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

[bilby]

He never said he did not read anything, and you never posted a mechanism for how efferent vision is supposed to work. Indeed, it appears you do not know what “efferent vision” actually is supposed to mean.

Yes he did. He said something to the effect that he does not read. Maybe not in those exact words but I'm not going to look for the post. Bilby, would you please clarify what you said so we are not in suspense?

Sure. I will do your homework for you. Just don't expect me to do it all the time.

I am assuming that if there are no questions between posts, then it gives me permission to continue.

Posts at 9:13pm, 9:39pm, 10:12pm, 10:54pm, and 11:07pm (my local time) might as well all be one single big post from my point of view, because I am currently working an early shift, so I am asleep at those times (I have a later start today, so I didn't need to get up until twenty five minutes ago (4:30am).

As not everyone here is in the same timezone, or even close to it, if you are spacing out posts, intending to give people time to read and respond before the next excerpt, they need to be at least 24 hours apart.

That's perhaps annoying, but it's a fundamental limitation of our global society.

You can always read at your leisure and ask questions later. If I'm still here, I'll answer them to the best of my ability.

Bold of you to assume that I have "leisure"; Right now my life includes work, sleep, and the odd five minutes to half an hour to look at IIDB on my phone, usually while eating.

I am writing this in my ten minute break at work. The above is the first time in this thread that I used the word "read", according to the forum search function.

Here are the others (omitting the ones on this page, as you can scroll up for those):

I read what he said; It wasn't a demonstration, it was a bunch of false claims, tied together with logical fallacies.

I am not "refusing to read", I am asking for clarification of what I have read, because it doesn't seem to me to actually address this. He says a lot about what is not happening, and about how wrong our traditional understanding is, but provides few details about what actually is happening, according to his new way of understanding.

So it appears you are labouring under a(nother) misunderstanding.

I don't think that either you or the work you are promoting have ever explained the mechanism by which observers become aware of distant light sources, such as the Sun, other planets, or stars.

 

[peacegirl]

I'm still curious as to how instant vision, 'light at the eye,' is supposed to work. Because if Lessan also argued for determinism, and he is not contradicting himself, his 'light at the eye' proposition must have a physical, determinist explanation.

He shows that we see in the present. How does this relate to determinism? His demonstration regarding determinism showed that antecedent events are what we use to help us make decisions. But these antecedents that already happened don't cause the present. They are contained in our memories that are then remembered to help us make the best possible decisions based on the information we have. This is what separates Lessans' definition from the standard definition because nothing from the past causes us to do anything since the past doesn't exist. How can something that doesn't exist cause an effect? He was clarifying terms to make them more accurate.

It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?

That doesn't make sense, because if determinism is true, the past shapes the present and the present shapes the future, where past states become the present state of the world, where information in the form of light (or anything else) must have antecedents and behave according to the laws of physics.

I didn't say the past doesn't shape the present. I said the past doesn't exist except as a part of our memory, which we use to make decisions every time we contemplate. Memory is a large part of our identity and why people are so afraid of losing it.

Light simply being 'at the eye' contradicts determinism and the laws of physics.

I don't think it does and I'm not quite sure if it even contradicts Einstein's relativity because the author never said light is not finite and it is obvious that if there is a different frame of reference, we might see the light at different times because it would arrive at a different interval,

Light has to be there for anything to be seen. If light hasn't arrived, we would not be able to see what is around us but the confusion is that light is a requirement, not a cause. It is very hard to see this truth when you are talking about light arriving and seeing what exists around us. It is obvious that without light, we could not see, but you are concluding that travel time of light proves that we see the past. This is false, sorry. Again, I'm so tired of defending him. If you feel he's wrong, then so be it. You can move on to another thread. Who would stay at a thread they feel is totally wrong? What a waste of time that would be.

Yes peacegirl, that’s the point! There is a difference in detecting the light because of relative motion. If we saw instantly, it would make NO DIFFERENCE what the relative motion was, or how far away we are from the light source.

It would make a difference because of our perception due to different frames, not because of delayed light.

Everyone would see the same thing, because we would be seeing events INSTANTLY. Like the moons of Jupiter example, special relativity conclusively rules out real-time seeing.

