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

[peacegirl]

Light still travels at a finite speed but in this account, distance is not a factor.

Speed is distance divided by time. Distance is therefore always and unavoidably a factor when speed is involved.

The quoted sentence is proven to be nonsense, by contradiction. Did I mention that, unlike science, you can actually prove things in mathematics? This is one of those things; distance is proven to always be a factor when something has speed as an attribute.

It was not a contradiction if you understand that the eyes work completely opposite of how science thinks they work.

No, they don’t.

I don't think you even remember what his observations were. It's not the eyes that work differently than what the Lone Ranger described. It's how the brain and eyes work together that has caused confusion due to the belief that the light is transduced and then interpreted by the brain as images.

Because the eyes work exactly as the Lone Ranger described, Lessans was wrong.

He did not disprove Lessans. Nothing he demonstrated gave proof as to the direction of the eyes and brain. It's still a theory that we interpret images rather than see the real thing in real time. Your constant repeating that Lessans was wrong over and over again doesn't discredit him. If people don't agree with his proof, they can counteract it or even throw it out, but they don't even know what his proof was, or why he came to this conclusion. They just can't believe he challenged what is considered a scientific fact, so they laugh.

 

[peacegirl]

to just pooh pooh it is being very short-sighted and preventing the very thing you and all of us want.

What you, I or anyone else wants has exactly zero influence on what is.

That is true, but... if what is thought to be true is not, then it could be preventing new knowledge from coming to light.

You don't have to like that. It will remain true forever, whether you like it or not.

Yes, if will is not free, it will remain not free forever, but if we believe it to be free, and we live in an environment that is based on a falsehood with no chance to grow because the truth remains hidden, then it is our loss and that's very sad, especially when we can improve the wellbeing of people who are suffering.

Most people work this out at around the age of five. Some never work it out, and waste their lives in pursuit of the impossible. They might call it magic, or religion, or alchemy, or The Secret, or spiritualism, or building a perpetual motion machine, or anything else; It remains impossible no matter how hard they believe.

I agree that many beliefs are based on wishful thinking. They may help give people hope, but that doesn't mean these beliefs have a basis in truth. But now you are comparing me to them, and it's unfair. You are making a huge leap and assuming I fall into that category.

Reality is real. The only way to find out about reality is to study it carefully. Trying to impose upon reality any idea that comes from imagination rather than from careful observation is utterly futile.

Grow up.

Bilby, I have said over and over that this knowledge did not come out of thin air. Please stop being so patronizing. If you don't like this thread or what I have to say, then by all means go. No one is keeping you here. I'm not staying here for long either. I really came only to tell people that I reduced the price of the ebook to $1.95 thinking that if cost was an issue, now it wouldn't be. But alas, that didn't even help.

 

[peacegirl]

There is no possible way for the eyes and brain to “work together” to enable instantaneous seeing. To see, light must be at the eye, and that takes varying amounts of time depending on distance.

OMG, this again? Light IS at the eye, if the brain is looking through the eyes, as a window, to the real world. It will take science to investigate his claims, not you. Until then, you will continue to do everything you can to discredit everything he has written, even his proof that we are born again and again (not the same person, of course), by saying his proof was nothing more than his use of "pronouns" and by comparing his knowledge to others who you believe had a better explanation.

 

[pood]

You are asking us to believe that if god turned on the sun at noon, we would see it instantly, but not the people or anything else around us, because you admit the light from the sun needs time to reach the earth — in this case, a little under 8.5 minutes.

You just said: “Light IS at the eye.” You just said that! At the eye instantly — even though you also admit it takes light from the sun some 8.5 minutes to reach the earth, where human eyes are located!

So, your position is that the light is, and is not, at the eye, at the same time.

This, of course, is a violation of one of the pillars of classical logic, Aristotle’s Law of Noncontradiction, which states that no proposition and its negation can be simultaneously true.

