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

[pood]

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.

It is completely impossible, and why that is so has been explained to you for more than 20 years across multiple message boards. It is not just wrong, it is both physically and logically impossible to be correct.

 

[pood]

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!

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.

Hope you had a nice time!

 

[peacegirl]

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!

We see color the same way we would see color in afferent vision. Light is absorbed or reflected depending on the light spectrum. I'm not sure why this is an issue.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

Huh? So the object reflects the light, but the light does not bounce off the object??

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.

It’s a TOTAL violation of physics!

Also, light is not a “reflection” of objects; objects reflect light. As to not bouncing off the object, did you notice what light did at about the 1:51 mark of the video I posted?

Okay, let me rephrase it. Objects reflect light, but the reflection does not travel. It's like a mirror image where there is no time involved. I watched the video. It is absolutely true that light travels from its source but is a completely different animal when it is believed that light bounces off of matter. I will say again and again that it DOES NOT take the object's information with it, which is the ONLY THING being disputed. All the other stuff people are bringing into the discussion is a distraction.

 

[peacegirl]

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!

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.

Hope you had a nice time!

I did. My children surprised me and we went to a nice restaurant. They all made a toast and shared what they loved about their mom. I even sat next to my ex-husband and his new wife. She's from Ukraine, and we are friends. I wish for everyone who is blessed to have children to be appreciated when children become adults. So much of my parenting had to do with what I learned from my father. As the saying goes, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating," which is so true. My kids wrote the sweetest things on Facebook, and I'll hold them in my heart always.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

It is completely impossible, and why that is so has been explained to you for more than 20 years across multiple message boards. It is not just wrong, it is both physically and logically impossible to be correct.

The fact that I have been to multiple message boards as some kind of proof that he was wrong is not proof, so why bring this up?

 

[peacegirl]

This is an interesting discussion in its own right. We say a rose is red, its thorns sharp, its stem green, and it smells sweet. None of this is true of the rose, qua rose. It is none of these things. These things are all in the mind.

As is conditioning. Light carries information about its source, or of the object off of which it reflects, but no image. The image is made in the mind. It’s a mental interpretation of the information. A child must be taught to name things it sees. A pattern of information resolves itself in his mind as the image of a chair, and he is taught to call it “chair.”

A child does not interpret a rose as a flower with certain-shaped pedals and colors in his mind, or a pattern of information that his mind interprets as a chair. He may not know the names of these items until he is taught the word, but to say that an image of a rose or a chair is a pattern of information that resolves itself in his mind as an image is a theory only. I will repeat this excerpt:

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.

But here is the main point. A pattern of information resolves itself in the child’s mind as a large woman. The information and the image that the mind constructs out of the information is absolutely neutral. But someone whispers to the child, “That is a fat woman and fat people are unattractive.”

THAT is how we get conditioned. It has nothing to do with light. Light carries no values. Humans make up values.

And this part of your author’s discussion, about conditioning, is useful. It is just that he got the source of the conditioning wrong.

It has everything to do with how the brain works. You are missing his whole point as to how this conditioning occurs, but this has nothing to do with conditioning, which could not occur otherwise. For example, someone can say how delicious some food is, but it will not condition you to like it if you don't. The same thing with smell. Someone can love the smell of a certian perfume, but if you don't like it, a person saying how wonderful it smells won't condition you to like it. The same thing with sound. If someone tells you how wonderful classical music is, it will not condition you to like it if you don't. You may acquire a taste for it, but this has nothing to do with conditioning. But it's different with the eyes. If someone keeps hearing over and over with a positive inflection of a certain type of face and a negative inflection associated with a certain type of face, you will begin to be conditioned to liking the faces that are associated with the positive inflection. Once you become conditioned, you will swear that these beautiful and ugly faces exist when there is no such reality.

From the time we were small children, our relatives, parents, friends, and acquaintances have expressed their personal likes and dislikes regarding people’s physiognomies. The words beautiful, pretty, cute, adorable, handsome, etc., heard over and over again with an enhancing inflection as to someone’s physical appearance, took a picture of the similarities between this type of physiognomy and developed negatives that also contained the degree of feeling experienced. Similarly, an entire range of words heard repeatedly with a detracting inflection as to someone’s physical characteristics took a picture of the similarities between this type of physiognomy and developed negatives containing the degree of feeling experienced below this line of demarcation. As time went on, a standard of beauty was established. Not knowing what the brain was able to do, we were convinced that one group of similarities contained a lesser value than the opposite similarities. We were unaware that the brain had reversed the process by which these negatives were developed and then projected onto the screen of undeniable differences a value that existed only in our head. It would not be long before we would be conditioned to desire associating with the one type while avoiding the other, and as we would get older, you would not be able to convince us that an ugly or beautiful person did not exist because we had witnessed these differences with our very eyes. In other words, when a word contains a judgment of value, a standard of perfection, then we are able to project this value directly onto substance, and then because we see this with our very eyes, it was a simple thing to convince ourselves that beauty was a definite part of the real world. The confusion between what is real and what is not comes from the fact that these words not only describe real differences that exist in the world, but they also create external values when there are no such things. I will give you an example of this by using a movie projector.

