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

[DBT]

He is clearly wrong on the matter of instant vision/ light at the eye. In relation to the physics of light and eye and brain function, it doesn't even make sense. So the idea is being asserted without evidence or explanation of how it may work and indisputable evidence against it.

That is why anyone with even a basic understanding of physics rejects the claim.

That is only because of the speed of light. From there, they assumed light was bringing images through space/time, and there was no way you could convince them otherwise once it was thought to be a basic scientific fact.

He is clearly wrong on the matter of instant vision/ light at the eye. In relation to the physics of light and eye and brain function, it doesn't even make sense. So the idea is being asserted without evidence or explanation of how it may work and indisputable evidence against it.

Who said he didn't have evidence?



What evidence is there for instant vision?

Srsly DBT, do you actually think I would come on a philosophy forum making this kind of claim without having anything to back it up? It would be suicidal. I will paste the introduction to this chapter but I'm not going to post his observations. Is it that hard to buy the book for $1.95 just for this chapter alone? Then return the book and get your dollar back. Geeze!!

WORDS, NOT REALITY​

Our problem of hurting each other is very deep-rooted and begins with words through which we have not been allowed to see reality for what it really is. Supposing I stood up in one of our universities and said, “Ladies and gentlemen, I am prepared to prove that man does not have five senses, which has nothing to do with a sixth sense,” wouldn’t all the professors laugh and say, “Are you serious or are you being funny? You can’t be serious because everybody knows man has five senses. This is an established fact.” The definition of epistemology is the theory or science of the method and grounds of knowledge, especially with reference to its limits and validity. For the modern empiricist, the only way knowledge becomes ‘stamped’ onto the human conscience is through internal and external sensations, or through sense experience. But there is surprising evidence that the eyes are not a sense organ. The idea that man has five senses originated with Aristotle, and it has never been challenged. He did this just as naturally as we would name anything to identify it. But he made an assumption that the eyes functioned like the other senses, so he included them in the definition. This is equivalent to calling an apple, pear, peach, orange, and potato five fruit.

The names given to these foods describe differences in substance that exist in the real world, but we certainly cannot call them five fruit since this word excludes the potato, which is not grown in the same manner as is described by the word fruit. Believe it or not, the eyes, similar to the potato in the above example, were classified in a category to which they did not belong. We cannot name the organs with which we communicate with the outside world — the five senses, when they do not function alike. Aristotle, however, didn’t know this. His logic and renown delayed an immediate investigation of his theory because no one dared oppose the genius of this individual without appearing ridiculous for such audacity, which brought about almost unanimous agreement. To disagree was so presumptuous that nobody dared to voice their disagreement because this would only incur disdainful criticism. Everyone believed that such a brilliant individual, such a genius, had to know whereof he spoke. This is not a criticism of Aristotle or of anyone. But even today, we are still in agreement regarding a fallacious observation about the brain and its relation to the eyes. Those who will consider the possibility that you might have a discovery reveal their confusion by trying to nullify any value to it with this comment, as was made to me, “What difference does it make what we call them as a group, this isn’t going to change what we are. Whether we call them five senses, or four senses and a pair of eyes, is certainly not going to change them in any way.” However, if man doesn’t really have five senses, isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think otherwise, we will be prevented from discovering those things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery? Consequently, it does make a difference what we call them.

Just as my first discovery was not that man’s will is not free but the knowledge revealed by opening that door for a thorough investigation, so likewise, my second discovery is not that man does not have five senses but what significant knowledge lies hidden behind this door. Many years later, we have an additional problem that is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear, any evidence to the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth. However, it appears that they will not be given the opportunity because the very moment the will of God is perceived and understood, man is given no alternative as to what direction he must travel, which is away from condemning someone who has uncovered a falsehood. The real truth is that there are thousands upon thousands of differences existing in the external world, but when words do not describe these differences accurately, we are then seeing a distorted version of what exists — as with free will.

I don't see evidence that supports instant vision....and the author speaks of the ''will of God'' playing a part. Which also lacks evidence.

To use the example of the sun, which is a star, we see the stars as they were when the light our eyes detect were emitted from the star. Which varies from 8.5 minutes for our star, 4.5 years for out neighbor the Alpha Centauri system, looking at stars and galaxies as they were billions of years in the past.

That's how it works. Basic physics. There are no loopholes.

 

[peacegirl]

He is clearly wrong on the matter of instant vision/ light at the eye. In relation to the physics of light and eye and brain function, it doesn't even make sense. So the idea is being asserted without evidence or explanation of how it may work and indisputable evidence against it.

That is why anyone with even a basic understanding of physics rejects the claim.

That is only because of the speed of light. From there, they assumed light was bringing images through space/time, and there was no way you could convince them otherwise once it was thought to be a basic scientific fact.

He is clearly wrong on the matter of instant vision/ light at the eye. In relation to the physics of light and eye and brain function, it doesn't even make sense. So the idea is being asserted without evidence or explanation of how it may work and indisputable evidence against it.

Who said he didn't have evidence?



What evidence is there for instant vision?

Srsly DBT, do you actually think I would come on a philosophy forum making this kind of claim without having anything to back it up? It would be suicidal. I will paste the introduction to this chapter but I'm not going to post his observations. Is it that hard to buy the book for $1.95 just for this chapter alone? Then return the book and get your dollar back. Geeze!!

