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

[bilby]

Do you understand how he came to this finding?

It is increasingly apparent that he pulled it from his arse. Certainly his "finding" owes nothing to any study of how sight, or eyes, or light, or anything else works.

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.

So what is his claimed mechanism? Saying what it is not isn't actually saying anything.

 

[peacegirl]

Do you understand how he came to this finding?

It is increasingly apparent that he pulled it from his arse.

You’re so wrong.

Certainly his "finding" owes nothing to any study of how sight, or eyes, or light, or anything else works.

He explained it and I posted part of it. Your attitude is very confrontative and it’s a turnoff! So forget it!

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.

So what is his claimed mechanism? Saying what it is not isn't actually saying anything.

You don’t read and I’m not going to be bullied by you, so move on.

 

[DBT]

View attachment 48488

Are you saying that if a star 80 light years away went supernova right now, that we would see the event right now and not in 80 years time?

 

[peacegirl]

View attachment 48488

Are you saying that if a star 80 light years away went supernova right now, that we would see the event right now and not in 80 years time?

How could we see a supernova 80 light years away if we see in real time? We would see it when it goes supernova just like we would see any other star. I guess this claim is so shocking to people, that they just can’t believe what they’re hearing!

 

[DBT]

View attachment 48488

Are you saying that if a star 80 light years away went supernova right now, that we would see the event right now and not in 80 years time?

How could we see a supernova 80 light years away if we see in real time? We would see it when it goes supernova just like we would see any other star.

I can't make sense of it. How is information from 80 light years away supposed to appear instantly 'at the eye?'

 

[peacegirl]

I really don’t want to discuss the senses anymore since no one has read this chapter and they have no idea how this knowledge affects how we see one another literally and figuratively. If anyone actually reads the book, I’ll be happy to discuss it with them but this conversation has reached its limit.

 

[pood]

View attachment 48488

Are you saying that if a star 80 light years away went supernova right now, that we would see the event right now and not in 80 years time?

How could we see a supernova 80 light years away if we see in real time? We would see it when it goes supernova just like we would see any other star. I guess this claim is so shocking to people, that they just can’t believe what they’re hearing!

We don’t believe what we’re hearing because it’s wrong.

 

[peacegirl]

View attachment 48488

Are you saying that if a star 80 light years away went supernova right now, that we would see the event right now and not in 80 years time?

How could we see a supernova 80 light years away if we see in real time? We would see it when it goes supernova just like we would see any other star.

I can't make sense of it. How is information from 80 light years away supposed to appear instantly 'at the eye?'

DBT, try to keep these two words in mind: Efferent versus afferent. I think you’ll eventually get that there is no teleportation or magic, just a demonstration of how the eyes work. If they work according to Lessans’ observations, the rest follows suit. You didn’t read the chapter and even though you might still find it hard to see how it’s possible for light to be at the eye without travel time, I think it would help you to be a little less skeptical.

 

[peacegirl]

View attachment 48488

Are you saying that if a star 80 light years away went supernova right now, that we would see the event right now and not in 80 years time?

How could we see a supernova 80 light years away if we see in real time? We would see it when it goes supernova just like we would see any other star. I guess this claim is so shocking to people, that they just can’t believe what they’re hearing!

We don’t believe what we’re hearing because it’s wrong.

You aren’t the arbiter of truth. Saying it’s wrong doesn’t make it wrong. It’s a response when you have nothing else to say!

 

[DBT]

I really don’t want to discuss the senses anymore since no one has read this chapter and they have no idea how this knowledge affects how we see one another literally and figuratively. If anyone actually reads the book, I’ll be happy to discuss it with them but this conversation has reached its limit.

View attachment 48488

Are you saying that if a star 80 light years away went supernova right now, that we would see the event right now and not in 80 years time?

How could we see a supernova 80 light years away if we see in real time? We would see it when it goes supernova just like we would see any other star.

I can't make sense of it. How is information from 80 light years away supposed to appear instantly 'at the eye?'

