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

[peacegirl]

And I have explained to you that this has nothing to do with faster than light speed. It has nothing to do with light speed at all. All of this has been previously explained to you.

You have explained nothing. You have asserted a bunch of stuff that is not only at variance with physics, but at variance with logic itself.

I it is not at variance with physics or logic. It is your modal logic that is T variance with reality.

The key is not faster than light speed, but rather faster than light signaling. If the sun is “at the eye” instantly, whatever that is even supposed to mean, you have received information faster than light. Relativity theory forbids this, and in such a world we would see events before their causes.

This is entering the realm of science-fiction because you and I both know that this doesn't mean we would see events before their cause. After all that I have explained, you still think that light has to travel to reach the eye, which explains your logic. This is the logic that scientists have used to conclude we see in delayed time. But it's not true because efferent vision allows us to see the object instantly due to light being a condition, not a cause. It's the opposite of what scientists have asserted.

Actually, in such a world, we’d see nothing at all, because the surface temperature of the earth would be about that of the sun and no living things would exist. We explained that to you, too.

How is that possible if the Sun is 93 million miles away? The Sun is too far away from Earth for us to burn up.

Note; “Because of the way the eyes work” is NOT an answer.

Read the damn chapter Pood. You haven't read any of the book, let alone the chapter: Words: Not Reality, and you know it. Be honest for once.

 

[steve_bank]

There might be a delay when the character appears but once it does, you see it in real time, not a delay. You're just parroting what science has ingrained in you.

Ok Peacegirl.

The character appears on the screen, light is emitted. Does the light travel from the display to your eyes with out delay?

No it does not. Real time yes, but there is a dela

There is a picture of a rabbit on your screen and you are looking at it, The picture changes to a skunk. Do you see the change without any delay? No you do not.

The delay is measurable.

If not, how do you perceive the change without delay?

What about the ear?

 

[pood]

There might be a delay when the character appears but once it does, you see it in real time, not a delay. You're just parroting what science has ingrained in you.

Ok Peacegirl.

The character appears on the screen, light is emitted. Does the light travel from the display to your eyes with out delay?

No it does not. Real time yes, but there is a dela

There is a picture of a rabbit on your screen and you are looking at it, The picture changes to a skunk. Do you see the change without any delay? No you do not.

The delay is measurable.

If not, how do you perceive the change without delay?

What about the ear?

 

[DBT]

Metaphysics is abstractions not necessarily tied to physical reality. Yourarguments are metaphysical.

They are not metaphysical. Science is shot through with metaphysics, and metaphysics can inform science. The claim that the eyes are not sense organs and we see instantly is just empty, easily disproved in a thousand different ways.

To be honest I do not see much difference between you and Peacegirl....

In a broad meaning of metaphors perhaps. I never met an engineer or somebody with science credentials who cited philosophy or metaphysics.

You could also say science is linguists or psychology.

Science is a skill that is learned by studying theory, experience, and what has been done before.

There is no philosophy or metaphysicss texts that say how to do science, or engineering for that matter.

Science is a skill as is carpentry, albeit more complicated.

Science is not philosophy. Science is science .

Science is a branch of philosophy called natural philosophy, and is rife with metaphysical assumptions. What peacegirl is doing is not metaphysics or science or any kind of philosophy. It’s making shit up. I should also note that there are a number of scientists who are and were deeply beholden to philosophy. Albert Einstein was one, and he acknowledged to debt to philosophy, including David Hume, who, by the way, demolished the argument to design centuries before Darwin came along.

Stop using me by implying that I'm not worth paying attention to. You are not a scientist of any caliber, nor are you a true philosopher so don't tell people I'm making shit up, okay? You didn't even read the book. Military force, my foot. The demonstration Lessans gave regarding how the brain focuses the eyes from the stimulation of the other senses, was never explored by you because you convinced yourself he was wrong from day one. You had no questions and were not the least bit interested or curious about anything he wrote. It's just plain old snobbery. You are not at the top echelon of anything Pood, so leave me out of your conversations.

No, I read the stuff about light and sight, and it’s completely wrong, and we showed you why it was wrong. Note that you were also shown this by two astrophysicist and one biologist.

