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

[DBT]

They are not beliefs. The speed of light is not a belief. The distance of travel is not a belief. The structure and function of the eye is not a belief.

I wasn’t referring to the speed of light or distance or the structure of the eye. Function is another story. Why is it that no one is asking questions in regard to his demonstration? They just turn away believing that his claim is impossible. But it is not impossible. It would be better to leave this subject with a question mark than telling me he was wrong without understanding his points and why he was so confident in making this claim while knowing he would be judged harshly for it.

The claim is impossible for the given reasons, light has a given speed and distance determines how long it takes to reach the eye, which has evolved to detect light and transmit information to the brain.

There is nothing in this claim that refutes the eyes evolving to detect light. Light is not the issue. It's the information that is assumed to be transmitted such that light bounces off an object and takes the image (or information) with it over long distances. This is what he is refuting.

There is nothing to refute. You can check for yourself. Light does in fact convey information. Using a lense you can project and focus images of the light source for yourself. This is not controversial.

 

[peacegirl]

Seriously, what is the difference between this claim and when Galileo defied the thinking of his time?

I gave a detailed account of the difference in this thread, more than two months ago on October 28th. You never responded to that post:

Sorry, I must have missed it. I am not comparing the scientific methods used. I was just comparing what Galileo went through with Lessans' ordeal, even if you think Lessans' claims do not meet scientific standards.

there’s no travel time when the eyes work the opposite way from what you believe.

To pick just one element from the fractal wrongness here; Why would there be no travel time if the eyes work "the opposite way"?

That's like saying it takes an hour to drive to Nerang, but if I was going the opposite way, it wouldn't take any time at all. But we observe that it actually takes an hour to drive here from Nerang.

No bilby, light traveling to the moon and back would be the same speed and distance each way. We are talking about how the eyes work ONLY. He demonstrated why he believed we see in real time. It makes absolute sense, but the problem is he is he is an unknown, someone who couldn't possibly have made a true discovery. Anybody who went against the grain of the thinking of Galileo's day, was ostracized, or worse. I hope you are not like the Catholic Church who told Galileo to stop discussing his ideas, or else. Throwing out his claims without a thorough study of his work is just as bad. This is what stops progress.

Galileo: His intellectual arguments, mathematical models and telescopic data failed to impress the Catholic authorities, and in February of 1616, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine took him aside and privately warned him to comply with the orders of the Church and stop writing or discussing his ideas—or else.

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

That's why it's very important to distinguish between Bozo the clown and Einstein.

OK, let's compare and contrast. Galileo and Einstein and all these others didn't just sit down, stare at their navels, and then say "Eureka! I have a new idea about how reality works!".

I hope you're not implying that this is what Lessans did. This is very problematic because you won't read a thing. You're making assumptions about him, probably as a protective mechanism.

Who, in his right mind or with knowledge of history, would believe it possible that the 20th century will be the time when all war, crime, and every form of evil or hurt in human relations must come to a permanent end? [Note: This is a reminder that the author lived in the 20th century (1918-1991). Though we are well into the 21st century, this discovery has yet to be given a thorough investigation by our world’s leading scientists.] When first hearing this prophecy, shortly after Hitler had slaughtered 6 million Jews, I laughed with contempt because nothing appeared more ridiculous than such a statement. But after 15 years (8 hours a day) of extensive reading and thinking, my dissatisfaction with a certain theory that had gotten a dogmatic hold on the mind compelled me to spend nine strenuous months in the deepest analysis, and I made a finding that was so difficult to believe it took me two years to thoroughly understand its full significance for all mankind and three additional years to put it into the kind of language others could comprehend. It is the purpose of this book to reveal this finding — a scientific discovery about the nature of man whose life, as a direct consequence of this mathematical revelation, will be completely revolutionized in every way for his benefit, bringing about a transition so utterly amazing that if I were to tell you of all the changes soon to unfold without demonstrating the cause as to why these must come about, your skepticism would be aroused sufficiently to consider this a work of science fiction, for who would believe it possible that all evil (every bit of hurt that exists in human relation) must decline and fall the very moment this discovery is thoroughly understood.