DBT, try to keep these two words in mind: Efferent versus afferent. I think you’ll eventually get that there is no teleportation or magic, just a demonstration of how the eyes work. If they work according to Lessans’ observations, the rest follows suit. You didn’t read the chapter and even though you might still find it hard to see how it’s possible for light to be at the eye without travel time, I think it would help you to be a little less skeptical.

That doesn't address my question. As you have probably read the book more than once, you should be able to explain how we are supposed to instanty see a supernova 80 light years away.

Again, how could it be possible?

Invoking 'efferent' or 'afferent' doesn't explain it. You need to describe the means by which instantaneous vision over immense distances is possible.

 

[peacegirl]

View attachment 48488

Are you saying that if a star 80 light years away went supernova right now, that we would see the event right now and not in 80 years time?

No, that’s not what I’m saying. We wouldn’t see it now or in 80 years time unless the star became supernova where it could be seen with a telescope. You are still thinking in terms of the information from the star that is light years away traveling over great distances and long periods of time to reach us, so of course what he’s saying won’t feel right. Bottom line: he was either right about the eyes or he wasn’t, just like he was either right about determinism or he wasn’t. I believe in both instances he was right.

 

[steve_bank]

Science always works (under stated conditions) regardless of how you think or philosophize about it.

The basis of science is to make a clam an experiment is required that others can independently verify.

A good example was the 90s clam of successful cold fusion. It would have been a tremendous breakthrough. Within a few days globally nobody was able to duplicate the experimentally.

Einsteins theories took decades to prove experimentally.

So Peacegirl, how do we experimentally test your author's idea of how the eye works?

 

[DBT]

View attachment 48488

Are you saying that if a star 80 light years away went supernova right now, that we would see the event right now and not in 80 in ?

No, that’s not what I’m saying. We wouldn’t see it now or in 80 years time unless the star became supernova where it could be seen with a telescope. You are still thinking in terms of the information from the star that is light years away traveling over great distances and long periods of time to reach us, so of course what he’s saying won’t feel right. Bottom line: he was either right about the eyes or he wasn’t, just like he was either right about determinism or he wasn’t. I believe in both instances he was right.

If the supernova is visible, it can be visible to the eye or a telescope. A telescope just magnifies the object. Either way, it is the light from the event that we are seeing.

Which is why I ask how this is possible when light in a vacuum has a measurable velocity?

You need to account for the known, measurable velocity of light in a vacuum and the claim of instantiously seeing the event as it happens.

 

[pood]

Special relativity was verified less than two decades after Einstein proposed it. It and GR have been supported by observation and experiment countless times since. Both are at complete variance with the author’s claims.

 

[pood]

View attachment 48488

Are you saying that if a star 80 light years away went supernova right now, that we would see the event right now and not in 80 years time?

How could we see a supernova 80 light years away if we see in real time? We would see it when it goes supernova just like we would see any other star. I guess this claim is so shocking to people, that they just can’t believe what they’re hearing!

We don’t believe what we’re hearing because it’s wrong.

You aren’t the arbiter of truth. Saying it’s wrong doesn’t make it wrong. It’s a response when you have nothing else to say!

Reality, which has been measured and tested in this case, is what makes it worng. Not what I say.

 

[bilby]

Do you understand how he came to this finding?

It is increasingly apparent that he pulled it from his arse.

You’re so wrong.

Certainly his "finding" owes nothing to any study of how sight, or eyes, or light, or anything else works.

He explained it and I posted part of it. Your attitude is very confrontative and it’s a turnoff! So forget it!

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.

So what is his claimed mechanism? Saying what it is not isn't actually saying anything.

You don’t read and I’m not going to be bullied by you, so move on.

I am fairly confident that "what is his claimed mechanism?" isn't bullying.

"the light does not bounce off of the object taking the information (or wavelength) with it through space/time".

OK, so what does happen?

Over here, we have a large bright object.

Over there is a person, who can see the object. He says "I know there's a large bright object over there, because I can see it".

How, exactly, does the knowledge of the object get from the object, to the person seeing it, according to Lessans?