• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

Bullshit. Go tattle tale to the moderators then.

Already have. As to the rest, I’m not going down these rabbit holes with you. I’ve said my piece. I’m right, and you and DBT are wrong.
No, we are not and thank God we aren't. If we had free will, we could hurt others regardless, but this is impossible.
Maybe you can convince him that the eyes is not a sense organ, that if God turned on the sun at noon people would see it in the sky immediately, but nothing else for eight and a half minutes, that in the new world young people will go around scantily clad and fall in love with each other’s sex organs and get hitched for life.
How can we be hitched for life when marriage in the new world will not require a legal contract? You really don't know what you're talking about. When he extended the knowledge of "no blame" into marriage, he was showing how divorce often occurs because people often do and say things unwittingly that hurt each other. When these are removed, marriage is improved. And as far as the eyes, I'm not getting into this other than to say his observations were spot on. He was right when he said if the sun were to be turned on at noon, people would see it immediately BECAUSE OF HOW THE EYES WORK. The requirements of size and brightness would have been met. People wouldn't see each other (even though they were in the same room) until 8 minutes later because there was no light present in which to see (it would still be dark; therefore, the requirements for sight would not have been met). What you're doing is picturing light that is traveling from the sun to the eyes, which takes 8 minutes. You don't think that Lessans' explanation makes sense because it would cause a gap between the Sun's light that is traveling to Earth, and the eyes, so in your mind we wouldn't see the sun first. But this is false if you understand that the eyes are efferent, not afferent. If he is correct, it's the exact opposite of what you think is happening. You're not following his reasoning, which doesn't surprise me.
As to the military enforcement thing, it was established at FF that you have the corrupted text and ChuckF has the Authentic Text, of which he is the True Steward. You took the military enforcement bit out of the corrupted text, but it’s in the Authentic Text, along with all the other stuff you took out about the Ur Penis and Harry licking out juicy, juicy C’s.
I took nothing out. You listened to these trolls on ff and followed suit. This discovery is about the freedom to be able to do whatever we want, as long as no one is being hurt by our actions. This is all made up to hurt the author. I have all of his books, and not one of them mentions military force. You are spreading disinformation.

This is what he wrote:

“Before we get started, I would like to know if dirty words will be used in the new world?”
“If you can tell me the difference between vagina and cunt, penis and cock, sexual intercourse and fuck, I will answer your question, Charlie.”
“The one group of words pertains to an objective description, while the other is subjective and emotionally involves the user.”
“That was pretty good, Larry.”
“Now tell me, is anybody being hurt by the use of these words?”
“Certain people are judged very critically if they are involved in them and other things, like the President and his family. They have to adhere to the strictest protocol, and if it was known that they used such language or looked at dirty books, the people would look down on them, perhaps not even vote for them.”
“In other words, the hurt is this judging of what is right for others, which has already been established as wrong. Consequently, the moment people are compelled to refrain from criticizing others when there is no one being hurt — because all criticism is a form of hurt for which they know they will not be blamed — then the real hurt, not these words, must come to an end. But you will understand this much better when I get to education and discuss other words… the ones that really hurt.
 
Last edited:
He was right when he said if the sun were to be turned on at noon, people would see it immediately BECAUSE OF HOW THE EYES WORK.
No, he wasn't. That's blithering nonsense.
The requirements of size and brightness would have been met.
Wha?
People wouldn't see each other (even though they were in the same room) until 8 minutes later because there was no light present in which to see (it would still be dark; therefore, the requirements for sight would not have been met).
Yes. And it would therefore be absurd to suggest that the Sun would be visible.
What you're doing is picturing light that is traveling from the sun to the eyes, which takes 8 minutes.
Yes.
You don't think that Lessans' explanation makes sense because it would cause a gap between the Sun's light that is traveling to Earth, and the eyes, so in your mind we wouldn't see the sun first.
Not just "in his mind"; That's what actually happens in actual real reality, because physics.
But this is false if you understand that the eyes are efferent, not afferent.
No, they aren't.

The idea that the eyes illuminate the things we look at was quite popular in the pre-scientific era. But, like phlogiston, and the flat Earth, and the young Earth, it was a crackpot idea that was completely wrong, and that has been soundly falsified.

Eyes detect light, and transfer the pattern of light that impacts the retina, to the brain, which processes those patterns into a visual image, with significant modifications. What we think we see is not what we see; But it's based on a true story. To reject the idea that the eye is a sensory organ is absurd to the point of insanity, given access to modern physics, photo-chemistry, and neurology.
 