WORDS, NOT REALITY​

Our problem of hurting each other is very deep-rooted and begins with words through which we have not been allowed to see reality for what it really is. Supposing I stood up in one of our universities and said, “Ladies and gentlemen, I am prepared to prove that man does not have five senses, which has nothing to do with a sixth sense,” wouldn’t all the professors laugh and say, “Are you serious or are you being funny? You can’t be serious because everybody knows man has five senses. This is an established fact.” The definition of epistemology is the theory or science of the method and grounds of knowledge, especially with reference to its limits and validity. For the modern empiricist, the only way knowledge becomes ‘stamped’ onto the human conscience is through internal and external sensations, or through sense experience. But there is surprising evidence that the eyes are not a sense organ. The idea that man has five senses originated with Aristotle, and it has never been challenged. He did this just as naturally as we would name anything to identify it. But he made an assumption that the eyes functioned like the other senses, so he included them in the definition. This is equivalent to calling an apple, pear, peach, orange, and potato five fruit.

The names given to these foods describe differences in substance that exist in the real world, but we certainly cannot call them five fruit since this word excludes the potato, which is not grown in the same manner as is described by the word fruit. Believe it or not, the eyes, similar to the potato in the above example, were classified in a category to which they did not belong. We cannot name the organs with which we communicate with the outside world — the five senses, when they do not function alike. Aristotle, however, didn’t know this. His logic and renown delayed an immediate investigation of his theory because no one dared oppose the genius of this individual without appearing ridiculous for such audacity, which brought about almost unanimous agreement. To disagree was so presumptuous that nobody dared to voice their disagreement because this would only incur disdainful criticism. Everyone believed that such a brilliant individual, such a genius, had to know whereof he spoke. This is not a criticism of Aristotle or of anyone. But even today, we are still in agreement regarding a fallacious observation about the brain and its relation to the eyes. Those who will consider the possibility that you might have a discovery reveal their confusion by trying to nullify any value to it with this comment, as was made to me, “What difference does it make what we call them as a group, this isn’t going to change what we are. Whether we call them five senses, or four senses and a pair of eyes, is certainly not going to change them in any way.” However, if man doesn’t really have five senses, isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think otherwise, we will be prevented from discovering those things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery? Consequently, it does make a difference what we call them.

Just as my first discovery was not that man’s will is not free but the knowledge revealed by opening that door for a thorough investigation, so likewise, my second discovery is not that man does not have five senses but what significant knowledge lies hidden behind this door. Many years later, we have an additional problem that is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear, any evidence to the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth. However, it appears that they will not be given the opportunity because the very moment the will of God is perceived and understood, man is given no alternative as to what direction he must travel, which is away from condemning someone who has uncovered a falsehood. The real truth is that there are thousands upon thousands of differences existing in the external world, but when words do not describe these differences accurately, we are then seeing a distorted version of what exists — as with free will.

I don't see evidence that supports instant vision....and the author speaks of the ''will of God'' playing a part. Which also lacks evidence.

To use the example of the sun, which is a star, we see the stars as they were when the light our eyes detect were emitted from the star. Which varies from 8.5 minutes for our star, 4.5 years for out neighbor the Alpha Centauri system, looking at stars and galaxies as they were billions of years in the past.

That's how it works. Basic physics. There are no loopholes.

I still say we are seeing the Sun as it is, not as it was, because the Sun moves 2.5 degrees. The light casts a shadow after 8.5 minutes, yes, but coming to the conclusion that the image of the Sun is in delayed time may still be incorrect. What if we are seeing the Sun as it is and still have a shadow form that we are seeing, the very thing people say does not happen in real time? But is that true? Obviously, light has to travel to reach Earth and cast its shadow on an object that is blocking the sunlight. I am not disputing that. That said, and regardless of whether you feel I'm grasping at straws, the only way to figure this out is to compare the author's take with the present theory. Either he was totally off, and science was right, or he was right, and science was off. Both can't be right just like free will and determinism cannot both be right since, by definition, they are polar opposites. To immediately say he was wrong without understanding his observations and reasoning, is being way premature. He didn't come to this conclusion through physics. He came at it from a different angle. You have to look at his reasoning with an open mind, not judge him wrong at the very get-go. That is why it is essential to understand how he came to this conclusion. The mechanism is there if it is true that the brain is able to photograph a picture of what is in the external world and relay it back to be integrated with our experiences to form new concepts.

 

[DBT]

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

 

[bilby]

I still say we are seeing the Sun as it is, not as it was, because the Sun moves 2.5 degrees.

"the Sun moves 2.5 degrees" is not a "because"; It's maybe a few percent of a because.

An explanation needs to be explicit, and precise. This isn't one.

The light casts a shadow after 8.5 minutes, yes,

Yes.

but coming to the conclusion that the image of the Sun is in delayed time may still be incorrect.

Indeed it may. I have, however, proposed a simple test for this. Please try it.

What if we are seeing the Sun as it is and still have a shadow form that we are seeing, the very thing people say does not happen in real time?

We already went through this. If those things, then the Sun will not appear in line with the shadows, but will instead appear offset by a couple of degrees.

What people say is happening is of no importance, in the face of everyone having the ability to simply look and see for themselves. I strongly recommend you to go outside and look for yourself.

But is that true?

It is true that the Sun is aligned with the shadows, and not offset by a couple of degrees. This tells us that the delay in the light arriving and forming the shadow must be equal to the delay in our seeing the Sun.

Obviously, light has to travel to reach Earth and cast its shadow on an object that is blocking the sunlight. I am not disputing that.

Indeed. We agree.

And then we can go further, and observe that the Sun is not seen in the place we would see it if our seeing it were instantaneous, but is instead where we would see it if the same delay applied to borh the light's arrival, and our seeing the Sun.

That said, and regardless of whether you feel I'm grasping at straws, the only way to figure this out is to compare the author's take with the present theory.

No, the only way to "figure this out" is to go take a look and see what is actually happening. Compare reality with each of the competing ideas.

Either he was totally off, and science was right, or he was right, and science was off.

Yup. And you, I, and everybody else can go outside, find a post that is casting a shadow in the sunshine, and see for ourselves that he was off (by about two degrees of arc).