 

[pood]

So, @peacegirl, how can light from the sun be at the eye instantly, when the eye is on the earth, and you admit it takes the light from the sun some 8.5 minutes to reach the earth?

 

[peacegirl]

You are asking us to believe that if god turned on the sun at noon, we would see it instantly, but not the people or anything else around us, because you admit the light from the sun needs time to reach the earth — in this case, a little under 8.5 minutes.

You just said: “Light IS at the eye.” You just said that! At the eye instantly — even though you also admit it takes light from the sun some 8.5 minutes to reach the earth, where human eyes are located!

One more time: the reason as to why we would see the sun turned on before seeing each other is because of efferent vision, which means the requirements for seeing the Sun would have been met (size, luminosity, and within our field of view) — even though the Sun is far far away, whereas the requirements to see each other would not have been met for 8.5 minutes because the requirements for sight have not been met, even though we were right next to each other. Think efferent Pood and maybe one day it will sink in.

So, your position is that the light is, and is not, at the eye, at the same time.

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that, due to the brain peering through the eyes to see the outside world (efferent vision), light from the Sun would be at the eye instantly because the Sun is reflecting that light and striking our retina as we gaze at the Sun in real time while Earth would be dark for 8.5 minutes because it has not met the requirements: therefore, no light, no sight.

This, of course, is a violation of one of the pillars of classical logic, Aristotle’s Law of Noncontradsiction, which states that no proposition and its negation can be simultaneously true.

There IS no contradiction.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl, you are in way over your head. Your ft father did not prove anything, he engaged in thought experiments.

Obviously you have not read through my pots, you portrayal can't.

You appear to be picking out things yoo heard on the forum or net and tossing them hen out, ilke wavelength.

A thought experiment for you.

Consider a modern digital video camera. It has a lens and an electronic retina of sorts, called a focal plane array. Instead of biological photoreceptors it has an array of electronic photodetectors..

The electron array is wired to a processor that can recognize faces.

How is that in principle different than the human eye?

I word think your father's paradigm would apply equally to a digital camera.

Optic nerves are essential wires from retina to brain.

Yes my posts do apply, they refute your claims.

 

[pood]

You are asking us to believe that if god turned on the sun at noon, we would see it instantly, but not the people or anything else around us, because you admit the light from the sun needs time to reach the earth — in this case, a little under 8.5 minutes.

You just said: “Light IS at the eye.” You just said that! At the eye instantly — even though you also admit it takes light from the sun some 8.5 minutes to reach the earth, where human eyes are located!

One more time: the reason as to why we would see the sun turned on before seeing each other is because of efferent vision, which means the requirements for seeing the Sun would have been met (size, luminosity, and within our field of view) — even though the Sun is far far away, whereas the requirements to see each other would not have been met for 8.5 minutes because the requirements for sight have not been met, even though we were right next to each other. Think efferent Pood and maybe one day it will sink in.

So, your position is that the light is, and is not, at the eye, at the same time.

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that, due to the brain peering through the eyes to see the outside world (efferent vision), light from the Sun would be at the eye instantly because the Sun is reflecting that light and striking our retina, but Earth would be dark for 8.5 minutes.

This, of course, is a violation of one of the pillars of classical logic, Aristotle’s Law of Noncontradsiction, which states that no proposition and its negation can be simultaneously true.

There IS no contradiction.

Of COURSE there is a contradiction! BS about the brain peering through the eyes to see the outside world solves nothing. You have to explain how it is logically possible for the light to be at the eye instantly even though the eye is on the earth and you admit it takes the light 8.5 minutes to reach the earth where the eye is! You can’t explain it because it is logically impossible!

 

[pood]

Ask her if a camera also takes pictures in real time. At FF she ended up taking both positions — that it did, and it didn’t!

 

[DBT]

Light still travels at a finite speed but in this account, distance is not a factor.

Speed is distance divided by time. Distance is therefore always and unavoidably a factor when speed is involved.