Here is a smooth white wall in a dark room with nothing on it. I am dropping a negative plate or slide into the projector, flipping the switch, and just take a look—there is a picture of a girl on the wall. But go up and touch her. All you feel is the wall itself because the girl is not there. We have been doing the same thing with our brain regarding values. The differences in substance were not only divided up by the use of words like man, woman, child, etc., but became a screen upon which we were able to project this value. Drop a negative plate or word slide in your brain projector and flip the switch. Well, just take a look—there is now a beautiful girl, a homely man, an ugly duckling! Turn off the switch (remove the negative plate or word slide), and all you see are the differences in substance because the projected values have been removed. Since we were taught that the eyes receive and transmit sense experience on the waves of light, it was impossible to deny that this beautiful girl actually existed, and when we changed the standard hidden in the word, all we did was change the screen. By saying that this person may not be beautiful physically but has a beautiful soul, we were allowed to see ugly souls as if they, too, existed externally.

Scientists, believing that the eyes were a sense organ, unconsciously confirmed what man saw with them because they were unaware that it was possible to project a fallacious relation realistically. Consequently, everything in the external world will be distorted if the words through which man looks at what he calls reality are inaccurate symbols or if the relation that is photographed becomes, as in the five senses, an inaccurate negative that is then projected realistically upon undeniable substance. The word beautiful has absolutely no external reality, and yet because it is learned in association with a particular physiognomy, a beautiful girl is created when no such person exists. Obviously, there is a difference between the shape and features of individuals, but to label one beautiful and another ugly only reveals that you are conscious of a fallacious difference that is projected through your eyes upon substance that cannot be denied—which makes the projection appear real.

By having the words beautiful, ugly, gorgeous, etc. as slides in a movie projector through which the brain will look at the external world, a fallacious value is placed upon certain specific differences only because of the words, which are then confirmed as a part of the real world since man will swear that he sees beautiful women with his eyes. But in actual reality, all he sees are different shapes and different features. This beautiful girl is not striking his optic nerve, which then allows him to see her beauty, but instead he projects the word onto these differences and then photographs a fallacious relation. The brain records all relations, whether true or false, and since it was considered an indisputable fact that man had five senses that were connected in some way with the external world, and since four of these were accurately described as sense organs, that is, they receive and transmit external stimuli, it was very easy for Aristotle to get confused and put a closure on further investigation by including the eyes in the definition, which he did only because he never understood their true function.

 

[pood]

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!

We see color the same way we would see color in afferent vision. Light is absorbed or reflected depending on the light spectrum. I'm not sure why this is an issue.

You’ve been telling us that light isn’t reflected.

 

[pood]

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.

It is completely impossible, and why that is so has been explained to you for more than 20 years across multiple message boards. It is not just wrong, it is both physically and logically impossible to be correct.

The fact that I have been to multiple message boards as some kind of proof that he was wrong is not proof, so why bring this up?

I didn’t say it was proof that he was wrong. I said that many people, including experts in the field, have told you the same thing — not just THAT he was wrong, but WHY he was wrong.

 

[peacegirl]

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!

Are we in Flat Earth territory at this point?

No Jarhyn, this is not flat earth territory.

CHAPTER ONE

THE HIDING PLACE​

Long ago man formed a theory that the earth was flat because he could not conceive of it as a ball suspended in space. It became a dogma, such a fixed idea that when the first astronomer, in attempting to explain the reason why darkness came over the sun in the middle of the day, was denied an opportunity to present his findings because his discovery called into question this sacred belief. Let us imagine the first astronomer being granted an interview by the leading authorities of his time to explain the cause of a solar eclipse.

“Dear gentlemen, I have come to you to explain my findings about the shape of the earth. In order for you to understand the cause of the darkness coming over the sun, it is first necessary to understand that the earth is not flat.”

“What’s that? Did we hear you correctly? Are you trying to tell us that the earth is round which means it is floating in space?”

“That is true, and my discovery lies locked behind the door marked the earth is round.”