And that's the end of the debate; Observed reality always beats theoretical or hypothetical predictions, even if those theories and hypotheses seem incredibly smart, sensible and compelling.

We don't need to discuss "Is the idea that we see the Sun in real time right or wrong?"; We can go look, and when we do we can see that it is wrong. So sad, too bad. Back to the drawing board.

Both can't be right just like free will and determinism cannot both be right since, by definition, they are polar opposites.

OK. And we just observed that one is right, so by your own logic, you must conclude that the other is wrong.

To immediately say he was wrong without understanding his observations and reasoning, is being way premature.

Absolutely. I agree one hundred percent. His idea deserves to be tested against reality, no matter how wild and implausible it might sound.

But we are past that now; We did the test. He was wrong, according to observed reality, and so his observations and/or reasoning must have been flawed.

There's nothing premature about rejecting an idea once a simple and repeatable test that anyone can do for themselves has shown that idea to be wrong.

He didn't come to this conclusion through physics.

That was probably a mistake on his part.

He came at it from a different angle.

And we have debunked it by observing that two angles are the same. Which is kinda ironic.

You have to look at his reasoning with an open mind, not judge him wrong at the very get-go.

I agree. A test is in order. And we just did one.

That is why it is essential to understand how he came to this conclusion.

It really doesn't matter, given that we can all see that the conclusion doesn't conform to reality.

The mechanism is there if it is true that the brain is able to photograph a picture of what is in the external world and relay it back to be integrated with our experiences to form new concepts.

I am pretty sure that that doesn't make any sense. But as it seems to be a hypothetical "...if it is true that..." I am guessing that it just represents an unwillingness to accept the evidence of your own eyes, which show that it is not true that there is a difference in the time taken for us to see the Sun, and the time taken for the sunlight to reach the Earth.

Seriously, you can and should see this for yourself. No book can overrule seeing for ourselves, when it comes to working out whether a claim, theory, or hypothesis is true.

 

[peacegirl]

I still say we are seeing the Sun as it is, not as it was, because the Sun moves 2.5 degrees.

"the Sun moves 2.5 degrees" is not a "because"; It's maybe a few percent of a because.

An explanation needs to be explicit, and precise. This isn't one.

The light casts a shadow after 8.5 minutes, yes,

Yes.

but coming to the conclusion that the image of the Sun is in delayed time may still be incorrect.

Indeed it may. I have, however, proposed a simple test for this. Please try it.

Question: What if light is already at the pole without travel time. That is what Lessans proposed. I just got a little off-track. That is why he said we would see the Sun instantly but not each other for 8.5 minutes. Seeing the shadow would be no different from seeing the Sun in real time, so the shadow would show up.

What if we are seeing the Sun as it is and still have a shadow form that we are seeing, the very thing people say does not happen in real time?

We already went through this. If those things, then the Sun will not appear in line with the shadows, but will instead appear offset by a couple of degrees.
What people say is happening is of no importance, in the face of everyone having the ability to simply look and see for themselves. I strongly recommend you to go outside and look for yourself.

I agree that sundials work. The question is whether the light is already at the pole without any travel time, due to how cameras, telescopes, and the eyes work --- if efferent vision is correct. We would see the Sun first --- in real time--- and the light rays would be instantly at the pole, not 8.5 minutes later, allowing us to see the shadow.

But is that true?

It is true that the Sun is aligned with the shadows, and not offset by a couple of degrees. This tells us that the delay in the light arriving and forming the shadow must be equal to the delay in our seeing the Sun.

This whole thing goes right back to whether the eyes are efferent or afferent. It doesn't solve the deeper issue as to whether we are actually seeing the Sun and its shadow in delayed or real time.

Obviously, light has to travel to reach Earth and cast its shadow on an object that is blocking the sunlight. I am not disputing that.

Indeed. We agree.

And then we can go further, and observe that the Sun is not seen in the place we would see it if our seeing it were instantaneous, but is instead where we would see it if the same delay applied to borh the light's arrival, and our seeing the Sun.

If your version of sight is correct, it would work this way, but it doesn't answer the question as to whether images travel with the light.

That said, and regardless of whether you feel I'm grasping at straws, the only way to figure this out is to compare the author's take with the present theory.

No, the only way to "figure this out" is to go take a look and see what is actually happening. Compare reality with each of the competing ideas.

And his observations can be tested too, so who is right? You can't just dismiss him especially when you don't even know what his observations were.

Either he was totally off, and science was right, or he was right, and science was off.

Yup. And you, I, and everybody else can go outside, find a post that is casting a shadow in the sunshine, and see for ourselves that he was off (by about two degrees of arc).

I get this but again you have to think of a possible alternative explanation that has not been considered.

And that's the end of the debate; Observed reality always beats theoretical or hypothetical predictions, even if those theories and hypotheses seem incredibly smart, sensible and compelling.

You are being too quick to dismiss his observations. No one can even come forward to explain what his observations were to be able to handwave them away.

We don't need to discuss "Is the idea that we see the Sun in real time right or wrong?"; We can go look, and when we do we can see that it is wrong. So sad, too bad. Back to the drawing board.

I know this works, just like a pinhole camera can be easily made in the backyard, but even with a pinhole camera, it doesn't tell us whether we are seeing the image in delayed time. It isn't proof.

Both can't be right just like free will and determinism cannot both be right since, by definition, they are polar opposites.

OK. And we just observed that one is right, so by your own logic, you must conclude that the other is wrong.

We just observed shadows from the Sun's light, but I'm not satisfied that this is the end of the story until this man's observations are proved wrong, not just your version proved right. They have to be compared side by side.

To immediately say he was wrong without understanding his observations and reasoning, is being way premature.

Absolutely. I agree one hundred percent. His idea deserves to be tested against reality, no matter how wild and implausible it might sound.

