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

[pood]

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.

Actually, they DON’T. Science tells us (and YOU) that vaccines work, because the evidence SHOWS that they work. And here you are, an anti-vaxxer! Vaccines banished smallpox, measles, polio, and greatly mitigated Covid, and all of that will COME BACK if the moron you voted for and his lackey RFK Jr., get their way. Want to see your grandkids get polio, peacegirl? Do you have any idea how devastating that is? Probably not, because it is a thing of the past, because of vaccines! Derp!

Like your writer, most people are scientifically illiterate, and will believe whatever makes them feel good at a given moment.

 

[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.

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?

The above is absolutely gobbledygook, meaningless word salad, starting with the phrase, “light must reflect an electric image of everything it touches.” Light does not reflect ANYTHING, light is REFLECTED, and it does not carry images electric or otherwise! Why don’t you quote the part where your author states that light is a MOLECULE, and that these light molecules hang around to “smile” on us in the morning!

 

[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.

Of course it does! We went over this again and again with you at FF! You bounce a laser off the moon, there is DELAY in it returning to earth! I believe it is about 1.3 seconds, meaning we always see the moon roughly as it was just over a second in the past.

 

[pood]

Could be the round trip is 1.3 seconds, I’d have to look it up, but the relevant point is this is yet another disproof of real-time seeing.

 

[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.

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.

I agree.

You are not even wrong; You are incomprehensible.

I am trying to clarify how I am using a word that is typically used in one way. It's the same thing with how the word determinism is defined. The word reflection is a property of light, but it is defined in a way that is not correct.

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.

It's not about my avoiding being wrong, and not being wrong is not my top priority.

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

I'm trying to explain why "reflection" does not mean light travels with the wavelength over great distances WITHOUT the presence of the object in sight.

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

Obviously.

Words have to be clearly defined, or there will be problems. Look at how determinism is defined. It's causing great confusion. This is really no different.

 

[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?

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.

He was put on a very high pedestal, which means in most people's minds, he could do no wrong. That is what is called an appeal to authority. It's almost blasphemous to debate anyone who is as untouchable as he was.

Down through history, there has always been this skepticism before certain events were proven true. It is only natural to be skeptical, but this is never a sufficient reason to exclude the possibility of a scientific miracle. You may reason that many people have been positive that they were right, but it turned out they were wrong, so couldn’t I also be positive and wrong? There is a fallacious standard hidden in this reasoning. Because others were positive and wrong, I could be wrong because I am positive. The first astronomer who observed the mathematical laws inherent in the solar system that enabled him to predict an eclipse was positive and right, as was the space scientist who foretold that one day man would land on the moon. Edison, when he first discovered the electric bulb was positive and right. Einstein, when he revealed the potential of atomic energy was positive and right—and so were many other scientists—but they proved that they were right with an undeniable demonstration, which is what I am doing. If my demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and then only am I wrong. There is quite a difference between being positive or dogmatic over knowledge that is questionable and being positive over something that is undeniable, such as two plus two equals four. Just bear in mind how many times in the course of history has the impossible (that which appeared to be) been made possible by scientific discoveries, which should make you desire to contain your skepticism enough to investigate what this is all about.

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.

Why is it that we are conditioned by words but are not conditioned by taste, smell, or sound? You just glass over my posts. It's not that my author didn't present his case in a clear way; it's that you want an exact mechanism as to how this works. This has no bearing on whether his observations were correct. If he was right (which I believe he was), there has to be a mechanism by which this occurs. He said the eyes are the window of the brain, which makes sense. Future biologists can add to this once his observations are confirmed. To repeat: Light gets reflected, but it does not reflect or bounce off of an object without the actual object being in view, or nothing would show up on the retina.

 

[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.

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

We see the moons of Jupiter because they are there to be seen. This does not mean light does not get reflected. Again, this only means that the objects (i.e., the moons) reveal their presence through light. Light is not independent from the objects themselves, where light has a life of its own. It's a condition of sight, not a cause.