Of all subject matters, this one is open to a lot of unknowns. They may know a lot about stars and galaxies, but that does not mean they know everything just because they have a credential next to their name. The same thing goes for The Lone Ranger who I'm sure meant well. Unfortuntely, the knowledge regarding the eyes could only have come from someone outside of the fields of biology or astrophysics. What is it that you don't understand?

No, peacegirl, it doesn’t work that way. Bilby already explained this. In science, NOTHING is handed down from an authority figure to be memorized and believed. It is CHECKED. The Lone Ranger CHECKED how eyes work.

But don’t you see that as far as light and the eyes go, it did not show how light and sight work. It showed parts of the eye and what they do.

He DISSECTED EYES,

Dissection cannot show anything in regard to real or delayed time seeing. This is a diversion tactic.

Physicists CHECK how light works. Then students taught these things CHECK THEM in their labs. NOBODY in science believes stuff just because someone else told them it’s true.

Labs? Show me where they can prove in a lab that we see in delayed time. I never said nobody believes stuff just because someone else told them it’s true. But mistakes can be made and then everything that follows is false.

All of the parts of the eye have evolved to detect light, wavelength, shape, movement, etc, and convert that information into electrical impulses, which are transmitted to the brain in order to generate a virtual conscious representation of the external world, which enables us to navigate and respond to its objects and events.


And I still don't know how instant seeing is supposed to work.

How is the supposed to acquire the information before its even radiated or transmitted from the source?

The light IS at the eye. You're just thinking in terms of afferent vision, not efferent. You'll never get it if you don't let go of the thinking that light has to travel from the source to get to the eye. It won't make sense otherwise. Did you read his demonstration as to what he believed is going on with the eyes and why he said what he did?

It's wrong.

That light has a speed is well established.

No one is denying the speed of light is well established. That's not even under debate.

That objects radiate or reflect light is beyond all reasonable doubt, and as eyes have evolved to detect light in the external world, light cannot just be "at the eye."

I understand why you think it's wrong because light can't be at the eye before it's at the eye, but you are not understanding why light can be at the eye using the light waves that are there instantly when one is gazing at the object. It's all about the function of the eyes, not light. Did you read his demonstration as to why he believed his finding was correct?

If light was somehow just "at the eye," it has no information about external world.

Yes it does. In fact, it's the real thing, not an image of the thing. That is the most accurate you can get.

How could it possibly work?

I'm trying to explain why we see reality, not a virtual reality. I know it's hard to wrap your mind around but please don't give up. The author knew what he was talking about. He was a very deep thinker and would never have made that claim if he wasn't sure.

It's both. The brain acquires information from the external world from its senses and uses that information to form a virtual, conscious subjective representation of the external world.

That is proven with optical illusions, mind altering drugs, etc...

 

[DBT]

This has nothing to do with faster than light speed and nothing to do with determinism, since nothing from the past causes the present.

I see. Now you are back to this line, that nothing from the past causes the present. Are you listening, DBT? And yet, I pointed out initially that this was the writer’s position, but you quickly rejected what I wrote when you learned that DBT was supporting determinism.

I listened to DBT. He is correct regarding determinism. Just because there is a slight nuance regarding “cause” does not mean we aren’t in agreement regarding “could not have done otherwise.”

Of course, DBT thinks determinism means that the past causes the present, including all human actions.

That’s the conventional definition. What he means when he says antecedent events determine our actions is just another way of saying that past events that we are remembering and using to make a decision are determined, which is true.

And yes, it does have to do with faster-than-light signaling and determinism. If the sun is “at the eye” instantly, whatever that is even supposed to even mean, then that is faster-than-light signaling and it would violate causality. We would experience events before their causes. All of this has been previously explained to you.

And I have explained to you that this has nothing to do with faster than light speed. It has nothing to do with light speed at all. All of this has been previously explained to you.

A deterministic world, as defined, doesn't depend on memory. Initial conditions and all the events that follow are physically determined. Memory itself is determined by past events.

 

[peacegirl]

Metaphysics is abstractions not necessarily tied to physical reality. Yourarguments are metaphysical.

They are not metaphysical. Science is shot through with metaphysics, and metaphysics can inform science. The claim that the eyes are not sense organs and we see instantly is just empty, easily disproved in a thousand different ways.

