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

[peacegirl]

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.

It really doesn't. It looks like there is no other explanation possible for light to take longer to get here at certain times of the year other than distance and time, but this is circumstantial. I will never be able to convince anyone here or anywhere on the internet that the author's observations are just as possible as the present version of sight.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

It's too late now. You got the point and that's what matters.

 

[bilby]

I will never be able to convince anyone here or anywhere on the internet that the author's observations are just as possible as the present version of sight.

Well, at least you are not wrong about that.

Your problem is that you don't seem able to grasp that you cannot persude people that it is possible, because it is impossible.

Really, what else could cause your inability here? Are you seriously suggesting that literally everybody except you is out of step?

 

[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?

I saw it. This is not what he is disputing. We know that light has the property of reflection. But this does not prove what you think it does. It does not take the image (or information) with it over great distances. The reflection is there for us to see the object when we gaze in the direction of said object. Light is a condition of sight. It is not like soundwaves traveling to the ear causing us to hear.

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.

No it isn't. It's in the photoreceptors—the rods and cones that our brains look through.

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?

You're just repeating your version of what you think is happening. I already said that light does not carry images, which is just shorthand for information. I've also said that light travels but does not take any information about the object with it. The light is there to reveal the world to us whenever there is enough light present. When we cannot see the object because it is too far away, it is because there is not enough light at that distance. Telescopes help by magnification. But the telescope is magnifying the object, not the image.

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.

We're just going in circles. You will never be convinced that we see the external world as it is, and I will never be convinced that we create virtual images in our brains of the real thing.

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.

Not necessarily. There could be another explanation for the delay other than it taking longer for the light to reach our eyes and an image to be formed.

 

[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.

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?

That’s incorrect. Science does not work on personal credentials. This has been explained to a million times. You will never accept it because you can’t afford to. Einstein was an unknown patent clerk when he overturned physics. No one cared about his credentials. They cared that he was right.

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.

Maybe someday you’ll present it. Your author certainly didn't.

 

[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.

It really doesn't. It looks like there is no other explanation possible for light to take longer to get here at certain times of the year other than distance and time, but this is circumstantial. I will never be able to convince anyone here or anywhere on the internet that the author's observations are just as possible as the present version of sight.

Your author says we see in real time. The Io/Jupiter example shows that we do not. There is no way around this.

 

[pood]

]

We're just going in circles. You will never be convinced that we see the external world as it is, and I will never be convinced that we create virtual images in our brains of the real thing.

So much the worse for you. Because we’re right and you and your author are wrong.

Not necessarily. There could be another explanation for the delay other than it taking longer for the light to reach our eyes and an image to be formed.

What would that explanation be? There is none, and you know it.

 

[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.

It really doesn't. It looks like there is no other explanation possible for light to take longer to get here at certain times of the year other than distance and time, but this is circumstantial. I will never be able to convince anyone here or anywhere on the internet that the author's observations are just as possible as the present version of sight.

It does not matter how long it takes light to get to the eye, according to you and your author. You claim we see instantaneously. The Jupiter/Io example proves we do not.

 

[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....

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.

You can prove it for yourself. As pointed out, take a torch into a dark room and turn it on. You can reflect the light off the mirror, the walls, objects in the room, then turn the light off and all is dark. The room is dark because your torch was the sole source of light in the room, where you directed the beam, which reflected off whatever you focused your beam on.

That is not theory, it is reality.

 

[Jarhyn]

We're just going in circles. You will never be convinced that we see the external world as it is, and I will never be convinced that we create virtual images in our brains of the real thing.

So much the worse for you. Because we’re right and you and your author are wrong.

Not necessarily. There could be another explanation for the delay other than it taking longer for the light to reach our eyes and an image to be formed.

What would that explanation be? There is none, and you know it.

The fact that someone cannot be possibly be convinced that the world works the way it works, as I have seen it working myself... Well, it's a reason for me to not want to pay much more attention to them.

 

[DBT]

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.

It really doesn't. It looks like there is no other explanation possible for light to take longer to get here at certain times of the year other than distance and time, but this is circumstantial. I will never be able to convince anyone here or anywhere on the internet that the author's observations are just as possible as the present version of sight.

The distance of the moon is regularly measured using laser beams reflected from an instrument left on the moon for that purpose.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

Light definitely reflects in proportion to what it is reflecting from. This light diminishes the farther away it gets from the object of reflection. Again, this does not mean that light stops traveling at a high rate of speed, but it does show that light does not go on forever with the information it is reflected from. This was shown in the video with the angle of incidence.