 

[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.

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.

This is not being debated. It is not a theory. Light travels, and we can only see what the light reveals when it hits a surface.

 

[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.

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

When you use the word instantaneous, you make it appear that we are dealing with magic. That is not true. The only difference between these two versions of sight is that one says light is a necessary condition to see the outside world, and the other says that light brings the outside world to us. Take away the object, and no wavelength of light will land on our retinas with any information that will allow us to create an image.

 

[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.

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

No it doesn't DBT. This does not falsify the speed of light. It only falsifies what occurs when light is reflected. We still process what we see based on our experiences and the memories we hold. Instead of saying "instant vision," let's call it seeing in real time. Instant vision sounds like magic.

 

[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.

Yes, we would see the source (i.e., matter) because the light is there for us to see it. You are thinking that the source is long gone and all we see are images in the brain. WRONG. I can say the same thing: 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. See?

 

[pood]

I'm trying to explain why "reflection" does not mean light travels with the wavelength over great distances WITHOUT the presence of the object in sight.

But that is exactly what it does, and you “explained” absolutely nothing. You have simply ASSERTED this claim, with ZERO evidence.

And why do you continue to say “with the wavelength?” Are you imagining light can somehow travel WITHOUT its wavelengths????

 

[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.

Yes, we would see the source (i.e., matter) because the light is there for us to see it. You are thinking that the source is long gone and all we see are images in the brain. WRONG. I can say the same thing: 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. See?

Grasp what??? We already SHOWED you how NASA calculates trajectories to Mars and other celestial bodies! They do it based on DELAYED SEEING. When you see Mars in the sky at night, that is NOT where it actually is!

 

[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.

Actually, they DON’T. Science tells us (and YOU) that vaccines work, because the evidence SHOWS that they work. And here you are, an anti-vaxxer! Vaccines banished smallpox, measles, polio, and greatly mitigated Covid, and all of that will COME BACK if the moron you voted for and his lackey RFK Jr., get their way. Want to see your grandkids get polio, peacegirl? Do you have any idea how devastating that is? Probably not, because it is a thing of the past, because of vaccines! Derp!

Like your writer, most people are scientifically illiterate, and will believe whatever makes them feel good at a given moment.

I didn't say all vaccines were bad, but there is risk involved and therefore should never be mandated. It has to be up to the parent. I was concerned about the DPT vaccine when my kids were little. Pertussis was of concern after I read an article that the nonstop crying of a young child is a warning to never give him a second shot. Kids get so many shots in combination that it behooves researchers to carefully check for safety, not just efficacy. Adverse effects could come later, which they don't follow up on. This is a problem.

Parents have come to depend on vaccines to protect their children from a variety of diseases. Some evidence suggests, however, that vaccination against pertussis (whooping cough) and rubella (German measles) is, in a small number of cases, associated with increased risk of serious illness.

This book examines the controversy over the evidence and offers a comprehensively documented assessment of the risk of illness following immunization with vaccines against pertussis and rubella. Based on extensive review of the evidence from epidemiologic studies, case histories, studies in animals, and other sources of information, the book examines:

*The relation of pertussis vaccines to a number of serious adverse events, including encephalopathy and other central nervous system disorders, sudden infant death syndrome, autism, Guillain-Barre syndrome, learning disabilities, and Reye syndrome.

The relation of rubella vaccines to arthritis, various neuropathies, and thrombocytopenic purpura.
The volume, which includes a description of the committee's methods for evaluating evidence and directions for future research, will be important reading for public health officials, pediatricians, researchers, and concerned parents.

Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines - NCBI Bookshelf

Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule by Age

Guide health care providers in determining recommended vaccines for each age group.

www.cdc.gov

Why did you bring this up? To make me look bad? Is that not a little underhanded, Pood? Are you running out of things in your toolbox to attack me with? I've also told you that Lessans did not come to these findings from astronomy. You show no interest in his demonstration. You said that when someone calls another fat, he gets conditioned, which has nothing to do with light and sight. That is incorrect. It involves words and how they are projected, which causes this conditioning to see what does not exist. Lessans explains correctly how this takes place. No other sense can be conditioned.