He was right when he said if the sun were to be turned on at noon, people would see it immediately BECAUSE OF HOW THE EYES WORK.
No, he wasn't. That's blithering nonsense.
Sorry, but if his observations were right, then it's not blithering nonsense.
The requirements of size and brightness would have been met.
Wha?
Yes, those requirements must be met for sight.
People wouldn't see each other (even though they were in the same room) until 8 minutes later because there was no light present in which to see (it would still be dark; therefore, the requirements for sight would not have been met).
Yes. And it would therefore be absurd to suggest that the Sun would be visible.
Because you don't understand the difference between afferent and efferent sight.
What you're doing is picturing light that is traveling from the sun to the eyes, which takes 8 minutes.
Yes.
And that is why people could not see each other for 8 minutes, but his claim only makes sense if he is correct about the eyes. It doesn't change anything in regard to light and physics.
You don't think that Lessans' explanation makes sense because it would cause a gap between the Sun's light that is traveling to Earth, and the eyes, so in your mind we wouldn't see the sun first.
Not just "in his mind"; That's what actually happens in actual real reality, because physics.
This doesn't change physics. It just changes the direction we see, which means we see in real time, not delayed time. Don't get mad at the messenger.
But this is false if you understand that the eyes are efferent, not afferent.
No, they aren't.
How do you know?
The idea that the eyes illuminate the things we look at was quite popular in the pre-scientific era. But, like phlogiston, and the flat Earth, and the young Earth, it was a crackpot idea that was completely wrong, and that has been soundly falsified.
Huh? This has nothing whatsoever to do with the eyes illuminating the things we look at. What are you talking about?
Eyes detect light, and transfer the pattern of light that impacts the retina, to the brain, which processes those patterns into a visual image, with significant modifications.
That is correct. The only thing that is being challenged is the belief that we see in delayed time (other than the milliseconds it takes for us to interpret what we see). It has nothing to do with the transfer of the pattern of light from the retina to the brain through the optic nerve for interpretation. Nothing changes there.
What we think we see is not what we see; But it's based on a true story. To reject the idea that the eye is a sensory organ is absurd to the point of insanity, given access to modern physics, photo-chemistry, and neurology.
I cannot paste the entire chapter, but this is a beginning to give you an idea as to why he believed we see in real time. This is just the first few paragraphs. I'm sure you'll be up in arms and reject him because the science is settled, right?

It is an undeniable fact that light travels at a high rate of speed, but great confusion arises when this is likened to sound, as you will soon have verified. The reason we say man has taste, touch, smell, sight, and hearing is because these describe individual differences that exist, but when we say that these five are senses, we are assuming the eyes function like the other four, which they do not. When you learn what this single misconception has done to the world of knowledge, you won’t believe it at first. So, without further delay, I shall prove something never before understood by man, but before I open this door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ to show you all the knowledge hidden behind it, it is absolutely necessary to prove exactly why the eyes are not a sense organ. Now tell me, did it ever occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a baby that no object is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of sounds, tastes, touches, or smells can get an immediate reaction since the nerve endings are being struck by something external.

“But doesn’t light cause the pupils to dilate and contract depending on the intensity?”

That is absolutely true, but this does not cause; it is a condition of sight. We simply need light to see, just as other things are a condition of hearing. If there was no light, we could not see, and if there was nothing to carry the sound waves to our ears, we could not hear. The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums, whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of light to impinge on our optic nerve. Did you ever wonder why the eyes of a newborn baby cannot focus the eyes to see what exists around him, although the other four senses are in full working order?

“I understand from a doctor that the muscles of the eyes have not yet developed sufficiently to allow this focusing.”


And he believes this because this is what he was taught, but it is not the truth. In fact, if a newborn infant was placed in a soundproof room that would eliminate the possibility of sense experience which is a prerequisite of sight — even though his eyes were wide open — he could never have the desire to see.

<snip?

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes are the windows of the brain, through which experience is gained not by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic nerve but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience. If a lion roared in that room, a newborn baby would hear the sound and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ. The brain records various sounds, tastes, touches, and smells in relation to the objects from which these experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This desire is an electric current that turns on or focuses the eyes to see that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception — in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But in order to look, there must be a desire to see. The child becomes aware that something will soon follow something else, which then arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a potato a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called a sense organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an inaccurate observation that was never corrected.”