I know special relativity rules it out, but you cannot understand his perspective coming from the present theory of delayed time and sight. You will easily throw his claim out if you do it this way.

It's more than 'a present theory.' It is observed and tested fact. The speed of light has been measured.

A scientific theory is not arbitrary, but a narrative that explains a set of facts.

The narrative may be altered if new information comes along, yet the facts remain: light does in fact have a speed,

Correct.

and what we see is in fact delayed by the distance travelled.

No. The speed of light is what they say it is. Asserting the thing that is being refuted is wasted bandwidth.

 

[DBT]

I'm still curious as to how instant vision, 'light at the eye,' is supposed to work. Because if Lessan also argued for determinism, and he is not contradicting himself, his 'light at the eye' proposition must have a physical, determinist explanation.

He shows that we see in the present. How does this relate to determinism? His demonstration regarding determinism showed that antecedent events are what we use to help us make decisions. But these antecedents that already happened don't cause the present. They are contained in our memories that are then remembered to help us make the best possible decisions based on the information we have. This is what separates Lessans' definition from the standard definition because nothing from the past causes us to do anything since the past doesn't exist. How can something that doesn't exist cause an effect? He was clarifying terms to make them more accurate.

It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?

That doesn't make sense, because if determinism is true, the past shapes the present and the present shapes the future, where past states become the present state of the world, where information in the form of light (or anything else) must have antecedents and behave according to the laws of physics.

I didn't say the past doesn't shape the present. I said the past doesn't exist except as a part of our memory, which we use to make decisions every time we contemplate. Memory is a large part of our identity and why people are so afraid of losing it.

Light simply being 'at the eye' contradicts determinism and the laws of physics.

I don't think it does and I'm not quite sure if it even contradicts Einstein's relativity because the author never said light is not finite and it is obvious that if there is a different frame of reference, we might see the light at different times because it would arrive at a different interval,

Light has to be there for anything to be seen. If light hasn't arrived, we would not be able to see what is around us but the confusion is that light is a requirement, not a cause. It is very hard to see this truth when you are talking about light arriving and seeing what exists around us. It is obvious that without light, we could not see, but you are concluding that travel time of light proves that we see the past. This is false, sorry. Again, I'm so tired of defending him. If you feel he's wrong, then so be it. You can move on to another thread. Who would stay at a thread they feel is totally wrong? What a waste of time that would be.

Yes peacegirl, that’s the point! There is a difference in detecting the light because of relative motion. If we saw instantly, it would make NO DIFFERENCE what the relative motion was, or how far away we are from the light source.

It would make a difference because of our perception due to different frames, not because of delayed light.

Everyone would see the same thing, because we would be seeing events INSTANTLY. Like the moons of Jupiter example, special relativity conclusively rules out real-time seeing.

I know special relativity rules it out, but you cannot understand his perspective coming from the present theory of delayed time and sight. You will easily throw his claim out if you do it this way.

It's more than 'a present theory.' It is observed and tested fact. The speed of light has been measured.

A scientific theory is not arbitrary, but a narrative that explains a set of facts.

The narrative may be altered if new information comes along, yet the facts remain: light does in fact have a speed,

Correct.

and what we see is in fact delayed by the distance travelled.

No. The speed of light is what they say it is. Asserting the thing that is being refuted is wasted bandwidth.

But that's the point of my question.....that if light travels at the given speed and therefore takes time to arrive, how are distant events, supernova, etc, instanty visible with 'light at the eye?'

 

[peacegirl]

He never said he did not read anything, and you never posted a mechanism for how efferent vision is supposed to work. Indeed, it appears you do not know what “efferent vision” actually is supposed to mean.

Yes he did. He said something to the effect that he does not read. Maybe not in those exact words but I'm not going to look for the post. Bilby, would you please clarify what you said so we are not in suspense?

Sure. I will do your homework for you. Just don't expect me to do it all the time.

I am assuming that if there are no questions between posts, then it gives me permission to continue.

Posts at 9:13pm, 9:39pm, 10:12pm, 10:54pm, and 11:07pm (my local time) might as well all be one single big post from my point of view, because I am currently working an early shift, so I am asleep at those times (I have a later start today, so I didn't need to get up until twenty five minutes ago (4:30am).