To be honest I do not see much difference between you and Peacegirl....

In a broad meaning of metaphors perhaps. I never met an engineer or somebody with science credentials who cited philosophy or metaphysics.

You could also say science is linguists or psychology.

Science is a skill that is learned by studying theory, experience, and what has been done before.

There is no philosophy or metaphysicss texts that say how to do science, or engineering for that matter.

Science is a skill as is carpentry, albeit more complicated.

Science is not philosophy. Science is science .

Science is a branch of philosophy called natural philosophy, and is rife with metaphysical assumptions. What peacegirl is doing is not metaphysics or science or any kind of philosophy. It’s making shit up. I should also note that there are a number of scientists who are and were deeply beholden to philosophy. Albert Einstein was one, and he acknowledged to debt to philosophy, including David Hume, who, by the way, demolished the argument to design centuries before Darwin came along.

Stop using me by implying that I'm not worth paying attention to. You are not a scientist of any caliber, nor are you a true philosopher so don't tell people I'm making shit up, okay? You didn't even read the book. Military force, my foot. The demonstration Lessans gave regarding how the brain focuses the eyes from the stimulation of the other senses, was never explored by you because you convinced yourself he was wrong from day one. You had no questions and were not the least bit interested or curious about anything he wrote. It's just plain old snobbery. You are not at the top echelon of anything Pood, so leave me out of your conversations.

No, I read the stuff about light and sight, and it’s completely wrong, and we showed you why it was wrong. Note that you were also shown this by two astrophysicist and one biologist.

Of all subject matters, this one is open to a lot of unknowns. They may know a lot about stars and galaxies, but that does not mean they know everything just because they have a credential next to their name. The same thing goes for The Lone Ranger who I'm sure meant well. Unfortuntely, the knowledge regarding the eyes could only have come from someone outside of the fields of biology or astrophysics. What is it that you don't understand?

No, peacegirl, it doesn’t work that way. Bilby already explained this. In science, NOTHING is handed down from an authority figure to be memorized and believed. It is CHECKED. The Lone Ranger CHECKED how eyes work.

But don’t you see that as far as light and the eyes go, it did not show how light and sight work. It showed parts of the eye and what they do.

He DISSECTED EYES,

Dissection cannot show anything in regard to real or delayed time seeing. This is a diversion tactic.

Physicists CHECK how light works. Then students taught these things CHECK THEM in their labs. NOBODY in science believes stuff just because someone else told them it’s true.

Labs? Show me where they can prove in a lab that we see in delayed time. I never said nobody believes stuff just because someone else told them it’s true. But mistakes can be made and then everything that follows is false.

All of the parts of the eye have evolved to detect light, wavelength, shape, movement, etc, and convert that information into electrical impulses, which are transmitted to the brain in order to generate a virtual conscious representation of the external world, which enables us to navigate and respond to its objects and events.


And I still don't know how instant seeing is supposed to work.

How is the supposed to acquire the information before its even radiated or transmitted from the source?

The light IS at the eye. You're just thinking in terms of afferent vision, not efferent. You'll never get it if you don't let go of the thinking that light has to travel from the source to get to the eye. It won't make sense otherwise. Did you read his demonstration as to what he believed is going on with the eyes and why he said what he did?

It's wrong.

That light has a speed is well established.

No one is denying the speed of light is well established. That's not even under debate.

That objects radiate or reflect light is beyond all reasonable doubt, and as eyes have evolved to detect light in the external world, light cannot just be "at the eye."

I understand why you think it's wrong because light can't be at the eye before it's at the eye, but you are not understanding why light can be at the eye using the light waves that are there instantly when one is gazing at the object. It's all about the function of the eyes, not light. Did you read his demonstration as to why he believed his finding was correct?

If light was somehow just "at the eye," it has no information about external world.

Yes it does. In fact, it's the real thing, not an image of the thing. That is the most accurate you can get.

How could it possibly work?

I'm trying to explain why we see reality, not a virtual reality. I know it's hard to wrap your mind around but please don't give up. The author knew what he was talking about. He was a very deep thinker and would never have made that claim if he wasn't sure.

It's both. The brain acquires information from the external world from its senses and uses that information to form a virtual, conscious subjective representation of the external world.