Fair enough. You may think he has no proof because it's not physics, but I say he has enough evidence for you to hear him out.

But we are past that now; We did the test. He was wrong, according to observed reality, and so his observations and/or reasoning must have been flawed.

There's nothing premature about rejecting an idea once a simple and repeatable test that anyone can do for themselves has shown that idea to be wrong.

You are making a leap that we are seeing shadows 8.5 minutes later, which would then mean we would be seeing the Sun 8.5 minutes later s well. But it begs the question: Which version is right? It doesn't answer the question. It just reiterates what is believed to be happening. All I'm asking is to hold back judgment until his analysis is thoroughly examined.

He didn't come to this conclusion through physics.

That was probably a mistake on his part.

It was no mistake. He was not a physicist or an astronomer. He came upon this in a different way. Why are you so reluctant to read this chapter?

He came at it from a different angle.

And we have debunked it by observing that two angles are the same. Which is kinda ironic.

They may be the same, but it does not answer the question. It just supports the hypothesis that we see in delayed time after light has traveled, and Lessans is saying it works reverse which means there would be no delay in seeing the shadow or the Sun in real time.

You have to look at his reasoning with an open mind, not judge him wrong at the very get-go.

I agree. A test is in order. And we just did one.

Okay, but if there is another test that contradicts yours, then what?

That is why it is essential to understand how he came to this conclusion.

It really doesn't matter, given that we can all see that the conclusion doesn't conform to reality.

May the best man win.

The mechanism is there if it is true that the brain is able to photograph a picture of what is in the external world and relay it back to be integrated with our experiences to form new concepts.

I am pretty sure that that doesn't make any sense. But as it seems to be a hypothetical "...if it is true that..." I am guessing that it just represents an unwillingness to accept the evidence of your own eyes, which show that it is not true that there is a difference in the time taken for us to see the Sun, and the time taken for the sunlight to reach the Earth.

Seriously, you can and should see this for yourself. No book can overrule seeing for ourselves, when it comes to working out whether a claim, theory, or hypothesis is true.

I am on your side. I am a skeptic by nature, but in this case, I am still not satisfied that his explanation is wrong. If you believe that this version of sight is correct, then why not humor me by reading the chapter. So far Pood hasn't shown me anything that disproves his claim regarding real time vision or his modal fallacy flaw regarding determinism in that we could have done otherwise given the same exact time and place (in some kind of alternative world), which is pure fantasy.

 

[peacegirl]

dupe

 

[DBT]

The eyes evolved to detect light and transmit the information to the brain to represent in conscious visual form.

We have no other means or mechanism for seeing the world . Nothing to suggest some faculty of instant vision may bypass the very physical process that makes vision possible.

It makes no sense. There is no way for it to work, and what is understood about vision rules it out.

 

[peacegirl]

The eyes evolved to detect light and transmit the information to the brain to represent in conscious visual form.

You are doing exactly what you tell me not to do. Eyes have evolved to detect light, but this is not the issue. In either version, light is being detected.

We have no other means or mechanism for seeing the world . Nothing to suggest some faculty of instant vision may bypass the very physical process that makes vision possible.

It makes no sense. There is no way for it to work, and what is understood about vision rules it out.

No way jose. You are not getting it because you don't want to get it.

 

[bilby]

I still say we are seeing the Sun as it is, not as it was, because the Sun moves 2.5 degrees.

"the Sun moves 2.5 degrees" is not a "because"; It's maybe a few percent of a because.

An explanation needs to be explicit, and precise. This isn't one.

The light casts a shadow after 8.5 minutes, yes,

Yes.

but coming to the conclusion that the image of the Sun is in delayed time may still be incorrect.

Indeed it may. I have, however, proposed a simple test for this. Please try it.

I know it works. It is obvious that light has to get to Earth for a shadow to be seen when the sunlight is blocked.

Yes.

What if we are seeing the Sun as it is and still have a shadow form that we are seeing, the very thing people say does not happen in real time?

We already went through this. If those things, then the Sun will not appear in line with the shadows, but will instead appear offset by a couple of degrees.

What people say is happening is of no importance, in the face of everyone having the ability to simply look and see for themselves. I strongly recommend you to go outside and look for yourself.

I agree that this works. Light has to have traveled 8.5 minutes and be displaced to form a shadow due to the pole blocking the light.

Yes.

But is that true?

It is true that the Sun is aligned with the shadows, and not offset by a couple of degrees. This tells us that the delay in the light arriving and forming the shadow must be equal to the delay in our seeing the Sun.

How do you know it isn't offset by a couple of degrees

Because I can see it with my own eyes. As can you. The sun subtends half a degree, a two degree (four diameter) difference in its position is easy to see.

and that this would make a difference?

A difference to what?

You still do not know anything about his observations and reasoning. If you can show me that he was flat out wrong, I will rethink his claim.

His claim is that we see the Sun in real time. He is flat out wrong about this, as you, I, and everyone else who cares to try my simple test can see for themselves.

You need to rethink his claim.

Obviously, light has to travel to reach Earth and cast its shadow on an object that is blocking the sunlight. I am not disputing that.

Indeed. We agree.

And then we can go further, and observe that the Sun is not seen in the place we would see it if our seeing it were instantaneous, but is instead where we would see it if the same delay applied to borh the light's arrival, and our seeing the Sun.

Well, I am still not sure, even though you are all thinking I just can't let go.

What I am thinking is of zero relevance. If you are not sure, you need to explain why not - is there some part of the test we did that is flawed? If so, what part, and in what way is it flawed?

That said, and regardless of whether you feel I'm grasping at straws, the only way to figure this out is to compare the author's take with the present theory.

No, the only way to "figure this out" is to go take a look and see what is actually happening. Compare reality with each of the competing ideas.

And his observations can be tested too, so who is right?