This natural law, which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no wonder the development of our present age was required to find it. By discovering this well-concealed law and demonstrating its power, a catalyst, so to speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing what will be called miracles, though they do not transcend the laws of nature. The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes and all the other evils of human relation is going to veer so sharply in a different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible. If this is difficult to conceive, does it mean you have a desire to dismiss what I have to say as nonsense? If it does, then you have done what I tried to prevent, that is, jumped to a premature conclusion. And the reason must be that you judged such a permanent solution as impossible and therefore not deserving of further consideration, which is a normal reaction, if anything, when my claims are analyzed and compared to our present understanding of human nature. War seems to be an inescapable feature of the human condition that can only be subdued, not eradicated. But we must insert a question mark between the empirical fact that a feature is characteristic of human life as we know it, and the empirical claim that this feature is a sociological inevitability. Another reason that war is viewed as an unfortunate and intractable aspect of human existence is due to suffering itself, which sadly robs its victims of the ability to dream or have the breadth of vision to even contemplate the possibility of peace. The evil in the world has so constricted man’s imagination that his mind has become hardened, and he shows contempt for anyone who dares to offer a solution because such claims appear ludicrous and unfounded.

They started with a problem. An odd, inconsistent, but universally applicable problem.

Every mariner and astronomer in Galileo's time knew that their model of the universe, with Earth at the centre, and the Moon, Sun, Planets, and fixed stars rotating around it in perfectly circular orbits didn't match what they saw. Even when they added Epicycles, the model gave predictions that just didn't quite match their observations.

Einstein was presented with a similar niggling problem. The Galileo's heliocentric model, with various tweaks from such geniuses as Kepler, gave almost perfect predictions for everything - except the orbit of Mercury.

Galileo had a radical and heretical idea; What if the Earth isn't in the centre? When you build a model with the Sun in the centre, suddenly most of the problem disappears! Despite the heresy, the simple fact that the problem goes away in the new paradigm suggests that it is nevertheless correct.

Einstein too had a radical idea. What if light doesn't travel in straight lines? Or rather, if it did, but the space through which it travels is distorted by the mass of the Sun, so that a straight line wasn't wat we had always imagined it to be? When you build a model in which space curves under the influence of mass, suddenly the problem disappears! Despite the heresy, the simple fact that the problem goes away in the new paradigm suggests that it is nevertheless correct.

So, what is the observed discrepancy between reality and theory, that goes away when we say "What if the eye is not a sense organ?". What problem was there with the existing understanding that eyes sense light, and how does this radical idea make that problem go away?

Eyes do sense light. The problem is that what we think we see with our eyes is not real, yet it appears real. In reality, it's a projection. This has hurt many people due to stratifying them into layers of value, and when it's removed, this inhumanity goes away.

The problem is not that he's an unknown, an iconoclast, a maverick, a contrarian, or an outsider.

Oh but it does. He was all of these things, but he was never given a fair chance to demonstrate his findings.

Even leaving aside the subject/verb mismatch, it is immediately obvious that this response is not to what I said, but to what you expected I might have said.

I didn't say he wasn't these things; I said that that wasn't the problem.

He was not the typical academic who came from a highly respected university which caused people to be uninterested in what he had to say. There was no way he could have brought his discovery to light in his lifetime. The same thing happened to Gregor Mendel and others. How can you even talk about him in this derogatory way when you don't understand anything about his observations or why he came to these conclusions. Do you understand why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ (explain it to me) or why it matters?

I don't.

I'm trying to explain why it matters.

Do you understand why man's will is not free, or are you just a run of the mill skeptic?

False dichotomy. Also assuming the consequent.

Where am I assuming the consequent? I'm just asking you if you understand his explanation as to why man's will is not free.

You have yet to convince me that man's will is not free, much less that "why" is a viable question;

Is this better: "Do you understand that man's will is not free"? To explain that man's will is not free, I'll have to start from scratch since you obviously didn't read any of the excerpts I posted for your benefit.

And facts don't depend on being considered by non-skeptics, nor does skepticism alter reality in any way.

That is true; it doesn't change reality, but it can leave out knowledge that is dependent on this reality for their discovery.

In order for me to reveal my discovery it is absolutely necessary that I first show you its hiding place because they are related to each other.”

“What is this theory?” he asked.

“You see, Mr. Johnston, most people believe consciously or unconsciously that man’s will is free.”

“What’s that? Did I hear you correctly? Are you trying to tell me that man’s will is not free?”

“That is absolutely right, Mr. Johnston. I don’t believe it; I know this for a mathematical fact. My discovery lies locked behind the door marked ‘Man’s Will is Not Free,’ just like the invariable laws of the solar system were concealed behind the door marked ‘The Earth is Round’ — until some upstart scientist opened it for a thorough investigation.”