“This is absurd! Who are you to come here and tell us that we are wrong? We are not interested in your theory because we say the earth is flat [and since we are wiser than you, more learned than you, more educated than you, you must be wrong], so why discuss this matter further?

Besides, our chief medicine man chanted the incantation that caused the darkness to vanish. Thank you very much for coming out to give us your explanation, but we are not interested in discussing this matter further because we know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the earth is flat.”

This is the second half of the primary problem. The fact that a theory such as the belief that the earth is flat can hermetically seal knowledge that prevents our discovering the invariable laws of the solar system which, in turn, prevents the knowledge necessary to land men on the moon. Children were taught this by their parents who had received this knowledge from their parents who were instructed by the medicine man who was considered the wisest man of his time. Since there was no way the knowledge of the medicine man could be proven false because no one knew any different, and since he was considered the wisest man of his time, his conclusion that the earth was flat brooked no opposition. Consequently, when those who were judged inferior in wisdom or knowledge disagreed with the medicine man, they were rejected. When an upstart scientist came along who concluded that the earth was round after making certain observations, how was it possible to get others to agree with him when they couldn’t follow his reasoning which compelled them to compare him, not his knowledge, to the medicine man, to the professors and teachers whose wisdom and knowledge could not be impugned?

To help you see how easy it is for a dogmatic theory to prevent scientific investigation let us once again return, in imagination, to the time when man knew nothing about the solar system and listen to a conversation.

“Say, Joshua; do you believe the earth is flat or do you go along with my theory that it is round?”

“Even though most of mankind agrees that it is flat, what difference does it really make what I think?” said our philosophical friend. “The shape of the earth is certainly not going to be affected or changed no matter what my opinion is, right?

“That is true enough, but if the earth is really round isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think otherwise, we are prevented from discovering those things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery; consequently, it does make a difference. How much so we are not in the position to know just yet but thousands of years hence, perhaps in the twentieth century, there may be all kinds of scientific achievements attributed directly to knowing the true shape of the earth, such as landing men on the moon, which may never be possible without first knowing the true shape of the earth.”

 

[peacegirl]

You can see for yourself light being reflected off a mirror, starting at about 1:51 in the video.

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?

First, yet again, it is not the “wavelength” of light that is reflected, it is the light.

You are playing word games now. Light is traveling 186,000 miles a second. The information (the wavelength of light) is not being transmitted through space/time.

Second, for the ten millionth time, light does not carry an image. The image is made in the brain.

That is an assertion, sorry.

Third, above, you admit light reflects off the mirror, contradicting your earlier claim that light is never reflected.

Light reflects in that it shows up as a mirror image, but it doesn't bounce off of, so when you are looking in the mirror, it gives us a mirror image, but it doesn't travel. Dang!! Even AI got this one wrong.

Mirrors work based on the following principles12345:

1. Reflection: When light hits a smooth surface, it bounces off (wrong) at the same angle it arrived, following the law of reflection.

How Do Mirrors Work?

Today’s Wonder of the Day offers a chance to sit back and reflect for a bit. Won’t you join us?

www.wonderopolis.org

Fourth, if you backed away from the mirror you WOULD continue to see your image. Try this for yourself! The only way you would stop seeing your image is if you got so far away from the mirror that you could no longer see the mirror itself.

Well, there you go. You wouldn't see the image because the image is not traveling toward you once you are beyond the range of the mirror. I corrected my wording. Even if he said the image isn't being carried on the waves of light, you should know what he meant by now. Light is not bringing the information from the object through space and time. Is that better? That does not mean light does not travel 186,000 miles a second for the hundredth time. The conclusion drawn is that light is traveling so fast that we don't realize we are seeing a delayed image, which is not true according to this account of vision.

 

[DBT]

It's the information, the patterns of light, wavelength, etc, radiated or reflected from objects that the brain interprets as shapes and colours, and represents in conscious form as objects and events in the external world....

 

[pood]

You can see for yourself light being reflected off a mirror, starting at about 1:51 in the video.

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?

First, yet again, it is not the “wavelength” of light that is reflected, it is the light.

You are playing word games now. Light is traveling 186,000 miles a second. The information (the wavelength of light) is not being transmitted through space/time.

The only information in the wavelength is the color. And that is in the mind, not in the light. Another thing that has been explained to you again and again.

Light carries information, not images. Images are made in the mind, as are colors.

So, let’s get this straight. You are telling us that light is traveling 186,000 miles per second, but the information (which is the light) is not traveling through space and time? Uh-huh. What IS it traveling through? Crazy Glue? Yogurt? The Twilight Zone?