The quoted sentence is proven to be nonsense, by contradiction. Did I mention that, unlike science, you can actually prove things in mathematics? This is one of those things; distance is proven to always be a factor when something has speed as an attribute.

It was not a contradiction if you understand that the eyes work completely opposite of how science thinks they work. Speed is a factor when distance and time are involved, that is true, but when it comes to vision (if he is right), then speed and distance don't play a part. You're not listening bilby. He was a math whiz, FYI. He figured out math problems that math professors could not.

The speed of light and its distance of travel has nothing to do with how the eyes work in detecting light.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, you are in way over your head. Your ft father did not prove anything, he engaged in thought experiments.

Obviously you have not read through my pots, you portrayal can't.

You appear to be picking out things yoo heard on the forum or net and tossing them hen out, ilke wavelength.

A thought experiment for you.

Consider a modern digital video camera. It has a lens and an electronic retina of sorts, called a focal plane array. Instead of biological photoreceptors it has an array of electronic photodetectors..

The electron array is wired to a processor that can recognize faces.

How is that in principle different than the human eye?

I word think your father's paradigm would apply equally to a digital camera.

Optic nerves are essential wires from retina to brain.

Yes my posts do apply, they refute your claims.

No they don’t. A camera works similar to the eye. If the Sun were turned on, the photons coming from the Sun would be at the lens and the electronic photodetectors would mimic a human retina. The processor would be like the optic nerve that interprets faces (or patterns) as it is programmed. Seeing in real time does not change the necessity of the optic nerve to integrate what is seen with one’s life experiences (the same as afferent vision). This would also be similar to the photodetectors in a camera and the electron array that is wired to the processor which could recognize faces if it was programmed that way, but it could not integrate meaning with the pattern it puts out as humans can do because cameras do not have brains that can give meaning to these patterns. Maybe AI will be able to do this one day and help the blind use this technology to see virtually, which I think they’re working on now.

 

[peacegirl]

So, @peacegirl, how can light from the sun be at the eye instantly, when the eye is on the earth, and you admit it takes the light from the sun some 8.5 minutes to reach the earth?

I refuse to answer you again. You obviously do not understand efferent vision, or how it even works. The connection between the optic nerve and the visual cortex work in the same way. The only difference is that light is not interpreted as a virtual image within the brain. You still have no idea what his reasoning is, and you're not the least bit interested. Oh well.

 

[peacegirl]

Light still travels at a finite speed but in this account, distance is not a factor.

Speed is distance divided by time. Distance is therefore always and unavoidably a factor when speed is involved.

The quoted sentence is proven to be nonsense, by contradiction. Did I mention that, unlike science, you can actually prove things in mathematics? This is one of those things; distance is proven to always be a factor when something has speed as an attribute.

It was not a contradiction if you understand that the eyes work completely opposite of how science thinks they work. Speed is a factor when distance and time are involved, that is true, but when it comes to vision (if he is right), then speed and distance don't play a part. You're not listening bilby. He was a math whiz, FYI. He figured out math problems that math professors could not.

The speed of light and its distance of travel has nothing to do with how the eyes work in detecting light.

Please read what I posted today. I can't do more. I do suggest that you buy the book for $1.95. At least you will know what the author's position was, and why he concluded what he did. You can then decide whether he's full of it, or maybe not. lol

 

[pood]

@peacegirl, if it takes light 8.5 minutes to reach the earth from the sun, and since all eyes are on the earth, how can light be at the eye instantly if it takes light 8.5 minutes for light to reach the eyes that are all on the earth?

 

[peacegirl]

@peacegirl, if it takes light 8.5 minutes to reach the earth from the sun, and since all eyes are on the earth, how can light be at the eye instantly if it takes light 8.5 minutes for light to reach the eyes that are all on the earth?