As not everyone here is in the same timezone, or even close to it, if you are spacing out posts, intending to give people time to read and respond before the next excerpt, they need to be at least 24 hours apart.

That's perhaps annoying, but it's a fundamental limitation of our global society.

You can always read at your leisure and ask questions later. If I'm still here, I'll answer them to the best of my ability.

Bold of you to assume that I have "leisure"; Right now my life includes work, sleep, and the odd five minutes to half an hour to look at IIDB on my phone, usually while eating.

I am writing this in my ten minute break at work. The above is the first time in this thread that I used the word "read", according to the forum search function.

Here are the others (omitting the ones on this page, as you can scroll up for those):

I read what he said; It wasn't a demonstration, it was a bunch of false claims, tied together with logical fallacies.

I remember you saying that this forum is not meant for reading. So giving you the benefit of the doubt, what are his claims that you can say that they are tied together with logical fallacies. You aren't saying anything. You are the one that is tying together words that are not explanatory at all.

I am not "refusing to read", I am asking for clarification of what I have read,

What did you read? Nothing you have said comes close to anything that would prove to me you read it. This chapter couldn't be read in its entirety because I didn't post it. It's not in the first three chapters, so I am asking you what did you understand of the excerpt I posted? Give me a small summary.

because it doesn't seem to me to actually address this. He says a lot about what is not happening, and about how wrong our traditional understanding is, but provides few details about what actually is happening, according to his new way of understanding.

So it appears you are labouring under a(nother) misunderstanding.

I don't think that either you or the work you are promoting have ever explained the mechanism by which observers become aware of distant light sources, such as the Sun, other planets, or stars.

If you read even the small excerpt I posted, you would have some idea of how he came to the conclusion he did. Let me help you:

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.

 

[pood]

It really doesn't disprove Lessans' observations. Lightning would be seen in different frames of reference because it's not matter; it's electricity. IOW, it's not an object. Do you understand why this doesn't apply?

No, I do not understand why this does’t apply, because there is nothing to understand. It is nonsense.

Light is an electromagnetic wave. We do not see light. We see the things light illumines.

In the case of Einstein’s train gedanken, the person on the ground sees the back and front of the train illumined and the air between the train and her eyes illumined simultaneously. The person on the train sees the front of the train and the back of the train and the air between them illumined sequentially. This is proof we do not see in real time. If we did, the train observer and the ground observer would agree when the lightning struck.

 

[DBT]

He never said he did not read anything, and you never posted a mechanism for how efferent vision is supposed to work. Indeed, it appears you do not know what “efferent vision” actually is supposed to mean.

Yes he did. He said something to the effect that he does not read. Maybe not in those exact words but I'm not going to look for the post. Bilby, would you please clarify what you said so we are not in suspense?

Sure. I will do your homework for you. Just don't expect me to do it all the time.

I am assuming that if there are no questions between posts, then it gives me permission to continue.

Posts at 9:13pm, 9:39pm, 10:12pm, 10:54pm, and 11:07pm (my local time) might as well all be one single big post from my point of view, because I am currently working an early shift, so I am asleep at those times (I have a later start today, so I didn't need to get up until twenty five minutes ago (4:30am).

As not everyone here is in the same timezone, or even close to it, if you are spacing out posts, intending to give people time to read and respond before the next excerpt, they need to be at least 24 hours apart.

That's perhaps annoying, but it's a fundamental limitation of our global society.

You can always read at your leisure and ask questions later. If I'm still here, I'll answer them to the best of my ability.

Bold of you to assume that I have "leisure"; Right now my life includes work, sleep, and the odd five minutes to half an hour to look at IIDB on my phone, usually while eating.

I am writing this in my ten minute break at work. The above is the first time in this thread that I used the word "read", according to the forum search function.

Here are the others (omitting the ones on this page, as you can scroll up for those):

I read what he said; It wasn't a demonstration, it was a bunch of false claims, tied together with logical fallacies.

I remember you saying that this forum is not meant for reading. So giving you the benefit of the doubt, what are his claims that you can say that they are tied together with logical fallacies. You aren't saying anything. You are the one that is tying together words that are not explanatory at all.