That is proven with optical illusions, mind altering drugs, etc...

There might be a delay when the character appears but once it does, you see it in real time, not a delay. You're just parroting what science has ingrained in you.

Ok Peacegirl.

The character appears on the screen, light is emitted. Does the light travel from the display to your eyes with out delay?

When you look at the character, the light is at the eye, or you wouldn't be able to see the character. Light is an absolute condition of sight, but the confusion still exists because of the idea that the eyes are afferent. It's hard to understand why travel time is not involved in an example like this, just like the one Pood gave about turning the light on in a dark room makes it appear that time is involved, therefore impossible for real time vision to be true.

No it does not. Real time yes, but there is a dela

Then it's not real time (the way I am using it), or shall I say, "no time."

There is a picture of a rabbit on your screen and you are looking at it, The picture changes to a skunk. Do you see the change without any delay? No you do not.

The delay is measurable.

A picture changing to another picture is time related, but we are seeing the change in real time, not delayed. This example has nothing to do with whether the eyes are a "sense organ," the way this term is defined.

If not, how do you perceive the change without delay?

What about the ear?

The ear is a sense organ because the soundwaves are traveling and impinging on the eardrum, which then leads to hearing. It is an afferent event.

 

[peacegirl]

This has nothing to do with faster than light speed and nothing to do with determinism, since nothing from the past causes the present.

I see. Now you are back to this line, that nothing from the past causes the present. Are you listening, DBT? And yet, I pointed out initially that this was the writer’s position, but you quickly rejected what I wrote when you learned that DBT was supporting determinism.

I listened to DBT. He is correct regarding determinism. Just because there is a slight nuance regarding “cause” does not mean we aren’t in agreement regarding “could not have done otherwise.”

Of course, DBT thinks determinism means that the past causes the present, including all human actions.

That’s the conventional definition. What he means when he says antecedent events determine our actions is just another way of saying that past events that we are remembering and using to make a decision are determined, which is true.

And yes, it does have to do with faster-than-light signaling and determinism. If the sun is “at the eye” instantly, whatever that is even supposed to even mean, then that is faster-than-light signaling and it would violate causality. We would experience events before their causes. All of this has been previously explained to you.

And I have explained to you that this has nothing to do with faster than light speed. It has nothing to do with light speed at all. All of this has been previously explained to you.

A deterministic world, as defined, doesn't depend on memory.

It doesn't, but if we lose it, it will definitely interfere with our ability to make decisions.

Initial conditions and all the events that follow are physically determined. Memory itself is determined by past events.

That's what I said. Memory is an important aspect of the brain's ability to interpret past events in order to utilize decision making capabilities.

 

[DBT]

Eyes and ears are sense organs. Eyes sense light, ears detect pressure waves, which enables the brain to generate the conscious experience of sight and sound, we see and hear the world around us. The light from stars is not 'at the eye,' it is sensed or detected by the eye.

 

[peacegirl]

Eyes and ears are sense organs.

Just stating this does not make it true DBT.

Eyes sense light, ears detect pressure waves, which enables the brain to generate the conscious experience of sight and sound, we see and hear the world around us. The light from stars is not 'at the eye,' it is sensed or detected by the eye.

Eyes sense light. Who is disputing this? Light from the stars could not be seen if light was not "at the eye." It's just a matter of whether the detection is seen in real time or delayed time.

 

[peacegirl]

Metaphysics is abstractions not necessarily tied to physical reality. Yourarguments are metaphysical.

They are not metaphysical. Science is shot through with metaphysics, and metaphysics can inform science. The claim that the eyes are not sense organs and we see instantly is just empty, easily disproved in a thousand different ways.

To be honest I do not see much difference between you and Peacegirl....

In a broad meaning of metaphors perhaps. I never met an engineer or somebody with science credentials who cited philosophy or metaphysics.

You could also say science is linguists or psychology.

Science is a skill that is learned by studying theory, experience, and what has been done before.

There is no philosophy or metaphysicss texts that say how to do science, or engineering for that matter.

Science is a skill as is carpentry, albeit more complicated.

Science is not philosophy. Science is science .

