DBT
Contributor
Srsly DBT, do you actually think I would come on a philosophy forum making this kind of claim without having anything to back it up? It would be suicidal. I will paste the introduction to this chapter but I'm not going to post his observations. Is it that hard to buy the book for $1.95 just for this chapter alone? Then return the book and get your dollar back. Geeze!!That is only because of the speed of light. From there, they assumed light was bringing images through space/time, and there was no way you could convince them otherwise once it was thought to be a basic scientific fact.He is clearly wrong on the matter of instant vision/ light at the eye. In relation to the physics of light and eye and brain function, it doesn't even make sense. So the idea is being asserted without evidence or explanation of how it may work and indisputable evidence against it.
That is why anyone with even a basic understanding of physics rejects the claim.
Who said he didn't have evidence?He is clearly wrong on the matter of instant vision/ light at the eye. In relation to the physics of light and eye and brain function, it doesn't even make sense. So the idea is being asserted without evidence or explanation of how it may work and indisputable evidence against it.
What evidence is there for instant vision?
WORDS, NOT REALITY
Our problem of hurting each other is very deep-rooted and begins with words through which we have not been allowed to see reality for what it really is. Supposing I stood up in one of our universities and said, “Ladies and gentlemen, I am prepared to prove that man does not have five senses, which has nothing to do with a sixth sense,” wouldn’t all the professors laugh and say, “Are you serious or are you being funny? You can’t be serious because everybody knows man has five senses. This is an established fact.” The definition of epistemology is the theory or science of the method and grounds of knowledge, especially with reference to its limits and validity. For the modern empiricist, the only way knowledge becomes ‘stamped’ onto the human conscience is through internal and external sensations, or through sense experience. But there is surprising evidence that the eyes are not a sense organ. The idea that man has five senses originated with Aristotle, and it has never been challenged. He did this just as naturally as we would name anything to identify it. But he made an assumption that the eyes functioned like the other senses, so he included them in the definition. This is equivalent to calling an apple, pear, peach, orange, and potato five fruit.
The names given to these foods describe differences in substance that exist in the real world, but we certainly cannot call them five fruit since this word excludes the potato, which is not grown in the same manner as is described by the word fruit. Believe it or not, the eyes, similar to the potato in the above example, were classified in a category to which they did not belong. We cannot name the organs with which we communicate with the outside world — the five senses, when they do not function alike. Aristotle, however, didn’t know this. His logic and renown delayed an immediate investigation of his theory because no one dared oppose the genius of this individual without appearing ridiculous for such audacity, which brought about almost unanimous agreement. To disagree was so presumptuous that nobody dared to voice their disagreement because this would only incur disdainful criticism. Everyone believed that such a brilliant individual, such a genius, had to know whereof he spoke. This is not a criticism of Aristotle or of anyone. But even today, we are still in agreement regarding a fallacious observation about the brain and its relation to the eyes. Those who will consider the possibility that you might have a discovery reveal their confusion by trying to nullify any value to it with this comment, as was made to me, “What difference does it make what we call them as a group, this isn’t going to change what we are. Whether we call them five senses, or four senses and a pair of eyes, is certainly not going to change them in any way.” However, if man doesn’t really have five senses, 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 what we call them.
Just as my first discovery was not that man’s will is not free but the knowledge revealed by opening that door for a thorough investigation, so likewise, my second discovery is not that man does not have five senses but what significant knowledge lies hidden behind this door. Many years later, we have an additional problem that is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear, any evidence to the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth. However, it appears that they will not be given the opportunity because the very moment the will of God is perceived and understood, man is given no alternative as to what direction he must travel, which is away from condemning someone who has uncovered a falsehood. The real truth is that there are thousands upon thousands of differences existing in the external world, but when words do not describe these differences accurately, we are then seeing a distorted version of what exists — as with free will.
I don't see evidence that supports instant vision....and the author speaks of the ''will of God'' playing a part. Which also lacks evidence.
To use the example of the sun, which is a star, we see the stars as they were when the light our eyes detect were emitted from the star. Which varies from 8.5 minutes for our star, 4.5 years for out neighbor the Alpha Centauri system, looking at stars and galaxies as they were billions of years in the past.
That's how it works. Basic physics. There are no loopholes.