“Well, I say, what difference does it make whether we have four senses and a pair of eyes instead of five senses? I certainly don’t feel any different, and I still see you just as before.”

“Once it is understood that something existing in the external world makes contact with the brain through the four senses, but that the brain contacts the various objects by peering through the eyes, it makes a huge difference, and many things can be clarified.

Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted that five senses were equally scientific, made the statement (which my friend referred to and still exists in our encyclopedias) that if we could sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the earth, we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is not a scientific fact?”

Again, my reply was, “Are you positive because you were told this, or positive because you, yourself, saw the relations revealing this truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on the chopping block to show me how positive you really are?”

“I am not that positive, but this is what I was taught.”

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

<snip>

If it were possible to transmit a television picture from the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into America for the first time because the picture would be in the process of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But objects do not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge on the optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them, and it takes the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun, or distant stars. To sum this up, just as we have often observed that a marching band is out of step with the beat when seen from a distance because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been taken, so likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope and hear his voice on the radio, we would see his lips move instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric image of his lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this distance. Because Aristotle assumed the eyes functioned like the other four and the scientific community assumed he was right, it made all their reasoning fit what appeared to be undeniable. According to their thinking, how else was it possible for knowledge to reach us through our eyes when they were compelled to believe that man had five senses? Were they given any choice? Let me prove in another way that the eyes are not a sense organ.

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight distance away, cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense, if an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic nerve, then he would recognize his master instantly, as he can from sound and smell. In fact, if he was vicious and accustomed to attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his sense of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way of identifying his master’s face even if every feature was lit up like a Christmas tree and would attack. This is why he cannot recognize his master from a picture or statue because nothing from the external world is striking the optic nerve. The question of how man is able to accomplish this continues to confound our scientists. The answer will be given shortly; however, let me make one thing absolutely clear. The knowledge revealed thus far, although also hidden behind the door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ is not what I referred to as being of significance. Frankly, it makes no difference to me that the eyes are not a sense organ, that our scientists got confused because of it, and that a dog cannot identify his master from a picture. What does mean a great deal to me when the purpose of this book is to remove all evil from our lives (which word is symbolic of any kind of hurt that exists in human relations) is to demonstrate how certain words have absolutely no foundation in reality yet they have caused the worst suffering and unhappiness imaginable. Let me explain.
 
Last edited:
He was right when he said if the sun were to be turned on at noon, people would see it immediately BECAUSE OF HOW THE EYES WORK.
No, he wasn't. That's blithering nonsense.
The requirements of size and brightness would have been met.
Wha?
People wouldn't see each other (even though they were in the same room) until 8 minutes later because there was no light present in which to see (it would still be dark; therefore, the requirements for sight would not have been met).
Yes. And it would therefore be absurd to suggest that the Sun would be visible.
What you're doing is picturing light that is traveling from the sun to the eyes, which takes 8 minutes.
Yes.
You don't think that Lessans' explanation makes sense because it would cause a gap between the Sun's light that is traveling to Earth, and the eyes, so in your mind we wouldn't see the sun first.
Not just "in his mind"; That's what actually happens in actual real reality, because physics.
But this is false if you understand that the eyes are efferent, not afferent.
No, they aren't.

The idea that the eyes illuminate the things we look at was quite popular in the pre-scientific era. But, like phlogiston, and the flat Earth, and the young Earth, it was a crackpot idea that was completely wrong, and that has been soundly falsified.

Eyes detect light, and transfer the pattern of light that impacts the retina, to the brain, which processes those patterns into a visual image, with significant modifications. What we think we see is not what we see; But it's based on a true story. To reject the idea that the eye is a sensory organ is absurd to the point of insanity, given access to modern physics, photo-chemistry, and neurology.

Welcome to the Rabbit Hole. ;)
 
This doesn't change physics. It just changes the direction we see, which means we see in real time, not delayed time. Don't get mad at the messenger.
I am not mad; I am just wondering why the messenger is so obviously wrong about something so fundamental.

The "direction we see" is that photons enter the eye and stimulate nerves that send information to the brain. Nothing exits the eye; Nothing flows in the otber direction. At all.

And nothing happens in real time; All observations are, necessarily, of the past. Visual observations of nearby objects are of the very recent past, but it is the past nonetheless.
 
How do you know?
The same way I know anything - from the application of the scientific method to the inputs from my senses.

There is no hypothesis consistent with the rest of scientific knowledge, under which the hypothesis that sight is efferent does not lead to contradictions and/or falsifying observations.
 