 

[peacegirl]

We're just going in circles. You will never be convinced that we see the external world as it is, and I will never be convinced that we create virtual images in our brains of the real thing.

So much the worse for you. Because we’re right and you and your author are wrong.

Not necessarily. There could be another explanation for the delay other than it taking longer for the light to reach our eyes and an image to be formed.

What would that explanation be? There is none, and you know it.

The fact that someone cannot be possibly be convinced that the world works the way it works, as I have seen it working myself... Well, it's a reason for me to not want to pay much more attention to them.

Then don't. No one is keeping you here.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

It really doesn't. It looks like there is no other explanation possible for light to take longer to get here at certain times of the year other than distance and time, but this is circumstantial. I will never be able to convince anyone here or anywhere on the internet that the author's observations are just as possible as the present version of sight.

The distance of the moon is regularly measured using laser beams reflected from an instrument left on the moon for that purpose.

This does not in any way disprove that we see in real time. This is not magic. Light travels, and there is a finite speed that has been measured definitively.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

It really doesn't. It looks like there is no other explanation possible for light to take longer to get here at certain times of the year other than distance and time, but this is circumstantial. I will never be able to convince anyone here or anywhere on the internet that the author's observations are just as possible as the present version of sight.

It does not matter how long it takes light to get to the eye, according to you and your author. You claim we see instantaneously. The Jupiter/Io example proves we do not.

No. Light travels as far as the reflection allows. This has nothing to do with instant sight the way you are displaying. It makes the author look ridiculous.

 

[DBT]

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.

It really doesn't. It looks like there is no other explanation possible for light to take longer to get here at certain times of the year other than distance and time, but this is circumstantial. I will never be able to convince anyone here or anywhere on the internet that the author's observations are just as possible as the present version of sight.

The distance of the moon is regularly measured using laser beams reflected from an instrument left on the moon for that purpose.

This does not in any way disprove that we see in real time. This is not magic. Light travels, and there is a finite speed that has been measured definitively.

Finite speed of light falsifies instant vision. As does information processing time.

 

[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.

It really doesn't. It looks like there is no other explanation possible for light to take longer to get here at certain times of the year other than distance and time, but this is circumstantial. I will never be able to convince anyone here or anywhere on the internet that the author's observations are just as possible as the present version of sight.

The distance of the moon is regularly measured using laser beams reflected from an instrument left on the moon for that purpose.

This does not in any way disprove that we see in real time. This is not magic. Light travels, and there is a finite speed that has been measured definitively.

Yes. And it is measured because of the delay in getting to our eye when the source is farther away, which disproves real-time seeing, because if real-time seeing were true, we would see the source instantly, no matter how far away it was. This is such elementary reasoning I find it shocking you cannot grasp it. The only thing I can figure is that you REFUSE to grasp it.

 

[peacegirl]

I will never be able to convince anyone here or anywhere on the internet that the author's observations are just as possible as the present version of sight.

Well, at least you are not wrong about that.

Your problem is that you don't seem able to grasp that you cannot persude people that it is possible, because it is impossible.

Really, what else could cause your inability here? Are you seriously suggesting that literally everybody except you is out of step?

Yes. If science says something is correct, people, not knowing what to believe, will agree with whatever science tells us.

 

[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.

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

It is being reflected, but it is not reflecting over long distances that give the impression that the object's photons are traveling through time and space if and until it strikes some other object. That was the point of this sentence:

Once again, certain facts have been confused, and all the reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed is completely fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a sense organ, it followed that light must reflect an electric image of everything it touches, which then travels through space and is received by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us, it would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a telescope?

 

[peacegirl]

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.

It really doesn't. It looks like there is no other explanation possible for light to take longer to get here at certain times of the year other than distance and time, but this is circumstantial. I will never be able to convince anyone here or anywhere on the internet that the author's observations are just as possible as the present version of sight.

The distance of the moon is regularly measured using laser beams reflected from an instrument left on the moon for that purpose.

This does not in any way disprove that we see in real time. This is not magic. Light travels, and there is a finite speed that has been measured definitively.

Yes. And it is measured because of the delay in getting to our eye when the source is farther away, which disproves real-time seeing, because if real-time seeing were true, we would see the source instantly, no matter how far away it was. This is such elementary reasoning I find it shocking you cannot grasp it. The only thing I can figure is that you REFUSE to grasp it.

It actually does not because the light never goes further than the object it is reflecting. Please know that this is not saying that light doesn't travel. We would see the object instantly if the light was reflected from the object to allow the object to be seen. This is turning into a strawman.