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

[peacegirl]

Sorry, equivocation won't help convince anyone that instant vision/the 'object reveals the object' independently of light is worthy of consideration.

DBT, I don't know what to say at this point. I told you that he had reasons for making this claim, but you won't even look at them. How can you say I'm equivocating when I've been very upfront and transparent?

There are no possible reasons for vision working without the need of light.

Can you see objects in a dark room before the light is turned on?

Of course not. It never happens, it can't happen because the eyes evolved to detect light.

Because it cannot happen, you can't see without light, the claim that the "object reveals the object" is demonstrably false.

Where have you been DBT? How many times was it said that there has to be light at the retina to see. This model does not say we can see without light. I think what continues to confuse you is that you don’t get how seeing without a delay is possible. But if efferent vision is true, it is most certainly possible. Light reveals objects but light does not bounce off of objects and take the image (wavelength) with it. IOW, there is nowhere in the universe we would see Columbus discovering America (for example) due to light arriving. This model does not violate physics in any way.

 

[DBT]

Sorry, equivocation won't help convince anyone that instant vision/the 'object reveals the object' independently of light is worthy of consideration.

DBT, I don't know what to say at this point. I told you that he had reasons for making this claim, but you won't even look at them. How can you say I'm equivocating when I've been very upfront and transparent?

There are no possible reasons for vision working without the need of light.

Can you see objects in a dark room before the light is turned on?

Of course not. It never happens, it can't happen because the eyes evolved to detect light.

Because it cannot happen, you can't see without light, the claim that the "object reveals the object" is demonstrably false.

Where have you been DBT? How many times was it said that there has to be light at the retina to see. This model does not say we can see without light. I think what continues to confuse you is that you don’t get how seeing without a delay is possible. But if efferent vision is true, it is most certainly possible. Light reveals objects but light does not bounce off of objects and take the image (wavelength with it. This model does not violate physics at all.

There lies your problem, light is in fact necessary for vision and light in fact has a measurable speed, and as light in fact takes time to travel between its source and the eyes, we see the object at the time the light was radiated or reflected, and not a case of the "object reveals the object/instant vision," which makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[peacegirl]

Sorry, equivocation won't help convince anyone that instant vision/the 'object reveals the object' independently of light is worthy of consideration.

DBT, I don't know what to say at this point. I told you that he had reasons for making this claim, but you won't even look at them. How can you say I'm equivocating when I've been very upfront and transparent?

There are no possible reasons for vision working without the need of light.

Can you see objects in a dark room before the light is turned on?

Of course not. It never happens, it can't happen because the eyes evolved to detect light.

Because it cannot happen, you can't see without light, the claim that the "object reveals the object" is demonstrably false.

Where have you been DBT? How many times was it said that there has to be light at the retina to see. This model does not say we can see without light. I think what continues to confuse you is that you don’t get how seeing without a delay is possible. But if efferent vision is true, it is most certainly possible. Light reveals objects but light does not bounce off of objects and take the image (wavelength with it. This model does not violate physics at all.

There lies your problem, light is in fact necessary for vision and light in fact has a measurable speed, and as light in fact takes time to travel between its source and the eyes, we see the object at the time the light was radiated or reflected, and not a case of the "object reveals the object/instant vision," which makes no sense whatsoever.

This version of sight does not deny that light travels at a measurable speed. But if it turns out that efferent vision is true, it is important to try to see how seeing in real time is possible. That’s why I’m trying to get you to imagine looking at the object, and if it can be seen it is because a mirror image (for lack of a better way to explain this) would be at the retina. No gap, no time lapse, no magic.

 

[DBT]

It makes no sense, there is no real time mirror image of objects in the retina. In a dark room you can flip the light switch on and off, you see, you can't t see, you see, you can't see.....where this is true because the eyes are detecting the light reflecting off the objects in the room when the light is on, but not when it is off, where there are no mirror images in the retina, just whatever light the eyes detect.

 

[peacegirl]

It makes no sense, there is no real time mirror image of objects in the retina. In a dark room you can flip the light switch on and off, you see, you can't t see, you see, you can't see.....where this is true because the eyes are detecting the light reflecting off the objects in the room when the light is on, but not when it is off, where there are no mirror images in the retina, just whatever light the eyes detect.

What does this example have to do with the negation of seeing in real time? He made a distinction as to why we would see the sun turned on before we would see each other until 81/2 minutes later for a reason. Maybe you missed that part. It is obvious we need light to see. But to say that light is reflecting (or bouncing) off of objects and traveling with the image embedded in the light (the object’s wavelength) remains a scientific “theory.”