I am not "refusing to read", I am asking for clarification of what I have read,

What did you read? Nothing you have said comes close to anything that would prove to me you read it. This chapter couldn't be read in its entirety because I didn't post it. It's not in the first three chapters, so I am asking you what did you understand of the excerpt I posted? Give me a small summary.

because it doesn't seem to me to actually address this. He says a lot about what is not happening, and about how wrong our traditional understanding is, but provides few details about what actually is happening, according to his new way of understanding.

So it appears you are labouring under a(nother) misunderstanding.

I don't think that either you or the work you are promoting have ever explained the mechanism by which observers become aware of distant light sources, such as the Sun, other planets, or stars.

If you read even the small excerpt I posted, you would have some idea of how he came to the conclusion he did. Let me help you:

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.

As the senses, eyes, ears, nose, taste buds, etc, evolved to acquire information from the world at large, the senses are clearly not efferent.

We can't possibly see an event before the senses acquire information from.the event and the brain processes it.

 

[bilby]

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

Efferent vision

That's a label, not an explanation or a mechanism.

I didn't ask "What do you call it?", I asked "How does it happen?".

which eliminates time and distance

That's the effect you are supposed to be explaining and providing a mechanism for.

I didn't ask "What is your claim?", I asked "How does it happen?"

Here, let me give you an example:

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

Large, bright objects emit light, in the form of photons. These photons travel from the object to the observer's eye.

Wrong.

That's not the matter under discussion here:

That is an answer to the question I asked. It may not be the correct answer - I am more than happy to accept that it is wrong - but it has a specific characteristic that makes it an answer: It provides a mechanism by which the distance between object and observer might be overcome.

How does "efferent vision" "eliminate time and distance"? That's my question. Just saying that it does is not an answer to the question.

Before we can get into the question of whether my description of the mechanism is right or wrong, I need you to try to understand what a mechanism IS.

It's OK for you to say that my mechanism is wrong. But only if you are prepared to say what the alternative mechanism (that you think is not wrong), actually is.

Just saying "wrong" is a waste of your time and mine.

I am asking you to explain one simple mechanism:

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

How?

Not "what label are you giving it?"; Not "what mechanisms suggested by other people are not it?".

I want to know - if the object is there, and the observer is here, how does the information that the object exists get from there to here?

How does "efferent vision" "eliminate time and distance"?

How??

 

[bilby]

Lightning would be seen in different frames of reference because it's not matter; it's electricity. IOW, it's not an object. Do you understand why this doesn't apply?

I am not at all sure that you are using the word "understand" to mean the same thing that everyone else here uses it to mean.

 

[bilby]

You didn't read the book either Pood.

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that anyone who doesn't agree with the book must not have read the book. This is absolutely false, for any book.

But it widely believed by religionists, of their own favourite book(s).

 

[bilby]

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.

OK. So, when a child sees the stars, is it the sound, taste, texture, or smell of them that lets him know they are there?

 

[bilby]

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.

To fail to recognise the eyes as one of the sense organs, wherein stimuli from the outside world making contact with a nerve ending causes the brain to process that stimulus as sight, is an error more equivalent to calling a potato a suspension bridge.

 

[DBT]

You can believe whatever you want. You still haven't shown me that dogs recognize their master from a computer screen or in human form without any other cues. They should be able to if the image is traveling to their eye.

As we have explained to a million times, images don’t travel to the eye. Light does. The image is formed in the brain. Why are you changing the subject from Io and the special theory of relativity? I have demonstrated to you that the findings in both cases would be impossible if we saw without a light delay.

It really doesn't disprove Lessans' observations. Lightning would be seen in different frames of reference because it's not matter; it's electricity. IOW, it's not an object. Do you understand why this doesn't apply?

Lightning has the physicai properties of matter/energy. Matter can be converted to energy. Energy can be converted to matter. Matter and energy are interchangeable.

 

[peacegirl]

It really doesn't disprove Lessans' observations. Lightning would be seen in different frames of reference because it's not matter; it's electricity. IOW, it's not an object. Do you understand why this doesn't apply?

No, I do not understand why this does’t apply, because there is nothing to understand. It is nonsense.

Light is an electromagnetic wave. We do not see light. We see the things light illumines.