Second, for the ten millionth time, light does not carry an image. The image is made in the brain.

That is an assertion, sorry.

No, it is not an assertion. As assertion is an unevidenced claim. That the image is made in the brain is a well-attested fact.

Third, above, you admit light reflects off the mirror, contradicting your earlier claim that light is never reflected.

Light reflects in that it shows up as a mirror image, but it doesn't bounce off of, so when you are looking in the mirror, it gives us a mirror image, but it doesn't travel. Dang!! Even AI got this one wrong.

Reflects MEANS to bounce off.

Mirrors work based on the following principles12345:

1. Reflection: When light hits a smooth surface, it bounces off (wrong) at the same angle it arrived, following the law of reflection.

How Do Mirrors Work?

Today’s Wonder of the Day offers a chance to sit back and reflect for a bit. Won’t you join us?

www.wonderopolis.org

Fourth, if you backed away from the mirror you WOULD continue to see your image. Try this for yourself! The only way you would stop seeing your image is if you got so far away from the mirror that you could no longer see the mirror itself.

Well, there you go. You wouldn't see the image because the image is not traveling toward you once you are beyond the range of the mirror. I corrected my wording. Even if he said the image isn't being carried on the waves of light, you should know what he meant by now. Light is not bringing the information from the object through space and time. Is that better?

No, it’s not better, because that is exactly what it is doing.

That does not mean light does not travel 186,000 miles a second for the hundredth time. The conclusion drawn is that light is traveling so fast that we don't realize we are seeing a delayed image, which is not true according to this account of vision.

We DO realize we are seeing a delayed image — that is how Jupiter’s eclipse of Io was used to measure the speed of light because of the time difference between when we spotted the eclipse when earth was nearer Jupiter and when it was farther away. If we saw in real time, there WOULD BE NO DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO OBSERVATIONS, but there is, so your author is wrong.

 

[pood]

Roemer’s hypothesis: sight is not instantaneous!

This is so easy to understand, peacegirl, and it means your author’s instantaneous seeing hypothesis is simply untrue.

 

[pood]

I should add that there was never a time, certainly not after the ancient Greeks, when any educated people believed the world was flat. You author would have done better using the heliocentrism vs. geocentrism controversy.

 

[pood]

With respect to 1:51 of the video I posted, in which light is clearly shown bouncing off a mirror after peacegirl said light does not bounce off of anything, it should be further noted that had this experiment taken place in the airless vacuum of space, a viewer perpendicular to the light beam, as this viewer was in the video, would see NOTHING. The reason the viewer was able to see in the experiment, and the camera was able to record it, is because there was air in the room, and some of the ight bounced off those particles and traveled to the eye of the viewer. Further confirmation of reflection and delayed-time seeing.

 

[Jarhyn]

I would argue that colors are in the cones and rods, and the thing I explained about enumeration.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

It is completely impossible, and why that is so has been explained to you for more than 20 years across multiple message boards. It is not just wrong, it is both physically and logically impossible to be correct.

The fact that I have been to multiple message boards as some kind of proof that he was wrong is not proof, so why bring this up?

I didn’t say it was proof that he was wrong. I said that many people, including experts in the field, have told you the same thing — not just THAT he was wrong, but WHY he was wrong.

Don't you see that this alternative version of sight would never be accepted unless it was proven that he was right in some other way? In their minds, it's a done deal. They have it all mapped out according to what they think is occurring with delayed vision and the brain. The question remains: Can there be a legitimate alternative? I believe so.

 

[peacegirl]

It's the information, the patterns of light, wavelength, etc, radiated or reflected from objects that the brain interprets as shapes and colours, and represents in conscious form as objects and events in the external world....

What you are saying is theoretical. The word "reflected" is okay to use as long as it is understood that an object can reflect light but it doesn't bounce, taking the "image" (information) with it as it travels at 186,000 miles per second. Don't get hung up on the word "reflection." I just qualified what the word means in this context.

 

[bilby]

The word "reflected" is okay to use as long as it is understood that it doesn't bounce off of the object, taking the "image" (information) with it as it travels at 186,000 miles per second. Don't get hung up on the word "reflection." I just qualified what the word means in this context.

If you don't use words in a consistent and precise way, then you are literally not communicating at all.

You are not even wrong; You are incomprehensible.

If your only way to avoid being wrong is to be meaningless, and avoidance of being wrong is your top priority, then congratulations. I guess.

You have avoided being wrong by avoiding saying anything meaningful at all.

Light is reflected, but only as long as we don't mean reflected when we say "reflected".

Obviously.