Science is a branch of philosophy called natural philosophy, and is rife with metaphysical assumptions. What peacegirl is doing is not metaphysics or science or any kind of philosophy. It’s making shit up. I should also note that there are a number of scientists who are and were deeply beholden to philosophy. Albert Einstein was one, and he acknowledged to debt to philosophy, including David Hume, who, by the way, demolished the argument to design centuries before Darwin came along.

Stop using me by implying that I'm not worth paying attention to. You are not a scientist of any caliber, nor are you a true philosopher so don't tell people I'm making shit up, okay? You didn't even read the book. Military force, my foot. The demonstration Lessans gave regarding how the brain focuses the eyes from the stimulation of the other senses, was never explored by you because you convinced yourself he was wrong from day one. You had no questions and were not the least bit interested or curious about anything he wrote. It's just plain old snobbery. You are not at the top echelon of anything Pood, so leave me out of your conversations.

No, I read the stuff about light and sight, and it’s completely wrong, and we showed you why it was wrong. Note that you were also shown this by two astrophysicist and one biologist.

Of all subject matters, this one is open to a lot of unknowns. They may know a lot about stars and galaxies, but that does not mean they know everything just because they have a credential next to their name. The same thing goes for The Lone Ranger who I'm sure meant well. Unfortuntely, the knowledge regarding the eyes could only have come from someone outside of the fields of biology or astrophysics. What is it that you don't understand?

No, peacegirl, it doesn’t work that way. Bilby already explained this. In science, NOTHING is handed down from an authority figure to be memorized and believed. It is CHECKED. The Lone Ranger CHECKED how eyes work.

But don’t you see that as far as light and the eyes go, it did not show how light and sight work. It showed parts of the eye and what they do.

He DISSECTED EYES,

Dissection cannot show anything in regard to real or delayed time seeing. This is a diversion tactic.

Physicists CHECK how light works. Then students taught these things CHECK THEM in their labs. NOBODY in science believes stuff just because someone else told them it’s true.

Labs? Show me where they can prove in a lab that we see in delayed time. I never said nobody believes stuff just because someone else told them it’s true. But mistakes can be made and then everything that follows is false.

All of the parts of the eye have evolved to detect light, wavelength, shape, movement, etc, and convert that information into electrical impulses, which are transmitted to the brain in order to generate a virtual conscious representation of the external world, which enables us to navigate and respond to its objects and events.


And I still don't know how instant seeing is supposed to work.

How is the supposed to acquire the information before its even radiated or transmitted from the source?

The light IS at the eye. You're just thinking in terms of afferent vision, not efferent. You'll never get it if you don't let go of the thinking that light has to travel from the source to get to the eye. It won't make sense otherwise. Did you read his demonstration as to what he believed is going on with the eyes and why he said what he did?

It's wrong.

That light has a speed is well established.

No one is denying the speed of light is well established. That's not even under debate.

That objects radiate or reflect light is beyond all reasonable doubt, and as eyes have evolved to detect light in the external world, light cannot just be "at the eye."

I understand why you think it's wrong because light can't be at the eye before it's at the eye, but you are not understanding why light can be at the eye using the light waves that are there instantly when one is gazing at the object. It's all about the function of the eyes, not light. Did you read his demonstration as to why he believed his finding was correct?

If light was somehow just "at the eye," it has no information about external world.

Yes it does. In fact, it's the real thing, not an image of the thing. That is the most accurate you can get.

How could it possibly work?

I'm trying to explain why we see reality, not a virtual reality. I know it's hard to wrap your mind around this, but please don't give up. The author knew what he was talking about. He was a very deep thinker and would never have made that claim if he wasn't sure.

It's both. The brain acquires information from the external world from its senses and uses that information to form a virtual, conscious subjective representation of the external world.

That is proven with optical illusions, mind altering drugs, etc...

We see objective reality. How we interpret that reality depends on many things, especially when what we are seeing is not clear-cut. Optical illusions can cause confusion, but they do not change that delayed vision if false DBT. Our subjective interpretation of what we are seeing depends on many factors. Once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with objective reality and the absolute falsity of delayed vision. Why? No one cares to understand how he came to this finding. It's so weird to me that anyone can argue about something they have not understood in the slightest. The whole point of this argument is to show what the brain was able to do: project words onto substance (onto external reality) that conditioned us into believing that what we were seeing had a corresponding reality when no such thing existed. This has hurt many many people in the process. This is so hard to explain when no one has read the chapter. It's not fair and is preventing progress.