You still don't get it. Assume for a moment that we are not interpreting light in the brain but we are actually seeing the object. Then it is obvious that the photons that are reflected from said object have to be at the eye without any travel time at all. This can only occur if the eyes are efferent where the requirements of luminosity, size, and the object being within our field of view, are met. You are only thinking in terms of the speed of light, which will never make sense. You have to think in reverse, which is why efferent vision changes what we are seeing, if he is right.

 

[bilby]

I agree that many beliefs are based on wishful thinking. They may help give people hope, but that doesn't mean these beliefs have a basis in truth. But now you are comparing me to them, and it's unfair. You are making a huge leap and assuming I fall into that category.

No, I am observing from your own words here that you unequivocally fall into that category.

You have made it crystal clear. To everyone. Except (bizarrely) yourself.

 

[bilby]

I really came only to tell people that I reduced the price of the ebook to $1.95 thinking that if cost was an issue, now it wouldn't be. try to get money out of people

FTFY.

 

[DBT]

Light still travels at a finite speed but in this account, distance is not a factor.

Speed is distance divided by time. Distance is therefore always and unavoidably a factor when speed is involved.

The quoted sentence is proven to be nonsense, by contradiction. Did I mention that, unlike science, you can actually prove things in mathematics? This is one of those things; distance is proven to always be a factor when something has speed as an attribute.

It was not a contradiction if you understand that the eyes work completely opposite of how science thinks they work. Speed is a factor when distance and time are involved, that is true, but when it comes to vision (if he is right), then speed and distance don't play a part. You're not listening bilby. He was a math whiz, FYI. He figured out math problems that math professors could not.

The speed of light and its distance of travel has nothing to do with how the eyes work in detecting light.

Please read what I posted today. I can't do more. I do suggest that you buy the book for $1.95. At least you will know what the author's position was, and why he concluded what he did. You can then decide whether he's full of it, or maybe not. lol

I have read what you say, but it's just wrong. It's wrong because it's impossible for light to be "at the eye" without travel time from its source.

Nor does instant light at the eye make sense in transforming human behaviour and bringing peace to the world.

Sorry, but to put it kindly, the premise is flawed.

 

[bilby]

I do suggest that you buy the book for $1.95. At least you will know what the author's position was, and why he concluded what he did. I will have some of your money.

FTFY

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

Functionally there is no difference between a digital camera and the eye. Optic nerves do not interreor integrate images, they are essentially electrical wires.

The retina essentially digitizes a picture into pixels.

The human retina doesn't have a pixel count in the way a digital camera does, but it's estimated to have a visual resolution equivalent to about 576 megapixels, according to scientists and photographers. This is a theoretical maximum based on the density of photoreceptor cells in the retina, specifically the fovea, which provides the highest resolution.

I see you are picking up the jargon, like photons. You still don't really comprehend.

You are creating, making things up, as you go along without really understanding what you are saying. You are larning from experince.

There was a guy Universal Soldier on the forum for a while.

He claimed he read books on math qualifying him as a mathematician. He went on to argue math had it all wrong and he knew what was right. We were conditioned by the establishment.

Like you he told us we did not get it. Yet he could not do straightforward math like calculus.

Work with me if you would.

Two photons from a light source bounce off a rock. One arrives at the lens of an eye, the other at the lens of a digital cornea. Both take a finite amount of time to arrive at each lens, do you agree?

Each photon takes a finite amount of time to pass trough the eye lens and camera lens and reach the retina and focal plane arrive. Do you agree?

It takes a finite amount of time for the photon to be converted to electric current in the retina and focal plane array. Do you agree?

It takes a finite amount of time for the retina and focal plane array signals to reach the brain and computer processor through nerves or wires. Do you agree?

The signal from the retina are processed in brain to create an image, the signals from the focal plane array are converted to an image in the processor. Processing in both cases takes a finite amount of time. Do you agree?



Note our facial recognition in our brains is both genetically programmed and leaned from experience.