“I have always believed it to be free, but what difference does it make what I think; the will of man is certainly not going to be affected by my opinion, right?”

“That part is true enough (do you recall the comparison), but if the will of man is definitely not free, isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think otherwise, we will be prevented from discovering those things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery; consequently, it does make a difference. The opinion of our ancestors that the earth was flat could never change its actual shape, but just as long as the door marked ‘The Earth Is Round’ was never opened thoroughly for an investigation by scientists capable of perceiving the undeniable but involved relations hidden there, how were we ever to discover the laws that allow us now to land men on the moon?”

The problem is that he is wrong.

Says bilby who is now the arbiter of truth.

No, says observation of reality, which is the arbiter of truth.

If that's what you believe, then why not give this author a chance? He was an astute observer.

His idea can be, and has been, tested against reality, and found to be false.

No one tested this version of how the brain works in relation to sight, so you're wrong again.

Your ignorance of the work done on optics and vision isn't evidence of its absence. The way eyes work has been studied in excruciating detail over the last few hundred years. Rather like the motions of the planets had just before Galileo came along.

Yet, unlike the motions of the planets, which were failing to match predictions in ways with real world consequences - shipwrecks, dead mariners, lost cargoes - the current model of how eyes work, and how light gets to them, has no such failings. There is no widely agreed problem, in need of a solution, however radical, heretical, or unexpected.

Your man here is solving a "problem" that doesn't exist.

You are so wrong that it makes me truly sad that you're not seeing why this knowledge is so important. I just hope you don't give up.

Galileo was abused by the church for his heresies; But he wasn't disproven, and his ideas did become widely accepted - not because he was a heretic, but because he was not wrong.

The Catholics thought they were right based on what they believed to be true using their methods to determine this.

Yes.

It's the same thing here.

No.

Scientists have made up their minds that their evidence is airtight and that what we SEE must be delayed because light travels, but they never took into account that their proof may not be proof at all.

No, they simply remark that their current model currently leads to zero problems, and so needs no revision at this time.

They have no qualms about changing the model if any such problems arise.

And science doesn't do proof. Proof is for mathematics and whisky.

Funny. Maybe there is hope for them to change the model once they see what led him to this conclusion.

Now anyone who disagrees with this "fact" ( ) is considered to be a crank or a flat earther. This is no different than how the Catholic Church acted toward Galileo, even though the circumstances were different.

It is very different. And the crucial difference is that Galileo had a solution to a real and significant problem with the pre-existing model of reality.

Indeed, his solution was so effective (and even the Catholic Church were not completely un-moved by the effect of poor astronomical models on international commerce, the loss of valuable cargoes, and even the deaths of sailors who may not have had time to confess their sins before drowning), that the church allowed him to teach his ideas, as long as he was careful to say that it was just a mathematical trick, and not a description of God's perfect, Earth-centred, creation.

It must have been very hard for Galileo to lie to the Catholic Church by having to say that it was a mathematical trick, not God's perfect, Earth-centered creation. But at least he was able to make progress.

So, what widely known problem of optics, or sight, or the physics of light, is this radical new model supposed to fix; And can it do so without generating even bigger problems?

Because it's the solving of problems, without making even bigger problems in the process, that is the hallmark of genius.

There are no bigger problems in the process with this radical new model.

Persecution for having radical ideas does happen to geniuses, or course; But it also happens to idiots and madmen, so it's not evidence either way.

Good ideas solve real problems. If an idea doesn't address a real problem, or causes more real problems than it solves, then it is not a good idea; It's just an idea. And ideas are valueless.

I agree.

If that's TL;DR here's my summary:

It is very different. And the crucial difference is that Galileo had a solution to a real and significant problem with the pre-existing model of reality.

There is no real or significant problem with the current model of light, optics, and sight.

You're incorrect. He's not changing the structure of the eye. He is just showing that light does not bounce off of objects and travel through space/time with the information that then reaches the eye.

 

[peacegirl]

They are not beliefs. The speed of light is not a belief. The distance of travel is not a belief. The structure and function of the eye is not a belief.

I wasn’t referring to the speed of light or distance or the structure of the eye. Function is another story. Why is it that no one is asking questions in regard to his demonstration? They just turn away believing that his claim is impossible. But it is not impossible. It would be better to leave this subject with a question mark than telling me he was wrong without understanding his points and why he was so confident in making this claim while knowing he would be judged harshly for it.