Great. You provide a step-by-step test, with explicit and precise directions for performing it, and we will compare them.

In the meantime, we have one set of observations that everyone can do for themselves; And one set of ideas that claim to be based on observations, but which we cannot all repeat.

So anyone reporting the result of the former is right.

You can't just dismiss him especially when you don't even know what his observations were.

Yeah, I can; He made a claim, and when we make some simple observations, we do not see what we would have to see were his claim to be correct.

At that point, I don't need to know anything else about anything he said; I am justified in saying that that specific and particular claim is wrong. It's unavoidable. We can all see it with our own eyes.

Either he was totally off, and science was right, or he was right, and science was off.

Yup. And you, I, and everybody else can go outside, find a post that is casting a shadow in the sunshine, and see for ourselves that he was off (by about two degrees of arc).

I get this but again you have to think of a possible alternative explanation that has not been considered.

No, that's your job. If you can think of one, we will test that, too. If you can't, you need to drop that claim, because it has been disproven.

If he was wrong, it would be hard for me to accept, but I would,

Good.

but only if his observations were completely ruled out.

If they contradict the observations that literally anybody can make at any time on a sunny day, then they are completely ruled out.

I'm not a flat-earther.

Good.

And that's the end of the debate; Observed reality always beats theoretical or hypothetical predictions, even if those theories and hypotheses seem incredibly smart, sensible and compelling.

You are being too quick to dismiss his observations. No one can even come forward to explain what his observations were.

Then it is completely reasonable to dismiss them immediately. If you can come forward to explain what his observations were, then that would change things - but it will still be reasonable to dismiss his observations if they contradict something you, I, or anyone can go see for themselves.

Maybe it is possible that those few degrees as the Sun is seen 2 degrees forward while light is traveling 8.5 minutes could affect whether the image is delayed or not.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Can you re-phrase it into an actual sentence?

We don't need to discuss "Is the idea that we see the Sun in real time right or wrong?"; We can go look, and when we do we can see that it is wrong. So sad, too bad. Back to the drawing board.

I know this works,

Good. So does anyone who feels like trying it. That's why it's such a good test. Nobody has to trust anyone else.

just like a pinhole camera can be easily made in the backyard.

I am unsure why that is relevant, but sure.

Both can't be right just like free will and determinism cannot both be right since, by definition, they are polar opposites.

OK. And we just observed that one is right, so by your own logic, you must conclude that the other is wrong.

We just observed shadows from the Sun's light, but I'm not satisfied that this is the end of the story

Why not?

until this man's observations are proved wrong,

We just did that. What further proof do you think is needed?

not just your version proved right. They have to be compared side by side.

No. A theory, hypothesis or idea has only to be tested against reality. Reality is the final arbiter of truth.

We only need to test ideas against other ideas when there is not yet any way to test them against reality. But that's not so here - we can test against reality, and that's the only comparison we need.

To immediately say he was wrong without understanding his observations and reasoning, is being way premature.

Absolutely. I agree one hundred percent. His idea deserves to be tested against reality, no matter how wild and implausible it might sound.

Fair enough. You may think he has no proof because it's not physics

NO!!

He has no proof because reality can be observed by anyone to contradict him.

Whether it's physics or geography or stamp collecting is utterly irrelevant.

, but I say he has enough evidence for you to at least pause.

I paused. I went outside, found a post, waited for the Sun to cone out from behind the clouds, and tested his claim.

That's enough pausing. Please pause for the same test yourself, and convince yourself with your own eyes that what you see is incompatible with the claim that we see the Sun in real time, and the light eight and a half minutes later.

Take all the pause you need.

But we are past that now; We did the test. He was wrong, according to observed reality, and so his observations and/or reasoning must have been flawed.

There's nothing premature about rejecting an idea once a simple and repeatable test that anyone can do for themselves has shown that idea to be wrong.

You are making a leap by saying that because shadows are seen after an 8.5 minute delay, that we see the Sun as a delayed image as well.

That would be a leap; But that's not quite what I am saying, is it?

I am saying that we can test the question of whether we see the Sun as a delayed image as well. I have given a detailed step-by-step process to perform the test, and yet again, I implore you not to believe a single word I tell you, but instead to go out and see for yourself.

It seems logical but his observations are more than logical as well.

Logic takes a back seat to observation. A logical argument can be sound, but if its premises are false, can still lead to a false conclusion.

We are not concerned with logic; We need not be, because we can go outside and see for ourselves.

All I'm asking is to hold back judgment until his analysis is thoroughly examined for any proof that he could be right.

That's not how it works.

We look for proof that ideas are wrong.

You cannot prove a theory to be right. And any proof that a theory is wrong, is final.

Once an idea has been proven wrong, no proof that it is right could ever logically exist; If it is wrong, it cannot also be right.

The judgement is in; The evidence is overwhelming, and literally anyone can easily see it for themselves.

He didn't come to this conclusion through physics.

That was probably a mistake on his part.

It was no mistake. He was not a physicist or an astronomer. He came upon this in a different way.

OK. It's still been proven wrong, though. So probably that different way isn't better.

Why are you so reluctant to read this chapter?

What makes you think that it would help? I have seen with my own eyes that his claim that we see the Sun instantaneously and without delay is false.

It will remain false no matter what any book says. Books don't tell us about reality, reality does that.

He came at it from a different angle.

And we have debunked it by observing that two angles are the same. Which is kinda ironic.

That's what it seems but it's really not.

Why not?

Be detailed, explicit and precise in your explanation of why the result of this simple test that anyone can do is not what it seems.

You have to look at his reasoning with an open mind, not judge him wrong at the very get-go.

I agree. A test is in order. And we just did one.

Okay, but if there is another test that contradicts yours, then what?

Then you present it, in sufficient explicit detail so that anyone can do it for themselves; And then we go off and do it.