 

[pood]

Eyes sense light.

I thought eyes were not a sense organ??

 

[peacegirl]

Eyes sense light.

Saying "eyes sense light" does not mean the eyes are a sense organ.
I thought eyes were not a sense organ??

They aren’t. Let me rephrase what I said: light must be at the eye whenever we see anything in the external world because light is a necessary condition of sight. Maybe it wasn't worded the best, but it doesn't change what is.

 

[DBT]

Eyes and ears are sense organs.

Just stating this does not make it true DBT.

Eyes sense light, ears detect pressure waves, which enables the brain to generate the conscious experience of sight and sound, we see and hear the world around us. The light from stars is not 'at the eye,' it is sensed or detected by the eye.

Eyes sense light. Who is disputing this? Light from the stars could not be seen if light was not "at the eye." It's just a matter of whether the detection is seen in real time or delayed time.

Light is only 'at the eye' after its light years journey from the stars, which is why we see the stars as they were when the light was radiated.

 

[peacegirl]

Eyes and ears are sense organs.

Just stating this does not make it true DBT.

Eyes sense light, ears detect pressure waves, which enables the brain to generate the conscious experience of sight and sound, we see and hear the world around us. The light from stars is not 'at the eye,' it is sensed or detected by the eye.

Eyes sense light. Who is disputing this? Light from the stars could not be seen if light was not "at the eye." It's just a matter of whether the detection is seen in real time or delayed time.

Light is only 'at the eye' after its light years journey from the stars, which is why we see the stars as they were when the light was radiated.

Asserting the very thing that is being challenged doesn't prove anything DBT. Nothing on the list that Pood provided did either. Do you understand how he came to this finding? I gave part of the chapter to everyone, and I can almost bet that no one read it. They don't care because he was unknown and for someone to contest something that is seen as factual by science feels sacrilegious. To repeat: we see the object when it is in our field of view and is large enough and bright enough to be seen. Where Lessans diverged from the standard view (based on his astute observations regarding words) is that the light does not bounce off of the object taking the information (or wavelength) with it through space/time. Delayed vision may feel like the only logical answer, but logic isn't always right. IOW, no matter where we put our telescopes, and no matter how powerful they may be, we will never see Columbus coming to America in 1492 or any other past event. If you give yourself permission to think about it, this version of sight is not a far-out concept. It's just that the present version has been taught for so many years, it has been accepted as truth and no one dare question it, or else. I am sorry if it makes people mad. That was never my intention.

 

[DBT]

Eyes and ears are sense organs.

Just stating this does not make it true DBT.

Eyes sense light, ears detect pressure waves, which enables the brain to generate the conscious experience of sight and sound, we see and hear the world around us. The light from stars is not 'at the eye,' it is sensed or detected by the eye.

Eyes sense light. Who is disputing this? Light from the stars could not be seen if light was not "at the eye." It's just a matter of whether the detection is seen in real time or delayed time.

Light is only 'at the eye' after its light years journey from the stars, which is why we see the stars as they were when the light was radiated.

Asserting the very thing that is being challenged doesn't prove anything DBT. Nothing on the list that Pood offered did either. Do you understand what his observations and reasoning were? I gave part of the chapter to everyone, and I can almost bet that no one read it. They don't care because he was unknown and for someone to contest something that appears to be airtight by science (with no chance to have an alternative view) feels sacrilegious. To repeat: we get information from the object due to light being at the eye, but the light does not bounce off of the object taking the information (or wavelength) with it through space/time. It may feel logical, but it's not sound. IOW, no matter where we put our telescopes and no matter how powerful they may be, we will never see Columbus arriving in America in 1492 or any other past event.

But I'm not asserting. Just pointing out that stars radiate light is beyond doubt, that light has a finite speed is well established. So to say that light is simply 'at the eye' is to assert an unreasonable claim.

 

[pood]

Eyes and ears are sense organs.

Just stating this does not make it true DBT.