I just lowered the price of the ebook to $.99 on Amazon. You can’t get a better deal than that. I think you would get a lot out of it, even if you disagree with his version of sight. At least you would know where he’s coming from.

 

[DBT]

It makes no sense, there is no real time mirror image of objects in the retina. In a dark room you can flip the light switch on and off, you see, you can't t see, you see, you can't see.....where this is true because the eyes are detecting the light reflecting off the objects in the room when the light is on, but not when it is off, where there are no mirror images in the retina, just whatever light the eyes detect.

What does this example have to do with the negation of seeing in real time? He made a distinction as to why we would see the sun turned on before we would see each other until 81/2 minutes later for a reason. Maybe you missed that part. It is obvious we need light to see. But to say that light is reflecting (or bouncing) off of objects and traveling with the image embedded in the light (the object’s wavelength) remains a scientific “theory.”

I just lowered the price of the ebook to $.99 on Amazon. You can’t get a better deal than that. I think you would get a lot out of it, even if you disagree with his version of sight. At least you would know where he’s coming from.

It has everything to do with how our eyes detect light and acquire information for the brain to process and generate vision.

It's absurd to acknowledge that we need light to see, then object to the fact that light does reflect from objects, which illuminates the room or environment and provides the very light that we need to see.

You are presenting a contradiction, an idea that can't possibly explain the physics of light and vision.

 

[peacegirl]

Sorry, equivocation won't help convince anyone that instant vision/the 'object reveals the object' independently of light is worthy of consideration.

DBT, I don't know what to say at this point. I told you that he had reasons for making this claim, but you won't even look at them. How can you say I'm equivocating when I've been very upfront and transparent?

There are no possible reasons for vision working without the need of light.

Can you see objects in a dark room before the light is turned on?

Of course not. It never happens, it can't happen because the eyes evolved to detect light.

Because it cannot happen, you can't see without light, the claim that the "object reveals the object" is demonstrably false.

You have a blind spot. I'm really sorry.

 

[bilby]

Why is there such denial that science could be wrong?

There is no such denial. Science could well be wrong. Your internally contradictory ideas are, however, certainly wrong, and logically they will necessarily still be wrong, even if the scientific ideas are also wrong.

There's no need to compare your ideas with "science"; They fail all on their own.

We test ideas against reality, not against any preconceptions (scientific or otherwise). Science may or may not agree with your ideas; But it matters not one whit. When reality disagrees, you are wrong, end of story.

 

[peacegirl]

Why is there such denial that science could be wrong?

There is no such denial. Science could well be wrong. Your internally contradictory ideas are, however, certainly wrong, and logically they will nevessarily still be wrong, even if the scientific ideas are also wrong.

There's no need to compare your ideas with "science"; They fail all on their own.

We test ideas against reality, not against any preconceptions (scientific or otherwise). Science may or may not agree with your ideas; But it matters not one whit. When reality disagrees, you are wrong, end of story.

The thing is, reality has not disagreed, so he was not wrong by a longshot. Repeating the same thing over and over as if it's fact does not work against reality either. It will take more than this thread to determine if his claim has any merit.

 

[pood]

It makes no sense, there is no real time mirror image of objects in the retina. In a dark room you can flip the light switch on and off, you see, you can't t see, you see, you can't see.....where this is true because the eyes are detecting the light reflecting off the objects in the room when the light is on, but not when it is off, where there are no mirror images in the retina, just whatever light the eyes detect.

What does this example have to do with the negation of seeing in real time? He made a distinction as to why we would see the sun turned on before we would see each other until 81/2 minutes later for a reason. Maybe you missed that part. It is obvious we need light to see. But to say that light is reflecting (or bouncing) off of objects and traveling with the image embedded in the light (the object’s wavelength) remains a scientific “theory.”

Honestly, do you even read what people write? Have you ever?

Scientists DO NOT SAY that light travels with an image “embedded” in it. The image is made in the brain!

And light does not carry an “an object’s wavelength” whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. It HAS a wavelength. (So do objects, for that matter, but light does not “carry” those wavelengths.)

Your ignorance is just embarrassing and astounding.

 

[bilby]

Your ignorance is just embarrassing and astounding.

And, worst of all, deliberate and intentional.

 

[peacegirl]

It makes no sense, there is no real time mirror image of objects in the retina. In a dark room you can flip the light switch on and off, you see, you can't t see, you see, you can't see.....where this is true because the eyes are detecting the light reflecting off the objects in the room when the light is on, but not when it is off, where there are no mirror images in the retina, just whatever light the eyes detect.

