the individuals themselves being fully aware of them.''
Thank you for the well wishes! I appreciate your recognition of my birthday even though we disagree about many things. You’re still my friend.Peacegirl, when you see a rose, what happens?
Is the rose red? No, it is not. “Redness” exists entirely in the mind, and it is called a quale. Multiple quale are qualia.
Now why does the rose look red? Here is the correct use of the word “wavelength.” Each color we see has a distinctive wavelength associated with it. When we look at the rose, the flower absorbs all of the wavelengths associated with colors OTHER THAN red. It reflects to our eye the remaining light with a wavelength that the mind interprets as the color red.
This would be IMPOSSIBLE if light was not reflected! Your writer has no ALTERNATIVE explanation of how we see color.
And, happy b-day!