That is why it is essential to understand how he came to this conclusion.

It really doesn't matter, given that we can all see that the conclusion doesn't conform to reality.

Bilby, I believe you're all goofing on me but it's okay. May the best man win.

It appears that I have.

The mechanism is there if it is true that the brain is able to photograph a picture of what is in the external world and relay it back to be integrated with our experiences to form new concepts.

I am pretty sure that that doesn't make any sense. But as it seems to be a hypothetical "...if it is true that..." I am guessing that it just represents an unwillingness to accept the evidence of your own eyes, which show that it is not true that there is a difference in the time taken for us to see the Sun, and the time taken for the sunlight to reach the Earth.

Seriously, you can and should see this for yourself. No book can overrule seeing for ourselves, when it comes to working out whether a claim, theory, or hypothesis is true.

I am on your side. I am a skeptic by nature, but in this case, I am still not satisfied that there isn't an alternative explanation that has not been considered.

Then present it, clearly and explicitly, for consideration.

If you believe that this version of sight is correct, then why not humor me by reading Lessans' explanation and showing me where he is off.

I just showed you where he is off. He claims that we see the Sun without a delay, but that we see our surroundings only when the light arrives eight and a half minutes later. This is - as we have all now been able to test for ourselves - false.

What more do you need?

So far Pood hasn't shown me this.

Well it's a good thing I came by to help him out then.

He just refutes anything Lessans wrote including the fact that his modal fallacy that we could do otherwise given the same exact conditions in some other world is pure gobbledegook.

If you say so. That doesn't have the slightest bearing on my clear demonstration that the claim (that we see the Sun without a delay, but that we see our surroundings only when the light arrives eight and a half minutes later) is observably false.

 

[DBT]

The eyes evolved to detect light and transmit the information to the brain to represent in conscious visual form.

You are doing exactly what you tell me not to do. Eyes have evolved to detect light, but this is not the issue. In either version, light is being detected.

We have no other means or mechanism for seeing the world . Nothing to suggest some faculty of instant vision may bypass the very physical process that makes vision possible.

It makes no sense. There is no way for it to work, and what is understood about vision rules it out.

No way jose. You are not getting it because you don't want to get it.

If light is being detected, as you acknowledge, the light being detected had a travel time between the object emitting light and the eye.

And as the light emitted by the object provides information about the object, we see the object as it was when the light was emitted by the object.

That's how vision works.

 

[peacegirl]

The eyes evolved to detect light and transmit the information to the brain to represent in conscious visual form.

You are doing exactly what you tell me not to do. Eyes have evolved to detect light, but this is not the issue. In either version, light is being detected.

We have no other means or mechanism for seeing the world . Nothing to suggest some faculty of instant vision may bypass the very physical process that makes vision possible.

It makes no sense. There is no way for it to work, and what is understood about vision rules it out.

No way jose. You are not getting it because you don't want to get it.

If light is being detected, as you acknowledge, the light being detected had a travel time between the object emitting light and the eye.
natu
And as the light emitted by the object provides information about the object, we see the object as it was when the light was emitted by the object.

That's how vision works.

It's not light that is being detected first. It's the Sun that is seen because it meets the requirements of sight (i.e., it is luminous and large enough to be seen) without any travel time. Therefore, his claim still holds. The object is seen, not the other way around (i.e., the image). So, as the earth rotates, when the Sun comes into view, it is not seen in the past because it's not the delayed light that we are detecting after 8.5 minutes. The shadow is there naturally because the light is blocked but it doesn't prove that we see in delayed time. Bilby and you are just repeating the very thing that is being challenged.

 

[peacegirl]

The eyes evolved to detect light and transmit the information to the brain to represent in conscious visual form.

You are doing exactly what you tell me not to do. Eyes have evolved to detect light, but this is not the issue. In either version, light is being detected.

We have no other means or mechanism for seeing the world . Nothing to suggest some faculty of instant vision may bypass the very physical process that makes vision possible.

It makes no sense. There is no way for it to work, and what is understood about vision rules it out.

No way jose. You are not getting it because you don't want to get it.

If light is being detected, as you acknowledge, the light being detected had a travel time between the object emitting light and the eye.
natu
And as the light emitted by the object provides information about the object, we see the object as it was when the light was emitted by the object.

That's how vision works.

It's not light that is being detected first. It's the Sun that is seen because it meets the requirements of sight (i.e., it is luminous and large enough to be seen) without any travel time. Therefore, his claim still holds. The object is seen, not the other way around (i.e., the image). So, as the earth rotates, when the Sun comes into view, it is not seen in the past because it's not the delayed light that we are detecting after 8.5 minutes. The shadow is there naturally because the light is blocked but it doesn't prove that we see in delayed time. Bilby and you are just repeating the very thing that is being challenged.

Your laughter Pood is nothing more than a kneejerk response. It doesn't mean anything other than a fear that he may be right.

 

[bilby]

The eyes evolved to detect light and transmit the information to the brain to represent in conscious visual form.

You are doing exactly what you tell me not to do. Eyes have evolved to detect light, but this is not the issue. In either version, light is being detected.

We have no other means or mechanism for seeing the world . Nothing to suggest some faculty of instant vision may bypass the very physical process that makes vision possible.

It makes no sense. There is no way for it to work, and what is understood about vision rules it out.

No way jose. You are not getting it because you don't want to get it.

If light is being detected, as you acknowledge, the light being detected had a travel time between the object emitting light and the eye.
natu
And as the light emitted by the object provides information about the object, we see the object as it was when the light was emitted by the object.

That's how vision works.