The claim is impossible for the given reasons, light has a given speed and distance determines how long it takes to reach the eye, which has evolved to detect light and transmit information to the brain.

There is nothing in this claim that refutes the eyes evolving to detect light. Light is not the issue. It's the information that is assumed to be transmitted such that light bounces off an object and takes the image (or information) with it over long distances. This is what he is refuting.

There is nothing to refute. You can check for yourself. Light does in fact convey information. Using a lense you can project and focus images of the light source for yourself. This is not controversial.

Light does convey information. No one is saying otherwise. The only difference is whether the information is seen in the past or the present. Science says the light source brings us the past. Lessans says the light source reveals the present.

 

[bilby]

I'm trying to explain why it matters.

Yes, you are. But that's logically fallacious. We are trying to determine what is happening in reality; Whether reality suits our desires or aspirations, or whether it dashes our hopes and dreams, is of zero relevance to whether or not it is real.

What I am asking you to do is to explain what erroneous prediction of current theories this new idea (of how eyes work and what they do) resolves.

 

[bilby]

Science says the light source brings us the past. Lessans says the light source reveals the present.

Einstein says that the 'present' is a purely local phenomenon, and that observers in different reference frames do not agree about what is past, present, or future.

"Science" isn't an individual, and that's a good thing for you, because that means it can't sue you for slander even though it doesn't say most of the things you attribute to it.

 

[pood]

It’s so obvious that something is amiss.

And that would be what?

The eye is a complex sense organ that takes time to develop. Other senses are not so complex. By your “logic,” something obviously is amiss that a baby does not come out of the womb a fully grown adult. Ergo, babies are not humans. By your “logic” something is obviously amiss that babies’ hands are so tiny, they cannot really grasp or manipulate things. Ergo, hands are not hands, but something else. Efferent hands, maybe?

 

[peacegirl]

I'm trying to explain why it matters.

Yes, you are. But that's logically fallacious. We are trying to determine what is happening in reality; Whether reality suits our desires or aspirations, or whether it dashes our hopes and dreams, is of zero relevance to whether or not it is real.

What I am asking you to do is to explain what erroneous prediction of current theories this new idea (of how eyes work and what they do) resolves.

It resolves the problem of inferiority.

 

[peacegirl]

Science says the light source brings us the past. Lessans says the light source reveals the present.

Einstein says that the 'present' is a purely local phenomenon, and that observers in different reference frames do not agree about what is past, present, or future.

"Science" isn't an individual, and that's a good thing for you, because that means it can't sue you for slander even though it doesn't say most of the things you attribute to it.

I’m not making false statements and my motive is not slanderous.

 

[peacegirl]

It’s so obvious that something is amiss.

And that would be what?

The eye is a complex sense organ that takes time to develop. Other senses are not so complex. By your “logic,” something obviously is amiss that a baby does not come out of the womb a fully grown adult. Ergo, babies are not humans. By your “logic” something is obviously amiss that babies’ hands are so tiny, they cannot really grasp or manipulate things. Ergo, hands are not hands, but something else. Efferent hands, maybe?

You are wrong about so many things in this book, you will never understand it. All of the other sense organs are in full working order at birth.

 

[bilby]

I'm trying to explain why it matters.

Yes, you are. But that's logically fallacious. We are trying to determine what is happening in reality; Whether reality suits our desires or aspirations, or whether it dashes our hopes and dreams, is of zero relevance to whether or not it is real.

What I am asking you to do is to explain what erroneous prediction of current theories this new idea (of how eyes work and what they do) resolves.

It resolves the problem of inferiority.

Are you saying that our ability to see what you write here makes you look inferior?

Seriously though, how is "the problem of inferiority" an erroneous prediction of current theories of how eyes work and what they do?

You appear to have forgotton my question while formulating your answer; Again: What I am asking you to do is to explain what erroneous prediction of current theories this new idea (of how eyes work and what they do) resolves.

"The problem of inferiority" isn't a prediction of current theories of how eyes work and what you do, so your new idea cannot be intended to address that prediction.

 

[bilby]

Science says the light source brings us the past. Lessans says the light source reveals the present.

Einstein says that the 'present' is a purely local phenomenon, and that observers in different reference frames do not agree about what is past, present, or future.

"Science" isn't an individual, and that's a good thing for you, because that means it can't sue you for slander even though it doesn't say most of the things you attribute to it.

I’m not making false statements

You are. Your inability to recognise their falsity notwithstanding.

and my motive is not slanderous.