The idea that there are five senses is deeply wrong; It's NOT a scientific position, it's a folk tale. Literally nobody who studies senses scientifically, has thought that there were five of them, for hundreds of years now.

There are more than five senses; You can demonstrate this with ease - close your eyes, then try to put your right index finger an inch in front of your nose. Now, open your eyes, and check where your finger ended up. It is exactly where you wanted it to be - and you knew it before you opened your eyes, despite the fact that you could not see, hear, taste, or smell it, and it wasn't touching you. The sense you just demonstrated is called "proprioception", and it's just as much a sense as the traditional five.

There are between twenty and forty senses, depending on how you define the "difference" between various senses.

It may surprise you to hear it, but we have found out lots of new stuff since Aristotle.
 
I cannot paste the entire chapter, but this is a beginning to give you an idea as to why he believed we see in real time. This is just the first few paragraphs. I'm sure you'll be up in arms and reject him because the science is settled, right?

It is an undeniable fact that light travels at a high rate of speed, but great confusion arises when this is likened to sound, as you will soon have verified. The reason we say man has taste, touch, smell, sight, and hearing is because these describe individual differences that exist, but when we say that these five are senses, we are assuming the eyes function like the other four, which they do not. When you learn what this single misconception has done to the world of knowledge, you won’t believe it at first. So, without further delay, I shall prove something never before understood by man, but before I open this door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ to show you all the knowledge hidden behind it, it is absolutely necessary to prove exactly why the eyes are not a sense organ. Now tell me, did it ever occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a baby that no object is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of sounds, tastes, touches, or smells can get an immediate reaction since the nerve endings are being struck by something external.

“But doesn’t light cause the pupils to dilate and contract depending on the intensity?”

That is absolutely true, but this does not cause; it is a condition of sight. We simply need light to see, just as other things are a condition of hearing. If there was no light, we could not see, and if there was nothing to carry the sound waves to our ears, we could not hear. The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums, whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of light to impinge on our optic nerve. Did you ever wonder why the eyes of a newborn baby cannot focus the eyes to see what exists around him, although the other four senses are in full working order?

“I understand from a doctor that the muscles of the eyes have not yet developed sufficiently to allow this focusing.”


And he believes this because this is what he was taught, but it is not the truth. In fact, if a newborn infant was placed in a soundproof room that would eliminate the possibility of sense experience which is a prerequisite of sight — even though his eyes were wide open — he could never have the desire to see.

<snip?

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes are the windows of the brain, through which experience is gained not by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic nerve but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience. If a lion roared in that room, a newborn baby would hear the sound and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ. The brain records various sounds, tastes, touches, and smells in relation to the objects from which these experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This desire is an electric current that turns on or focuses the eyes to see that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception — in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But in order to look, there must be a desire to see. The child becomes aware that something will soon follow something else, which then arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a potato a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called a sense organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an inaccurate observation that was never corrected.”

“Well, I say, what difference does it make whether we have four senses and a pair of eyes instead of five senses? I certainly don’t feel any different, and I still see you just as before.”

“Once it is understood that something existing in the external world makes contact with the brain through the four senses, but that the brain contacts the various objects by peering through the eyes, it makes a huge difference, and many things can be clarified.

Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted that five senses were equally scientific, made the statement (which my friend referred to and still exists in our encyclopedias) that if we could sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the earth, we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is not a scientific fact?”

Again, my reply was, “Are you positive because you were told this, or positive because you, yourself, saw the relations revealing this truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on the chopping block to show me how positive you really are?”

“I am not that positive, but this is what I was taught.”

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

<snip>

If it were possible to transmit a television picture from the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into America for the first time because the picture would be in the process of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But objects do not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge on the optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them, and it takes the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun, or distant stars. To sum this up, just as we have often observed that a marching band is out of step with the beat when seen from a distance because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been taken, so likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope and hear his voice on the radio, we would see his lips move instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric image of his lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this distance. Because Aristotle assumed the eyes functioned like the other four and the scientific community assumed he was right, it made all their reasoning fit what appeared to be undeniable. According to their thinking, how else was it possible for knowledge to reach us through our eyes when they were compelled to believe that man had five senses? Were they given any choice? Let me prove in another way that the eyes are not a sense organ.