Eyes sense light, ears detect pressure waves, which enables the brain to generate the conscious experience of sight and sound, we see and hear the world around us. The light from stars is not 'at the eye,' it is sensed or detected by the eye.

Eyes sense light. Who is disputing this? Light from the stars could not be seen if light was not "at the eye." It's just a matter of whether the detection is seen in real time or delayed time.

Light is only 'at the eye' after its light years journey from the stars, which is why we see the stars as they were when the light was radiated.

Asserting the very thing that is being challenged doesn't prove anything DBT.

No one here is asserting anything except you. We can easily demonstrate what we say. We spent a few hundred pages demonstrating it at FF.

Nothing on the list that Pood offered did either.

They ALL demonstrate that we see, indeed must see, things as they were in the past. Einstein’s special theory of relativity could never even have been formulated if we saw in real time. We explained why that is to you, too.

 

[peacegirl]

Eyes and ears are sense organs.

Just stating this does not make it true DBT.

Eyes sense light, ears detect pressure waves, which enables the brain to generate the conscious experience of sight and sound, we see and hear the world around us. The light from stars is not 'at the eye,' it is sensed or detected by the eye.

Eyes sense light. Who is disputing this? Light from the stars could not be seen if light was not "at the eye." It's just a matter of whether the detection is seen in real time or delayed time.

Light is only 'at the eye' after its light years journey from the stars, which is why we see the stars as they were when the light was radiated.

Asserting the very thing that is being challenged doesn't prove anything DBT.

No one here is asserting anything except you. We can easily demonstrate what we say. We spent a few hundred pages demonstrating it at FF.

I just went through every single one on your list, and it does not disprove what you think it does. Most of the experiments were to find out the speed of light. What does this have to do with his claim?

Nothing on the list that Pood offered did either.

They ALL demonstrate that we see, indeed must see, things as they were in the past. Einstein’s special theory of relativity could never even have been formulated if we saw in real time. We explained why that is to you, too.

Einstein would have been the first to admit that he didn't have all the answers. He had a lot of theories, some were true, some weren't. You can't use someone else's theory (even Einstein) to disprove a claim that you don't like because it could disrupt present day thinking. You have to disprove the claim, not say he's wrong because Einstein was right about everything. It's like Nageli, the leading authority on genetics who laughed at Mendel because he believed Mendel was an amateur and paid no attention to him. Well, look what happened? Mendel was forced to receive posthumous recognition because he was rejected during his lifetime. Now Nageli is a footnote and Mendel is regarded as the father of genetics. I just wish people weren't so snippety and cocksure of themselves, that's all.

 

[pood]

I just went through every single one on your list, and it does not disprove what you think it does. Most of the experiments were to find out the speed of light. What does this have to do with his claim?

Everything on that list disproves his claims.

Nothing on the list that Pood offered did either.

They ALL demonstrate that we see, indeed must see, things as they were in the past. Einstein’s special theory of relativity could never even have been formulated if we saw in real time. We explained why that is to you, too.

Einstein would have been the first to admit that he didn't have all the answers. He had a lot of theories, some were true, some weren't. You can't use someone else's theory (even Einstein) to disprove a claim that you don't like because it could disrupt present day thinking.

Ad hom and false.

You have to disprove the claim, not say he's wrong because Einstein was right about everything.

Right. That has been done.

 

[peacegirl]

I just went through every single one on your list, and it does not disprove what you think it does. Most of the experiments were to find out the speed of light. What does this have to do with his claim?

Everything on that list disproves his claims.

Nothing on the list that Pood offered did either.

They ALL demonstrate that we see, indeed must see, things as they were in the past. Einstein’s special theory of relativity could never even have been formulated if we saw in real time. We explained why that is to you, too.

Einstein would have been the first to admit that he didn't have all the answers. He had a lot of theories, some were true, some weren't. You can't use someone else's theory (even Einstein) to disprove a claim that you don't like because it could disrupt present day thinking.

Ad hom and false.

Thats not an ad hom and it’s not false. You keep saying he can’t be right because it goes against Einstein’s special relativity. I’m not going to tiptoe around you because of your threats.

You have to disprove the claim, not say he's wrong because Einstein was right about everything.

Right. That has been done.

No you didn’t Pood and you know it.

 

[peacegirl]