Your commentary is, though, whether you intend it to be or not.

 

[bilby]

It’s so obvious that something is amiss.

And that would be what?

The eye is a complex sense organ that takes time to develop. Other senses are not so complex. By your “logic,” something obviously is amiss that a baby does not come out of the womb a fully grown adult. Ergo, babies are not humans. By your “logic” something is obviously amiss that babies’ hands are so tiny, they cannot really grasp or manipulate things. Ergo, hands are not hands, but something else. Efferent hands, maybe?

You are wrong about so many things in this book, you will never understand it. All of the other sense organs are in full working order at birth.

How could we possibly know this?

Do you remember how things tasted when you were born? Did you even taste many things in your first few weeks of life? Most babies don't get to try spicy curries, so how do you know that they can taste them?

Most parts of a newborn baby are underdeveloped. Their sence of balance is woeful, and they are therefore rarely seen walking, running, or riding a bicycle.

Newborns cannot hear well; We know this because we can employ the exact same tests you use to determine that dogs cannot recognise people by sight - if a newborn baby hears its mother calling its name, it won't come running, or wag its tail, or even respond by saying its mother's name, or its own, in return.

Seriously, your methodology leads to ludicrous conclusions. You are like the etymologist in the old joke about spiders:

Show

So, this etymologist has trained a spider. When a bell rings, the spider runs across its enclosure to a little opening, and gets a juicy fly as a reward. After a week of training, the etymologist can ring the bell, and the spider will immediately run across to the opening, even if no fly is presented there.

Then the etymologist very carefully amputates the spider's legs, without hurting it in any other way.

He rings the bell, but the spider's legless body doesn't move towards the opening at all.

Aha! The etymologist exclaims. I knew I was right; If you remove a spider's legs, it goes deaf!

 

[DBT]

Science says the light source brings us the past. Lessans says the light source reveals the present.

Einstein says that the 'present' is a purely local phenomenon, and that observers in different reference frames do not agree about what is past, present, or future.

"Science" isn't an individual, and that's a good thing for you, because that means it can't sue you for slander even though it doesn't say most of the things you attribute to it.

I’m not making false statements and my motive is not slanderous.

The notion of instant vision, light at the eye, no travel time, is just plain wrong.

 

[peacegirl]

I'm trying to explain why it matters.

Yes, you are. But that's logically fallacious. We are trying to determine what is happening in reality; Whether reality suits our desires or aspirations, or whether it dashes our hopes and dreams, is of zero relevance to whether or not it is real.

What I am asking you to do is to explain what erroneous prediction of current theories this new idea (of how eyes work and what they do) resolves.

It resolves the problem of inferiority.

Are you saying that our ability to see what you write here makes you look inferior?

Seriously though, how is "the problem of inferiority" an erroneous prediction of current theories of how eyes work and what they do?

You appear to have forgotton my question while formulating your answer; Again: What I am asking you to do is to explain what erroneous prediction of current theories this new idea (of how eyes work and what they do) resolves.

"The problem of inferiority" isn't a prediction of current theories of how eyes work and what you do, so your new idea cannot be intended to address that prediction.

This is not about erroneous predictions from the present theories. It’s not about prediction at all.

 

[peacegirl]

Science says the light source brings us the past. Lessans says the light source reveals the present.

Einstein says that the 'present' is a purely local phenomenon, and that observers in different reference frames do not agree about what is past, present, or future.

"Science" isn't an individual, and that's a good thing for you, because that means it can't sue you for slander even though it doesn't say most of the things you attribute to it.

I’m not making false statements

You are. Your inability to recognise their falsity notwithstanding.

I could say the same thing about your inability to recognize your false statements. You have made up your mind he’s wrong so there’s nowhere for me to go.

and my motive is not slanderous.

Your commentary is, though, whether you intend it to be or not.

They are not slanderous just because Lessans observations contradict other claims. If you’re not interested in this knowledge, let’s end it.

 

[bilby]

I'm trying to explain why it matters.

Yes, you are. But that's logically fallacious. We are trying to determine what is happening in reality; Whether reality suits our desires or aspirations, or whether it dashes our hopes and dreams, is of zero relevance to whether or not it is real.

What I am asking you to do is to explain what erroneous prediction of current theories this new idea (of how eyes work and what they do) resolves.

It resolves the problem of inferiority.

Are you saying that our ability to see what you write here makes you look inferior?