In the case of Einstein’s train gedanken, the person on the ground sees the back and front of the train illumined and the air between the train and her eyes illumined simultaneously. The person on the train sees the front of the train and the back of the train and the air between them illumined sequentially. This is proof we do not see in real time. If we did, the train observer and the ground observer would agree when the lightning struck.

That makes sense because it shows that the frame of reference between being on the ground and being on a moving train allows us to see the lightning differently at the same time. This is no surprise really. In fact, it makes sense. Whether we see lightning simultaneously or sequentially demonstrates that depending on our frame of reference where one is stationary and one is moving changes what we see. Both people are obviously seeing the lightning differently as it strikes. It still does not prove what you think it does: that matter reflects light such that it travels over hundreds of years to reach the eye.

 

[pood]

It really doesn't disprove Lessans' observations. Lightning would be seen in different frames of reference because it's not matter; it's electricity. IOW, it's not an object. Do you understand why this doesn't apply?

No, I do not understand why this does’t apply, because there is nothing to understand. It is nonsense.

Light is an electromagnetic wave. We do not see light. We see the things light illumines.

In the case of Einstein’s train gedanken, the person on the ground sees the back and front of the train illumined and the air between the train and her eyes illumined simultaneously. The person on the train sees the front of the train and the back of the train and the air between them illumined sequentially. This is proof we do not see in real time. If we did, the train observer and the ground observer would agree when the lightning struck.

That makes sense because it shows that the frame of reference between being on the ground and being on a moving train allows us to see the lightning differently at the same time. This is no surprise really. In fact, it makes sense. Whether we see lightning simultaneously or sequentially demonstrates that depending on our frame of reference where one is stationary and one is moving changes what we see. Both people are obviously seeing the lightning differently as it strikes. It still does not prove what you think it does: that matter reflects light such that it travels over hundreds of years to reach the eye.

Yes, peacegirl, it does prove it. You keep telling everyone that we see everything instantly, that if God turned on the sun at noon we would see it instantly, even though it takes the light eight minutes to reach the eye. If this were true, everyone, in every reference frame, would see everything instantly, and all agree on what they saw and what time it happened. The relativity of simultaneity proves that this is not the case. From the relativity of simultaneity we also get time dilation, which would be impossible in a world of real-time seeing. We went over this with you again and again at FF. Your cellphone has a GPS. Every time you use your phone for directions or to find the location of something, you are refuting your author’s claims.This is because the GPS in your phone must account for both gravitational and relativistic time dilation. But time dilation would not happen in a world of real-time seeing.

 

[peacegirl]

He never said he did not read anything, and you never posted a mechanism for how efferent vision is supposed to work. Indeed, it appears you do not know what “efferent vision” actually is supposed to mean.

Yes he did. He said something to the effect that he does not read. Maybe not in those exact words but I'm not going to look for the post. Bilby, would you please clarify what you said so we are not in suspense?

Sure. I will do your homework for you. Just don't expect me to do it all the time.

I am assuming that if there are no questions between posts, then it gives me permission to continue.

Posts at 9:13pm, 9:39pm, 10:12pm, 10:54pm, and 11:07pm (my local time) might as well all be one single big post from my point of view, because I am currently working an early shift, so I am asleep at those times (I have a later start today, so I didn't need to get up until twenty five minutes ago (4:30am).

As not everyone here is in the same timezone, or even close to it, if you are spacing out posts, intending to give people time to read and respond before the next excerpt, they need to be at least 24 hours apart.

That's perhaps annoying, but it's a fundamental limitation of our global society.

You can always read at your leisure and ask questions later. If I'm still here, I'll answer them to the best of my ability.

Bold of you to assume that I have "leisure"; Right now my life includes work, sleep, and the odd five minutes to half an hour to look at IIDB on my phone, usually while eating.

I am writing this in my ten minute break at work. The above is the first time in this thread that I used the word "read", according to the forum search function.

Here are the others (omitting the ones on this page, as you can scroll up for those):

I read what he said; It wasn't a demonstration, it was a bunch of false claims, tied together with logical fallacies.

I remember you saying that this forum is not meant for reading. So giving you the benefit of the doubt, what are his claims that you can say that they are tied together with logical fallacies. You aren't saying anything. You are the one that is tying together words that are not explanatory at all.