It's not light that is being detected first. It's the Sun that is seen because it meets the requirements of sight (i.e., it is luminous and large enough to be seen) without any travel time. Therefore, his claim still holds. The object is seen, not the other way around (i.e., the image). So, as the earth rotates, when the Sun comes into view, it is not seen in the past because it's not the delayed light that we are detecting after 8.5 minutes. The shadow is there naturally because the light is blocked but it doesn't prove that we see in delayed time. Bilby and you are just repeating the very thing that is being challenged.

It doesn't make a shred of difference to my experiment, whether we see the Sun through its light, or some other means.

If we see the Sun in real time, and the light (that casts a shadow when blocked by the post) with an 8.5 minute delay, then the Sun will not line up with the shadow.

This is true no matter how we come to see the Sun; It is solely a consequence of seeing it instantaneously.

We see the shadow of the post cast by light that left the Sun 8.5 minutes ago.

If we see the Sun with no delay, then it will be four solar diameters out of line with the shadow. No matter how we manage to see it instantly.

Do you see that, when you do this test?

 

[peacegirl]

The eyes evolved to detect light and transmit the information to the brain to represent in conscious visual form.

You are doing exactly what you tell me not to do. Eyes have evolved to detect light, but this is not the issue. In either version, light is being detected.

We have no other means or mechanism for seeing the world . Nothing to suggest some faculty of instant vision may bypass the very physical process that makes vision possible.

It makes no sense. There is no way for it to work, and what is understood about vision rules it out.

No way jose. You are not getting it because you don't want to get it.

If light is being detected, as you acknowledge, the light being detected had a travel time between the object emitting light and the eye.
natu
And as the light emitted by the object provides information about the object, we see the object as it was when the light was emitted by the object.

That's how vision works.

It's not light that is being detected first. It's the Sun that is seen because it meets the requirements of sight (i.e., it is luminous and large enough to be seen) without any travel time. Therefore, his claim still holds. The object is seen, not the other way around (i.e., the image). So, as the earth rotates, when the Sun comes into view, it is not seen in the past because it's not the delayed light that we are detecting after 8.5 minutes. The shadow is there naturally because the light is blocked but it doesn't prove that we see in delayed time. Bilby and you are just repeating the very thing that is being challenged.

It doesn't make a shred of difference to my experiment, whether we see the Sun through its light, or some other means.

If we see the Sun in real time, and the light (that casts a shadow when blocked by the post) with an 8.5 minute delay, then the Sun will not line up with the shadow.

This is true no matter how we come to see the Sun; It is solely a consequence of seeing it instantaneously.

No Bilby, that is the very thing being contested. You can't use this as proof to confirm anything.

We see the shadow of the post cast by light that left the Sun 8.5 minutes ago.

If we see the Sun with no delay, then it will be four solar diameters out of line with the shadow. No matter how we manage to see it instantly.

Do you see that, when you do this test?

I never said that we don't see a shadow. The test is accurate, but you are missing that this does not prove that the shadow comes from delayed light.

 

[DBT]

Light isn't "delayed," it has a speed and travel time. What we see is determined by the information acquired by the eyes and brain at the end of its journey, not at the start.

 

[DBT]

The eyes evolved to detect light and transmit the information to the brain to represent in conscious visual form.

You are doing exactly what you tell me not to do. Eyes have evolved to detect light, but this is not the issue. In either version, light is being detected.

We have no other means or mechanism for seeing the world . Nothing to suggest some faculty of instant vision may bypass the very physical process that makes vision possible.

It makes no sense. There is no way for it to work, and what is understood about vision rules it out.

No way jose. You are not getting it because you don't want to get it.

If light is being detected, as you acknowledge, the light being detected had a travel time between the object emitting light and the eye.
natu
And as the light emitted by the object provides information about the object, we see the object as it was when the light was emitted by the object.

That's how vision works.

It's not light that is being detected first. It's the Sun that is seen because it meets the requirements of sight (i.e., it is luminous and large enough to be seen) without any travel time. Therefore, his claim still holds. The object is seen, not the other way around (i.e., the image). So, as the earth rotates, when the Sun comes into view, it is not seen in the past because it's not the delayed light that we are detecting after 8.5 minutes. The shadow is there naturally because the light is blocked but it doesn't prove that we see in delayed time. Bilby and you are just repeating the very thing that is being challenged.

The sun is luminous because it radiates light, the very light acquired by our eyes and brain that is being generated as vision.

 

[pood]

The eyes evolved to detect light and transmit the information to the brain to represent in conscious visual form.

You are doing exactly what you tell me not to do. Eyes have evolved to detect light, but this is not the issue. In either version, light is being detected.

We have no other means or mechanism for seeing the world . Nothing to suggest some faculty of instant vision may bypass the very physical process that makes vision possible.

It makes no sense. There is no way for it to work, and what is understood about vision rules it out.

No way jose. You are not getting it because you don't want to get it.

If light is being detected, as you acknowledge, the light being detected had a travel time between the object emitting light and the eye.
natu
And as the light emitted by the object provides information about the object, we see the object as it was when the light was emitted by the object.

That's how vision works.

It's not light that is being detected first. It's the Sun that is seen because it meets the requirements of sight (i.e., it is luminous and large enough to be seen) without any travel time. Therefore, his claim still holds. The object is seen, not the other way around (i.e., the image). So, as the earth rotates, when the Sun comes into view, it is not seen in the past because it's not the delayed light that we are detecting after 8.5 minutes. The shadow is there naturally because the light is blocked but it doesn't prove that we see in delayed time. Bilby and you are just repeating the very thing that is being challenged.

It doesn't make a shred of difference to my experiment, whether we see the Sun through its light, or some other means.

If we see the Sun in real time, and the light (that casts a shadow when blocked by the post) with an 8.5 minute delay, then the Sun will not line up with the shadow.

This is true no matter how we come to see the Sun; It is solely a consequence of seeing it instantaneously.

No Bilby, that is the very thing being contested. You can't use this as proof to confirm anything.