Seriously though, how is "the problem of inferiority" an erroneous prediction of current theories of how eyes work and what they do?

You appear to have forgotton my question while formulating your answer; Again: What I am asking you to do is to explain what erroneous prediction of current theories this new idea (of how eyes work and what they do) resolves.

"The problem of inferiority" isn't a prediction of current theories of how eyes work and what you do, so your new idea cannot be intended to address that prediction.

This is not about erroneous predictions from the present theories. It’s not about prediction at all.

Then it's not science at all.

You appear to have only the vaguest notion of what science is, or does.

And of course, it is about prediction. You are predicting that if an object is large enough and luminous enough, it will be visible instantaneously regardless of its distance from us.

Traditional optics (and other fields of physics, such as relativity) predict that any information about any event will take time to travel from the source, to the observer; And that the maximum speed of that information is that of electromagnetic radiation (of which light is a part) in a vacuum.

What I am asking you to do is to explain what erroneous prediction of current theories this new idea (of how eyes work and what they do) resolves.

I am asking you this, because this is the centrepiece of any and all scientific investigation of the real world. New ideas supplant old ideas if, and only if, they make more accurate predictions about what we will observe than the old ideas made.

Any other approach to finding out how reality really is, fails. We use science, not because we love it, or have faith in it, or trust it; But because it works. Science puts men on the Moon. Faith flies them into skyscrapers.

 

[bilby]

I could say the same thing about your inability to recognize your false statements. You have made up your mind he’s wrong so there’s nowhere for me to go.

Sure there is. You just need to explain what erroneous prediction of current theories this new idea (of how eyes work and what they do) resolves.

Do that, and I shall happily accept that he is right. But you actually have to do it, not just whinge about how unfair it is that he is being held to the exact same standard as everyone else with an idea.

 

[bilby]

They are not slanderous just because Lessans observations contradict other claims.

You're right. They are slanderous because you are insulting the integrity of the people who are applying scientific rigour to their understanding of reality, while simulataneously refusing to apply similar rigour to your own.

Your claim that scientists are not accepting Lessans's claims because they refuse to examine any claims that contradict current theory, is both untrue and insulting, and it defames the scientific community. So it is slander.

The scientific community is not accepting Lessans's claims because they are NOT SCIENCE. As I just explained.

 

[peacegirl]

It’s so obvious that something is amiss.

And that would be what?

The eye is a complex sense organ that takes time to develop. Other senses are not so complex. By your “logic,” something obviously is amiss that a baby does not come out of the womb a fully grown adult. Ergo, babies are not humans. By your “logic” something is obviously amiss that babies’ hands are so tiny, they cannot really grasp or manipulate things. Ergo, hands are not hands, but something else. Efferent hands, maybe?

You are wrong about so many things in this book, you will never understand it. All of the other sense organs are in full working order at birth.

How could we possibly know this?

Do you remember how things tasted when you were born? Did you even taste many things in your first few weeks of life? Most babies don't get to try spicy curries, so how do you know that they can taste them?

Babies don’t have experience with different foods but that doesn’t mean they can’t taste or that their tastebuds aren’t working.

Most parts of a newborn baby are underdeveloped. Their sence of balance is woeful, and they are therefore rarely seen walking, running, or riding a bicycle.

Newborns cannot hear well; We know this because we can employ the exact same tests you use to determine that dogs cannot recognise people by sight - if a newborn baby hears its mother calling its name, it won't come running, or wag its tail, or even respond by saying its mother's name, or its own, in return.

Paleaseeee! This is getting ridiculous! They test babies in the hospital to see if they can hear within the first 24 hours. Sometimes they have fluid in their ears but they can tell immediately if the newborn can hear.

Seriously, your methodology leads to ludicrous conclusions. You are like the etymologist in the old joke about spiders:

Show

So, this etymologist has trained a spider. When a bell rings, the spider runs across its enclosure to a little opening, and gets a juicy fly as a reward. After a week of training, the etymologist can ring the bell, and the spider will immediately run across to the opening, even if no fly is presented there.

Then the etymologist very carefully amputates the spider's legs, without hurting it in any other way.

He rings the bell, but the spider's legless body doesn't move towards the opening at all.

Aha! The etymologist exclaims. I knew I was right; If you remove a spider's legs, it goes deaf!

Haha! It’s so funny I wish I could laugh!

 

[DBT]

There are no means or mechanisms by which instant vision could be possible. Light being radiated from stars simply cannot just be 'at the eye' without travel time.