I am not "refusing to read", I am asking for clarification of what I have read,

What did you read? Nothing you have said comes close to anything that would prove to me you read it. This chapter couldn't be read in its entirety because I didn't post it. It's not in the first three chapters, so I am asking you what did you understand of the excerpt I posted? Give me a small summary.

because it doesn't seem to me to actually address this. He says a lot about what is not happening, and about how wrong our traditional understanding is, but provides few details about what actually is happening, according to his new way of understanding.

So it appears you are labouring under a(nother) misunderstanding.

I don't think that either you or the work you are promoting have ever explained the mechanism by which observers become aware of distant light sources, such as the Sun, other planets, or stars.

If you read even the small excerpt I posted, you would have some idea of how he came to the conclusion he did. Let me help you:

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.

As the senses, eyes, ears, nose, taste buds, etc, evolved to acquire information from the world at large, the senses are clearly not efferent.

We can't possibly see an event before the senses acquire information from.the event and the brain processes it.

 

[pood]

Also, peacegirl, you have not yet addressed this post.

 

[peacegirl]

You can believe whatever you want. You still haven't shown me that dogs recognize their master from a computer screen or in human form without any other cues. They should be able to if the image is traveling to their eye.

As we have explained to a million times, images don’t travel to the eye. Light does. The image is formed in the brain. Why are you changing the subject from Io and the special theory of relativity? I have demonstrated to you that the findings in both cases would be impossible if we saw without a light delay.

It really doesn't disprove Lessans' observations. Lightning would be seen in different frames of reference because it's not matter; it's electricity. IOW, it's not an object. Do you understand why this doesn't apply?

Lightning has the physicai properties of matter/energy. Matter can be converted to energy. Energy can be converted to matter. Matter and energy are interchangeable.

That's not what I read. They said they are working on it, but regardless, for the purposes of this thread it's not important because the example showed lightning which is electromagnetic energy.

https://www.science.org/content/article/presto-light-creates-matter

 

[peacegirl]

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.

To fail to recognise the eyes as one of the sense organs, wherein stimuli from the outside world making contact with a nerve ending causes the brain to process that stimulus as sight, is an error more equivalent to calling a potato a suspension bridge.

There is no suspension bridge, potato or french fries or any other vegetable that is not classified as a fruit because of the way it's grown. It's not an error. If it doesn't fit, you should not commit. There are no nerve endings that receive the stimulus, which is the first clue. It's not his entire demonstration. You can take it or leave it after you understand his reasoning, not before. You are being too quick to negate what he says as false. If you still don't agree after you have heard him out, that's okay, but by golly give the man half a chance.

 

[DBT]

You can believe whatever you want. You still haven't shown me that dogs recognize their master from a computer screen or in human form without any other cues. They should be able to if the image is traveling to their eye.

As we have explained to a million times, images don’t travel to the eye. Light does. The image is formed in the brain. Why are you changing the subject from Io and the special theory of relativity? I have demonstrated to you that the findings in both cases would be impossible if we saw without a light delay.

It really doesn't disprove Lessans' observations. Lightning would be seen in different frames of reference because it's not matter; it's electricity. IOW, it's not an object. Do you understand why this doesn't apply?

Lightning has the physicai properties of matter/energy. Matter can be converted to energy. Energy can be converted to matter. Matter and energy are interchangeable.

That's not what I read. They said they are working on it, but regardless, for the purposes of this thread it's not important because the example showed lightning which is electromagnetic energy.

https://www.science.org/content/article/presto-light-creates-matter

It doesn’t matter what it is. We can't see, feel, taste or smell anything before our senses acquire the information and the brain processes it, and that is a sequence of events that takes time.

 

[peacegirl]

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 — awakensWha the brain so that the child can look through them at what exists around him.

OK. So, when a child sees the stars, is it the sound, taste, texture, or smell of them that lets him know they are there?

What are you talking about bilby? When a baby is born, he cannot focus his eyes until there is a desire to see due to the other senses stimulating this desire. This is exactly why READING THE ENTIRE CHAPTER is the only way you will be able to understand his full explanation. Without it, you're just guessing what he means.