What does this example have to do with the negation of seeing in real time? He made a distinction as to why we would see the sun turned on before we would see each other until 81/2 minutes later for a reason. Maybe you missed that part. It is obvious we need light to see. But to say that light is reflecting (or bouncing) off of objects and traveling with the image embedded in the light (the object’s wavelength) remains a scientific “theory.”

Honestly, do you even read what people write? Have you ever?

Scientists DO NOT SAY that light travels with an image “embedded” in it. The image is made in the brain!

And light does not carry an “an object’s wavelength” whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. It HAS a wavelength. (So do objects, for that matter, but light does not “carry” those wavelengths.)

Your ignorance is just embarrassing and astounding.

You know exactly what I meant Pood!

 

[DBT]

What you mean does not relate to how the world works, that's the problem.

Believe whatever you like, but the idea of instant vision isn't going to convince many people, if any.

 

[peacegirl]

What you mean does not relate to how the world works, that's the problem.

Believe whatever you like, but the idea of instant vision isn't going to convince many people, if any.

When you say instant vision it sounds kooky because you’re leaving out light as a medium. I still wonder why you won’t even look at his observations. I’m sure you won’t agree, but at least you’ll see that he didn’t pull his claim out of thin air.

 

[DBT]

What you mean does not relate to how the world works, that's the problem.

Believe whatever you like, but the idea of instant vision isn't going to convince many people, if any.

When you say instant vision it sounds kooky because you’re leaving out light as a medium. I still wonder why you won’t even look at his observations. I’m sure you won’t agree, but at least you’ll see that he didn’t pull his claim out of thin air.

What exactly do you mean by "light as a medium?"

 

[peacegirl]

What you mean does not relate to how the world works, that's the problem.

Believe whatever you like, but the idea of instant vision isn't going to convince many people, if any.

When you say instant vision it sounds kooky because you’re leaving out light as a medium. I still wonder why you won’t even look at his observations. I’m sure you won’t agree, but at least you’ll see that he didn’t pull his claim out of thin air.

What exactly do you mean by "light as a medium?"

A necessary condition of sight. Light does not require a medium like sound to travel through.

 

[DBT]

What you mean does not relate to how the world works, that's the problem.

Believe whatever you like, but the idea of instant vision isn't going to convince many people, if any.

When you say instant vision it sounds kooky because you’re leaving out light as a medium. I still wonder why you won’t even look at his observations. I’m sure you won’t agree, but at least you’ll see that he didn’t pull his claim out of thin air.

What exactly do you mean by "light as a medium?"

A necessary condition of sight. Light does not require a medium like sound to travel through.

How does that relate to what I said? And how does it relate to the idea of instant vision?

 

[peacegirl]

What you mean does not relate to how the world works, that's the problem.

Believe whatever you like, but the idea of instant vision isn't going to convince many people, if any.

When you say instant vision it sounds kooky because you’re leaving out light as a medium. I still wonder why you won’t even look at his observations. I’m sure you won’t agree, but at least you’ll see that he didn’t pull his claim out of thin air.

What exactly do you mean by "light as a medium?"

A necessary condition of sight. Light does not require a medium like sound to travel through.

How does that relate to what I said? And how does it relate to the idea of instant vision?

Instant vision does not sound legit as much as seeing in real time. It has a poor connotation.

 

[DBT]

What you mean does not relate to how the world works, that's the problem.

Believe whatever you like, but the idea of instant vision isn't going to convince many people, if any.

When you say instant vision it sounds kooky because you’re leaving out light as a medium. I still wonder why you won’t even look at his observations. I’m sure you won’t agree, but at least you’ll see that he didn’t pull his claim out of thin air.

What exactly do you mean by "light as a medium?"

A necessary condition of sight. Light does not require a medium like sound to travel through.

How does that relate to what I said? And how does it relate to the idea of instant vision?

Instant vision does not sound legit as much as seeing in real time. It has a poor connotation.

How so? If we are seeing objects without a light travel time delay, we are seeing things instantly.

Given that our eyes demonstrably detect light that is either being emitted or reflected, how this is supposed to work has not been explained.

 

[bilby]

"real time" isn't actually a thing; Time is dependent on the reference frame of the observer.

But as all humans share damn close to the exact same reference frame, dragging this discussion kicking and screaming into the twentieth century probably isn't necessary or helpful.