We see the shadow of the post cast by light that left the Sun 8.5 minutes ago.

If we see the Sun with no delay, then it will be four solar diameters out of line with the shadow. No matter how we manage to see it instantly.

Do you see that, when you do this test?

I never said that we don't see a shadow. The test is accurate, but you are missing that this does not prove that the shadow comes from delayed light.

Your own model mandates that the shadow comes from delayed light!

 

[peacegirl]

Light isn't "delayed," it has a speed and travel time. What we see is determined by the information acquired by the eyes and brain at the end of its journey, not at the start.

That's exactly what is being refuted. To just keeping it over and over doesn't prove anything.

 

[peacegirl]

The eyes evolved to detect light and transmit the information to the brain to represent in conscious visual form.

You are doing exactly what you tell me not to do. Eyes have evolved to detect light, but this is not the issue. In either version, light is being detected.

We have no other means or mechanism for seeing the world . Nothing to suggest some faculty of instant vision may bypass the very physical process that makes vision possible.

It makes no sense. There is no way for it to work, and what is understood about vision rules it out.

No way jose. You are not getting it because you don't want to get it.

If light is being detected, as you acknowledge, the light being detected had a travel time between the object emitting light and the eye.
natu
And as the light emitted by the object provides information about the object, we see the object as it was when the light was emitted by the object.

That's how vision works.

It's not light that is being detected first. It's the Sun that is seen because it meets the requirements of sight (i.e., it is luminous and large enough to be seen) without any travel time. Therefore, his claim still holds. The object is seen, not the other way around (i.e., the image). So, as the earth rotates, when the Sun comes into view, it is not seen in the past because it's not the delayed light that we are detecting after 8.5 minutes. The shadow is there naturally because the light is blocked but it doesn't prove that we see in delayed time. Bilby and you are just repeating the very thing that is being challenged.

It doesn't make a shred of difference to my experiment, whether we see the Sun through its light, or some other means.

If we see the Sun in real time, and the light (that casts a shadow when blocked by the post) with an 8.5 minute delay, then the Sun will not line up with the shadow.

This is true no matter how we come to see the Sun; It is solely a consequence of seeing it instantaneously.

No Bilby, that is the very thing being contested. You can't use this as proof to confirm anything.

We see the shadow of the post cast by light that left the Sun 8.5 minutes ago.

If we see the Sun with no delay, then it will be four solar diameters out of line with the shadow. No matter how we manage to see it instantly.

Do you see that, when you do this test?

I never said that we don't see a shadow. The test is accurate, but you are missing that this does not prove that the shadow comes from delayed light.

Your own model mandates that the shadow comes from delayed light!

No it doesn't, not at all. If we see an object, it's because it is either magnified by a telescope that brings it into our field of view, a rotation of the Earth that allows the object to be within our field of view, or each other because light is present to allow for sight. The shadow is

The eyes evolved to detect light and transmit the information to the brain to represent in conscious visual form.

You are doing exactly what you tell me not to do. Eyes have evolved to detect light, but this is not the issue. In either version, light is being detected.

We have no other means or mechanism for seeing the world . Nothing to suggest some faculty of instant vision may bypass the very physical process that makes vision possible.

It makes no sense. There is no way for it to work, and what is understood about vision rules it out.

No way jose. You are not getting it because you don't want to get it.

If light is being detected, as you acknowledge, the light being detected had a travel time between the object emitting light and the eye.
natu
And as the light emitted by the object provides information about the object, we see the object as it was when the light was emitted by the object.

That's how vision works.

It's not light that is being detected first. It's the Sun that is seen because it meets the requirements of sight (i.e., it is luminous and large enough to be seen) without any travel time. Therefore, his claim still holds. The object is seen, not the other way around (i.e., the image). So, as the earth rotates, when the Sun comes into view, it is not seen in the past because it's not the delayed light that we are detecting after 8.5 minutes. The shadow is there naturally because the light is blocked but it doesn't prove that we see in delayed time. Bilby and you are just repeating the very thing that is being challenged.

It doesn't make a shred of difference to my experiment, whether we see the Sun through its light, or some other means.

If we see the Sun in real time, and the light (that casts a shadow when blocked by the post) with an 8.5 minute delay, then the Sun will not line up with the shadow.

This is true no matter how we come to see the Sun; It is solely a consequence of seeing it instantaneously.

No Bilby, that is the very thing being contested. You can't use this as proof to confirm anything.

We see the shadow of the post cast by light that left the Sun 8.5 minutes ago.

If we see the Sun with no delay, then it will be four solar diameters out of line with the shadow. No matter how we manage to see it instantly.

Do you see that, when you do this test?

I never said that we don't see a shadow. The test is accurate, but you are missing that this does not prove that the shadow comes from delayed light.

Your own model mandates that the shadow comes from delayed light!

Not at all Pood. The shadow is there because the light is there, allowing us to see the shadow. You are thinking that there is some kind of gap between the light and the shadow in real time vision. That is a false notion. Your version does not prove that we are detecting the image of the Sun in the delayed light. That is exactly what is being refuted.

 

[pood]

Your own model mandates that the shadow comes from delayed light!

Not at all Pood. The shadow is there because the light is there, allowing us to see the shadow. You are thinking that there is some kind of gap between the light and the shadow in real time vision. That is a false notion. Your version does not prove that we are detecting the image of the Sun in the delayed light. That is exactly what is being refuted.

You said that we see the sun in real time, but that we have to wait for the light from the sun to arrive 8.5 minutes later to see everything around us.

This means that when the sun comes up in the morning, we would see it in real time, but not the ground or anything around us until 8.5 minutes have passed. This is not what we observe.

This also means that the direction of shadows would be out of sync with the sun. This is also not what we observe.

Your own model logically entails that we see two things that in fact we do not see!