Someone can tell me 100 times how delicious liver is (for example) and I will disagree because my taste buds don’t like it no matter how many times I try. We can acquire a taste for some things as we get older but this is not the same thing as being conditioned to like what we don’t like because taste is a sense organ.

Someone can tell me how wonderful a perfume smells but if I don’t like the smell, I cannot be conditioned to like it because the olfactory system is a sense organ.

Someone can tell me that classical music is amazing but if it bores me, I cannot be conditioned to like it no matter how much someone raves about a particular aria. Why? Because the ear is a sense organ.

This does not work in the same way with the eyes. We are conditioned from a very early age because of words, nothing more.

 

[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?

The above is absolutely gobbledygook, meaningless word salad, starting with the phrase, “light must reflect an electric image of everything it touches.” Light does not reflect ANYTHING, light is REFLECTED, and it does not carry images electric or otherwise! Why don’t you quote the part where your author states that light is a MOLECULE, and that these light molecules hang around to “smile” on us in the morning!

Now you’re getting mean. He was not an astronaut. His expertise was not in that field. This in no way detracts from his observational skills and his reasoning ability. Stop putting him down Pood. This is an ad hom. Just because he’s not here gives you no right to tarnish his memory with utter lies.

 

[pood]

Peacegirl, the eyes are a sense organ, and we don’t see in real time.

There is nothing more to say.

 

[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.

Of course it does! We went over this again and again with you at FF! You bounce a laser off the moon, there is DELAY in it returning to earth! I believe it is about 1.3 seconds, meaning we always see the moon roughly as it was just over a second in the past.

Objects, like the moon, do not send out images (or information) in delayed time. The laser is a measurement of how long it takes for the laser to reach the moon and back to earth, which is approximately 1.3 seconds, but we do not see the moon 1.3 seconds in the past. A camera is a different story. It sends us footage of the moon that is then transmitted through space, which takes time.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, the eyes are a sense organ, and we don’t see in real time.

There is nothing more to say.

I'm trying to explain why "reflection" does not mean light travels with the wavelength over great distances WITHOUT the presence of the object in sight.

But that is exactly what it does, and you “explained” absolutely nothing. You have simply ASSERTED this claim, with ZERO evidence.

I explained absolutely nothing (in your estimation) because you failed to understand his demonstration. Ironically, you even said that we get conditioned by words without realizing that conditioning involves this projection that you're trying so hard to dismiss as nonsense. From this, he recognized that the eyes work differently and cannot be called a sense organ because they don't function like sense organs. This was not just an assertion with no evidence, Pood. That is your way of disregarding him and holding on to your worldview for dear life.

And why do you continue to say “with the wavelength?” Are you imagining light can somehow travel WITHOUT its wavelengths????

Light is an electromagnetic wave. I continue to say "with the wavelength" because that is the light spectrum that allows us to see the object. It just doesn't travel through space/time.

Why is light an electromagnetic wave?

Why is light an electromagnetic wave?

byjus.com

 

[DBT]

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.

It's not something that you need to believe or disbelieve. It is reality. It is the way it works regardless of what anyone believes or disbelieve.

 

[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.

Of course it does! We went over this again and again with you at FF! You bounce a laser off the moon, there is DELAY in it returning to earth! I believe it is about 1.3 seconds, meaning we always see the moon roughly as it was just over a second in the past.

Objects, like the moon, do not send out images (or information) in delayed time. The laser is a measurement of how long it takes for the laser to reach the moon and back to earth, which is approximately 1.3 seconds, but we do not see the moon 1.3 seconds in the past. A camera is a different story. It sends us footage of the moon that is then transmitted through space, which takes time.

We see the light that is reflected from the moon, the very light that takes time to reach our eyes.