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight distance away, cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense, if an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic nerve, then he would recognize his master instantly, as he can from sound and smell. In fact, if he was vicious and accustomed to attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his sense of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way of identifying his master’s face even if every feature was lit up like a Christmas tree and would attack. This is why he cannot recognize his master from a picture or statue because nothing from the external world is striking the optic nerve. The question of how man is able to accomplish this continues to confound our scientists. The answer will be given shortly; however, let me make one thing absolutely clear. The knowledge revealed thus far, although also hidden behind the door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ is not what I referred to as being of significance. Frankly, it makes no difference to me that the eyes are not a sense organ, that our scientists got confused because of it, and that a dog cannot identify his master from a picture. What does mean a great deal to me when the purpose of this book is to remove all evil from our lives (which word is symbolic of any kind of hurt that exists in human relations) is to demonstrate how certain words have absolutely no foundation in reality yet they have caused the worst suffering and unhappiness imaginable. Let me explain.

Aa has been explained to you so many times over the past 20-something years, over so many message boards, including this one some 15 years ago, the above is total twaddle.
 
This doesn't change physics. It just changes the direction we see, which means we see in real time, not delayed time. Don't get mad at the messenger.
I am not mad; I am just wondering why the messenger is so obviously wrong about something so fundamental.
Nothing changes other than his clue that without the other sense experience, which focuses the eyes to see, sight would not be possible. Look at children who were in orphanages and were in cribs with no stimulation. They ended up blind.
The "direction we see" is that photons enter the eye and stimulate nerves that send information to the brain. Nothing exits the eye; Nothing flows in the otber direction. At all.
I didn’t say anything about this aspect of stimulating the nerves that send information to the brain. And I certainly didn’t say that anything exists in the eye that flows in the other direction.
And nothing happens in real time; All observations are, necessarily, of the past. Visual observations of nearby objects are of the very recent past, but it is the past nonetheless.
That’s the conclusion which is being contested.
 
Nothing changes other than his clue that without the other sense experience, which focuses the eyes to see, sight would not be possible.
That clue is clueless. There is exactly zero evidence that this random assertion is anything other than pure imagination, and zero excuse for anyone hearing it for the first time not to call it out for the bullshit it so obviously is.

Sight is very clearly not only possible but commonplace amongst animals. The eye evolved independently at least four times, because an ability to detect light is useful, and the photochemistry to do so is fairly straightforward; And because having acquired the ability to detect light, it is hugely advantageous to be better (more precise) at doing it than your competitors, predators, and/or prey.

The sense of sight is likely easier than that of touch, and certainly easier than that of sound or smell/taste* to evolve.




*Smell and taste are not really separate senses, which is yet another thing Aristotle got wrong when he picked 5 as his wild underestimate.
 
Last edited:
Nothing changes other than his clue that without the other sense experience, which focuses the eyes to see, sight would not be possible.
That clue is clueless. There is exactly zero evidence that this random assertion is anything other than pure imagination, and zero excuse for anyone hearing it for the first time not to call it out for the bullshit it so obviously is clueless.
You didn’t even wait long enough to listen to the rest of the chapter before jumping in and saying he was wrong. Thats not the sign of a careful investigator.

This is interesting.


 
I certainly didn’t say that anything exists in the eye that flows in the other direction.
Oh, I am sorry; I assumed that when you introduced the words "afferent" and "efferent" to the conversation, you knew what they meant. But apparently, you don't.
 
Nothing changes other than his clue that without the other sense experience, which focuses the eyes to see, sight would not be possible.
That clue is clueless. There is exactly zero evidence that this random assertion is anything other than pure imagination, and zero excuse for anyone hearing it for the first time not to call it out for the bullshit it so obviously is clueless.
You didn’t even wait long enough to listen to the rest of the chapter before jumping in and saying he was wrong. Thats not the sign of a careful investigator.

This is interesting.


Interesting it may be; Support for the bizarre and extreme claim: "Look at children who were in orphanages and were in cribs with no stimulation. They ended up blind.", it is not.
 
Look at children who were in orphanages and were in cribs with no stimulation. They ended up blind.
[citation needed]
You didn’t even wait long enough to listen to the rest of the chapter before jumping in and saying he was wrong.
... says the person who responded three minutes after I first hit "Post reply", and apparently before I had finished adding to my post.
That’s being disingenuous because my response was a result of your lack of restraint in concluding the author MUST be wrong without hearing him out. The image that says vision problems can develop doesn’t mention blindness, so it’s not showing cause and effect. These children probably had some stimulation from sound, hearing, and touch at birth, so it can’t be used as proof. Sorry.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4732.png
    IMG_4732.png
    275.2 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom