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

[peacegirl]

I’ve skimmed over peacegirl’s latest posts. So familiar. She’s been repeating the exact same tropes for many years, in the exact same words. She is always wrong. She learns nothing. It has become a big bore.

Yes it has, so you can imagine how I feel. ASK ME NO QUESTIONS AND YOU'LL LEAVE WITH YOUR WORLDVIEW UNTOUCHED. Are you happy now?

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

People here are generally open minded and curious, but also critical. You can't just trow anything out and not expect criticism.

The book and your clans were not prejudged. You were listened to, debated and your claims rejected as debate evolved.

As to being on a par with ancient philosophers, they had many ideas on reality without the benefit of our modern science and all of it fell by the wayside. Ancient philosophy is more of an historical footnote.

Modern empirical science is based in experiment, data driven. Experiment always trumps claims.

And the example of the claims of a successful cold fusion. Enormous practical and economic implcations. It was quickly rejected globally, nobody could repeat the ex[prment.

So saying the object lightwave travels and the image is already at the eye gets nowhere without an experiment. Sayig dogs can not recognize a picture of an object because it 'does not have essence of the object' requires clear definitions and a controlled experiment.

A step by step procedure that anyone can run which will result inn the same concision without question.

How do you select the dogs? How do you check visual acuity of the digs you use? Color vison?

Painstaking and sometimes tedious attention to small details. Clear documentation of the ex[ferment.

Those skills you don;t just pick up.

 

[pood]

To reiterate: we can rule out peacegirl’s claims about real-time seeing on logic alone, without any need for experiment.

She claims that light takes time to get to the eyes.

She also claims that light is at the eyes instantly.

This is obviously self-contradictory logical claptrap.

No experiments or investigations are needed to rule it out a priori.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl wants to talk about something else besides her writer’s claims about light and sight, which she knows she cannot defend and which moreover have been demonstrated to be both physically and logically impossible.

There's no point. In no way does this mean he was wrong in his observations.

If they are demonstrated to be both physically and logically impossible, then yes, it pretty much means exactly that.

But they aren't.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

People here are generally open minded and curious, but also critical. You can't just trow anything out and not expect criticism.

The book and your clans were not prejudged. You were listened to, debated and your claims rejected as debate evolved.

No, the book has not been read. I bet no one read anything I painstakingly posted. The only thing people seem interested in is his claim regarding the eyes, when this was important but not as important as his first discovery.

As to being on a par with ancient philosophers, they had many ideas on reality without the benefit of our modern science and all of it fell by the wayside. Ancient philosophy is more of an historical footnote.

Modern empirical science is based in experiment, data driven. Experiment always trumps claims.

This was more than a claim.

And the example of the claims of a successful cold fusion. Enormous practical and economic implcations. It was quickly rejected globally, nobody could repeat the ex[prment.

So saying the object lightwave travels and the image is already at the eye gets nowhere without an experiment. Sayig dogs can not recognize a picture of an object because it 'does not have essence of the object' requires clear definitions and a controlled experiment.

A step by step procedure that anyone can run which will result inn the same concision without question.

I asked people to do an experiment to see if their dog can recognize them on a computer screen without any movement or other cues. That's easy enough to do.

How do you select the dogs? How do you check visual acuity of the digs you use? Color vison?

An experiment with dogs being trained to push a lever and get a reward does not trump a real life observation.

 

[peacegirl]

To reiterate: we can rule out peacegirl’s claims about real-time seeing on logic alone, without any need for experiment.

She claims that light takes time to get to the eyes.

She also claims that light is at the eyes instantly.

This is obviously self-contradictory logical claptrap.

Light travels, but this does not prove that it is traveling with the" image" (i.e., the wavelength/frequency) of the object with it to the eye or telescope over eons. I want to end this conversation because it is getting us nowhere fast.

No experiments or investigations are needed to rule it out a priori.

Last time: Photons travel, strike objects, but do not travel with the object's wavelength/frequency through space/time, which is a theory, not a fact.

 

[peacegirl]

Again, you are ruining it for everyone by making jokes.

So, just to be clear, you are saying that there is some deep and important revelation that will transform the whole of human society; But that it is so fragile and impotent that it can't withstand people joking about it?

Why would anyone joke about something so important? Joking at this stage would only be meant to laugh at, not as a form of friendly banter. So, no, at this point, it cannot withstand people joking about it.

Have you not met any humans?

If you want to transform all of humanity - eight billion people - they your approach is gonna need to be able to handle a lot more than just a few jokes.

Joking is fine as long as no one is hurt by it. But in this case, the jokes are at my expense, which would be hard to come by in the new world.

The big joke here is that you want eight billion people to agree with your dad's half-baked nonsense, and yet these supposedly powerful and insightful ideas have yet to convince eight.

Bilby, you haven't read the book. If you ever read it, get back to me. You don't have a clue how this would work, yet you are basing your skepticism on literally nothing but hot air. I know this whole thing sounds impossible, but it's not.
---------------------------------------------------------

Throughout history, there has always been this skepticism before certain events were proven true. It is only natural to be skeptical, but this is never a sufficient reason to exclude the possibility of a scientific miracle. You may reason that many people have been positive that they were right, but it turned out they were wrong, so couldn’t I also be positive and wrong? There is a fallacious standard hidden in this reasoning. Because others were positive and wrong, I could be wrong because I am positive. The first astronomer who observed the mathematical laws inherent in the solar system that enabled him to predict an eclipse was positive and right, as well as the space scientist who foretold that one day man would land on the moon. Edison, when he first discovered the electric bulb, was positive and right. Einstein, when he revealed the potential of atomic energy, was positive and right — and so were many other scientists — but they proved that they were right with an undeniable demonstration, which is what I am doing. If my demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and only then am I wrong. There is quite a difference between being positive or dogmatic over knowledge that is questionable and being positive over something that is undeniable, such as two plus two equals four. Just bear in mind how many times in the course of history the impossible (that which appeared to be) has been made possible by scientific discoveries, which should make you desire to contain your skepticism enough to investigate what this is all about.

 

[steve_bank]

As to your dog experiment and cop0tuer screens, as I said attenuation to details. What is the visual acuity of the dogs? How far away? Contrast and quality of the image?

Think what could be wrong with an experiment before you run it.

I am long out of practice, but I am grounded in experiment and having to stand up to critique. I speak from some experience.

Lessans rails and rants against the academic world, but the reality is that is where he could have gotten the basic skills to pursue his ideas. Science classes that included lab experiments. Learning structured methodology and how to document. I rmember the first Physics 101 lab. Making measurements, error analysis, and documentation.

I think I am done, nothing more that I can say.

 

[bilby]

Peacegirl wants to talk about something else besides her writer’s claims about light and sight, which she knows she cannot defend and which moreover have been demonstrated to be both physically and logically impossible.

There's no point. In no way does this mean he was wrong in his observations.

If they are demonstrated to be both physically and logically impossible, then yes, it pretty much means exactly that.

But they aren't.

But they absolutely are. His "reasoning" contradicts itself, and his claims are demonstrably wrong in several ways.

I even gave you some simple experiments that you could perform for yourself, that proves that we don't see the Sun until the same time that the light from the Sun arrives here - some eight minutes after that light left the Sun.

No special equipment is required, just dawn on a clear morning. No special training is needed. Have you performed these experiments?

When we see the sunset, the light from the Sun is also illuminating the objects nearby. But if we were seeing those objects only after the eight and a half minutes needed for that light to arrive, but seeing the Sun in real time, then the light would still be illuminating our surroundings eight minutes after the last of the Sun's disk had fallen below the horizon.

Similarly, at sunrise, we would see the Sun well above the horizon*, before the first of the direct sunlight arrived to illuminate our surroundings. This is a prediction that is made by your model, and it is easy to test. Anyone can observe it to be false. No special equipment, and no qualifications, accreditations, or memberships are needed; Anyone can test it for themselves.

And anyone who does, will see that the direct light from the sun illuminates our surroundings at the same time that we first see its disk rise above the horizon. We see the Sun after the exact same delay required to see its light illuminate our surroundings. Therefore your model cannot be right.

Your claims:

1) That we see the Sun instantly, but
2) That our surroundings are not visible until the photons complete their eight and a half minute journey,

...cannot both be true. If they were, we would not see direct sunlight illuminate our surroundings until the Sun was some two degrees (four times it's own diameter) above the horizon.




* The Sun appears to travel it's own apparent diameter in about two minutes, so it would be seen to be four times it's own diameter above the horizon before the light illuminated our surroundings.

Well, we can do another simple experiment to test the same hypothesis. I call it "The Human Sundial Experiment".

Here's how it works:

At any time during the day, when the sun is unobscured by cloud and shadows are cast, we can see that the Sun appears to move across the sky at roughly four times its own diameter every eight minutes. The shadows it casts "move" across the ground at the same angular velocity. That's how a sundial works - a sundial shows how the Sun appears to move across the sky at a steady rate that matches the rotation of the Earth.

If you stand near a post, building or other structure, theres a spot you can be in where Sun can be 'hidden' behind that object, so that you can't see it. Lets pick a telegraph or power pole (you could use a tree or a shed, or whatever, if you prefer, as long as it's tall enough and thin enough that there's somewhere to stand where the Sun is only just hidden behind the pole).

Pick a spot to stand, facing the Sun, far enough back so that the Sun is only just blocked by the pole - so that if you move even the tiniest bit to either side, you will see the edge of the Sun.

Now, the ground at your feet is illuminated on either side by sunlight that left the Sun eight and a half minutes ago. The shadow is pointing directly at where the Sun was when that light left the Sun - if it wasn't, the shadow wouldn't be where it is*.

But the Sun has moved since that light left it. It is eight and a half minutes, or four solar diameters, further along its apparent path across the sky than it was when it sent out that light.

So, if we see the Sun instantly, with no delay, then we should see it, four 'pole widths' to one side of the pole, while we are standing in the shadow; And when we stand so that the Sun is exactly blocked by the pole, we should be in sunlight, with the shadow falling off to one side, four times it's own width counter-clockwise from where we are standing.

That's an unavoidable result, IF we see the Sun instantly, but see the light reflect off the ground only after that eight and a half minute delay. The spot where the Sun is completely obscured from view should, according to your hypothesis, be outside the shadow cast by the post.

This is an observation that is directly implied by your hypothesis. If you are right, then the above is exactly what we must see. It's also not what we actually observe, if and when we do the experiment. Don't take my word for it - do the experiment for yourself. Anyone can, on any sunny day.






*The Human Sundial Experiment is functionally much the same as the Sunrise Experiment; In the latter, we used the Earth itself to cast the shadow, but in this new experiment, we use something that's small enough so that the Sun is only just obscured from our vantage point. The benefit of this is that a telegraph pole doesn't have an atmosphere to scatter light, so we aren't at risk of being confused by the pre-dawn brightness of the sky.

These experiments demonstrate that instant vision is nonsense.

And his "reasoning" is contradictory, so it is logically impossible that he is right - we know he is wrong without needing to do the above experiments, and are doing them only to show that we are openminded.

light is constantly traveling

Photons that the object reflects do not arrive because they do not travel

... and there's your contradiction.

Game, Set, Match.

Nooo, it is not a contradiction.

You say that light is constantly travelling, but does not arrive because it does not travel.

That's a contradiction, and remains one no matter how much you deny it.

So in summary, his reasoning can't be correct, but we are courteous enough to test his conclusion anyway, and when we do, we find that it is also incorrect. And I have even given you a detailed set of instructions so that you can repeat my tests for yourself.

Have you done so? What did you see?

 

[DBT]

Pg

People here are generally open minded and curious, but also critical. You can't just trow anything out and not expect criticism.

The book and your clans were not prejudged. You were listened to, debated and your claims rejected as debate evolved.

No, the book has not been read. I bet no one read anything I painstakingly posted. The only thing people seem interested in is his claim regarding the eyes, when this was important but not as important as his first discovery.

As to being on a par with ancient philosophers, they had many ideas on reality without the benefit of our modern science and all of it fell by the wayside. Ancient philosophy is more of an historical footnote.

Modern empirical science is based in experiment, data driven. Experiment always trumps claims.

This was more than a claim.

And the example of the claims of a successful cold fusion. Enormous practical and economic implcations. It was quickly rejected globally, nobody could repeat the ex[prment.

So saying the object lightwave travels and the image is already at the eye gets nowhere without an experiment. Sayig dogs can not recognize a picture of an object because it 'does not have essence of the object' requires clear definitions and a controlled experiment.

A step by step procedure that anyone can run which will result inn the same concision without question.

I asked people to do an experiment to see if their dog can recognize them on a computer screen without any movement or other cues. That's easy enough to do.

How do you select the dogs? How do you check visual acuity of the digs you use? Color vison?

An experiment with dogs being trained to push a lever and get a reward does not trump a real life observation.

The video doesn't show that dogs are unable to recognize their owners by sight. That a dog has trouble recognising their owner after a long period away is a memory issue...which does not mean that dogs are unable to recognize faces.

 

[peacegirl]

To reiterate: we can rule out peacegirl’s claims about real-time seeing on logic alone, without any need for experiment.

She claims that light takes time to get to the eyes.

She also claims that light is at the eyes instantly.

This is obviously self-contradictory logical claptrap.

No experiments or investigations are needed to rule it out a priori

I want to say again that you’re wrong. Light from the Sun takes 8.5 minutes to get to Earth. He never said

Pg

People here are generally open minded and curious, but also critical. You can't just trow anything out and not expect criticism.

The book and your clans were not prejudged. You were listened to, debated and your claims rejected as debate evolved.

No, the book has not been read. I bet no one read anything I painstakingly posted. The only thing people seem interested in is his claim regarding the eyes, when this was important but not as important as his first discovery.

As to being on a par with ancient philosophers, they had many ideas on reality without the benefit of our modern science and all of it fell by the wayside. Ancient philosophy is more of an historical footnote.

Modern empirical science is based in experiment, data driven. Experiment always trumps claims.

This was more than a claim.

And the example of the claims of a successful cold fusion. Enormous practical and economic implcations. It was quickly rejected globally, nobody could repeat the ex[prment.

So saying the object lightwave travels and the image is already at the eye gets nowhere without an experiment. Sayig dogs can not recognize a picture of an object because it 'does not have essence of the object' requires clear definitions and a controlled experiment.

A step by step procedure that anyone can run which will result inn the same concision without question.

I asked people to do an experiment to see if their dog can recognize them on a computer screen without any movement or other cues. That's easy enough to do.

How do you select the dogs? How do you check visual acuity of the digs you use? Color vison?

An experiment with dogs being trained to push a lever and get a reward does not trump a real life observation.

The video doesn't show that dogs are unable to recognize their owners by sight. That a dog has trouble recognising their owner after a long period away is a memory issue...which does not mean that dogs are unable to recognize faces.

If it was the case that it was a memory issue, why would they remember them when sniffing them but not recognizing them by sight. It doesn’t add up. So if you’re unsure, do your own experiment to prove that it’s just a memory issue. My dog always approached me with caution when coming home, even after an hour, until he smelled me. And if it’s the case that dogs can recognize faces, why can’t they recognize faces on a computer screen? The light is still traveling right toward them at less than 20 feet away.

 

[DBT]

To reiterate: we can rule out peacegirl’s claims about real-time seeing on logic alone, without any need for experiment.

She claims that light takes time to get to the eyes.

She also claims that light is at the eyes instantly.

This is obviously self-contradictory logical claptrap.

No experiments or investigations are needed to rule it out a priori

I want to say again that you’re wrong. Light from the Sun takes 8.5 minutes to get to Earth. He never said

Pg

People here are generally open minded and curious, but also critical. You can't just trow anything out and not expect criticism.

The book and your clans were not prejudged. You were listened to, debated and your claims rejected as debate evolved.

No, the book has not been read. I bet no one read anything I painstakingly posted. The only thing people seem interested in is his claim regarding the eyes, when this was important but not as important as his first discovery.

As to being on a par with ancient philosophers, they had many ideas on reality without the benefit of our modern science and all of it fell by the wayside. Ancient philosophy is more of an historical footnote.

Modern empirical science is based in experiment, data driven. Experiment always trumps claims.

This was more than a claim.

And the example of the claims of a successful cold fusion. Enormous practical and economic implcations. It was quickly rejected globally, nobody could repeat the ex[prment.

So saying the object lightwave travels and the image is already at the eye gets nowhere without an experiment. Sayig dogs can not recognize a picture of an object because it 'does not have essence of the object' requires clear definitions and a controlled experiment.

A step by step procedure that anyone can run which will result inn the same concision without question.

I asked people to do an experiment to see if their dog can recognize them on a computer screen without any movement or other cues. That's easy enough to do.

How do you select the dogs? How do you check visual acuity of the digs you use? Color vison?

An experiment with dogs being trained to push a lever and get a reward does not trump a real life observation.

The video doesn't show that dogs are unable to recognize their owners by sight. That a dog has trouble recognising their owner after a long period away is a memory issue...which does not mean that dogs are unable to recognize faces.

If it was the case that it was a memory issue, why would they remember them when sniffing them but not recognizing them by sight. It doesn’t add up. So if you’re unsure, do your own experiment to prove that it’s just a memory issue. My dog always approached me with caution when coming home, even after an hour, until he smelled me. And if it’s the case that dogs can recognize faces, why can’t they recognize faces on a computer screen? The light is still traveling right toward them at less than 20 feet away.

Maybe because dogs are better with smell than sight. Which does not mean that dogs cannot recognize people by sight. They can. It has been shown that they can.

Not only dogs, but other animals.

Birds, crows, magpies, etc, are able to recognize individuals.....and may hold grudges if a person offends them in some way.

''....scientists are increasingly recognizing their remarkable intelligence. The question “Can magpies hold grudges?” isn’t just a whimsical inquiry; it probes the depths of avian cognition and forces us to reconsider our understanding of animal behavior. This article delves into the scientific evidence, exploring how magpies’ impressive memories and social complexities allow them to form and retain negative associations with specific individuals.''

Can magpies hold grudges? - The Institute for Environmental Research and Education

Can Magpies Hold Grudges? A Deep Dive into Avian Memory and Behavior Yes, magpies can hold grudges, demonstrating a remarkable […]

iere.org

 

[peacegirl]

To reiterate: we can rule out peacegirl’s claims about real-time seeing on logic alone, without any need for experiment.

She claims that light takes time to get to the eyes.

She also claims that light is at the eyes instantly.

This is obviously self-contradictory logical claptrap.

No experiments or investigations are needed to rule it out a priori

I want to say again that you’re wrong. Light from the Sun takes 8.5 minutes to get to Earth. He never said

Pg

People here are generally open minded and curious, but also critical. You can't just trow anything out and not expect criticism.

The book and your clans were not prejudged. You were listened to, debated and your claims rejected as debate evolved.

No, the book has not been read. I bet no one read anything I painstakingly posted. The only thing people seem interested in is his claim regarding the eyes, when this was important but not as important as his first discovery.

As to being on a par with ancient philosophers, they had many ideas on reality without the benefit of our modern science and all of it fell by the wayside. Ancient philosophy is more of an historical footnote.

Modern empirical science is based in experiment, data driven. Experiment always trumps claims.

This was more than a claim.

And the example of the claims of a successful cold fusion. Enormous practical and economic implcations. It was quickly rejected globally, nobody could repeat the ex[prment.

So saying the object lightwave travels and the image is already at the eye gets nowhere without an experiment. Sayig dogs can not recognize a picture of an object because it 'does not have essence of the object' requires clear definitions and a controlled experiment.

A step by step procedure that anyone can run which will result inn the same concision without question.

I asked people to do an experiment to see if their dog can recognize them on a computer screen without any movement or other cues. That's easy enough to do.

How do you select the dogs? How do you check visual acuity of the digs you use? Color vison?

An experiment with dogs being trained to push a lever and get a reward does not trump a real life observation.

The video doesn't show that dogs are unable to recognize their owners by sight. That a dog has trouble recognising their owner after a long period away is a memory issue...which does not mean that dogs are unable to recognize faces.

If it was the case that it was a memory issue, why would they remember them when sniffing them but not recognizing them by sight. It doesn’t add up. So if you’re unsure, do your own experiment to prove that it’s just a memory issue. My dog always approached me with caution when coming home, even after an hour, until he smelled me. And if it’s the case that dogs can recognize faces, why can’t they recognize faces on a computer screen? The light is still traveling right toward them at less than 20 feet away.

Maybe because dogs are better with smell than sight.

They are better with smell, and need it to recognize.

Which does not mean that dogs cannot recognize people by sight. They can. It has been shown that they can.

So far, this has not been proven to be true when there are no other cues helping them.

Not only dogs, but other animals.

Birds, crows, magpies, etc, are able to recognize individuals.....and may hold grudges if a person offends them in some way.

''....scientists are increasingly recognizing their remarkable intelligence. The question “Can magpies hold grudges?” isn’t just a whimsical inquiry; it probes the depths of avian cognition and forces us to reconsider our understanding of animal behavior. This article delves into the scientific evidence, exploring how magpies’ impressive memories and social complexities allow them to form and retain negative associations with specific individuals.''

Can magpies hold grudges? - The Institute for Environmental Research and Education

Can Magpies Hold Grudges? A Deep Dive into Avian Memory and Behavior Yes, magpies can hold grudges, demonstrating a remarkable […]

iere.org

Animals have amazing abilities. Lots of animals have good memories and can make accurate associations whether negative or positive. Elephants are known to have amazing long-term memories, but none of this proves that dogs can recognize from sight alone or other animals for that matter. You're grasping at straws.

 

[peacegirl]

As to your dog experiment and cop0tuer screens, as I said attenuation to details. What is the visual acuity of the dogs? How far away? Contrast and quality of the image?

Think what could be wrong with an experiment before you run it.

I am long out of practice, but I am grounded in experiment and having to stand up to critique. I speak from some experience.

Lessans rails and rants against the academic world, but the reality is that is where he could have gotten the basic skills to pursue his ideas. Science classes that included lab experiments. Learning structured methodology and how to document. I rmember the first Physics 101 lab. Making measurements, error analysis, and documentation.

I think I am done, nothing more that I can say.

You ruined your rant by saying that Lessans rails against the academic world. He was frustrated, but he didn't have no reason for his frustration. Stop using this against him, Steve. I am in agrement that you have nothing more to say OF SUBSTANCE OTHER THAN PUTTING THIS AUTHOR DOWN. This is not science, Steve, it's prejudice!!!

 

[peacegirl]

Science will have to take the lead in affirming the accuracy of these principles before they can be applied worldwide.

It has. It confirmed that these principles are nonsense. They will never (indeed, can never) be applied anywhere; Reality does not permit it.

You are so wrong, you have no idea. Thank god you don't.

I don't think you have a clue what science is. Are you expecting the king of science to issue a proclaimation? Do you want the pope of science to issue an ex-cathedra decree? Perhaps the board of world scientists needs to vote to accept your father's work?

It doesn't need a vote. It needs a thorough examination, which they continue to fail to do.

Science has taken the lead, right here in this thread;

No it has not.

It has confirmed that these "principles" are nonsense; And your response has been to ignore or denigrate that science, in favour of your emotions and of appeals to the emotions of others

Stop masquerading as if you know what the principles are. You have given no indication that you do. Try again.

 

[DBT]

To reiterate: we can rule out peacegirl’s claims about real-time seeing on logic alone, without any need for experiment.

She claims that light takes time to get to the eyes.

She also claims that light is at the eyes instantly.

This is obviously self-contradictory logical claptrap.

No experiments or investigations are needed to rule it out a priori

I want to say again that you’re wrong. Light from the Sun takes 8.5 minutes to get to Earth. He never said

Pg

People here are generally open minded and curious, but also critical. You can't just trow anything out and not expect criticism.

The book and your clans were not prejudged. You were listened to, debated and your claims rejected as debate evolved.

No, the book has not been read. I bet no one read anything I painstakingly posted. The only thing people seem interested in is his claim regarding the eyes, when this was important but not as important as his first discovery.

As to being on a par with ancient philosophers, they had many ideas on reality without the benefit of our modern science and all of it fell by the wayside. Ancient philosophy is more of an historical footnote.

Modern empirical science is based in experiment, data driven. Experiment always trumps claims.

This was more than a claim.

And the example of the claims of a successful cold fusion. Enormous practical and economic implcations. It was quickly rejected globally, nobody could repeat the ex[prment.

So saying the object lightwave travels and the image is already at the eye gets nowhere without an experiment. Sayig dogs can not recognize a picture of an object because it 'does not have essence of the object' requires clear definitions and a controlled experiment.

A step by step procedure that anyone can run which will result inn the same concision without question.

I asked people to do an experiment to see if their dog can recognize them on a computer screen without any movement or other cues. That's easy enough to do.

How do you select the dogs? How do you check visual acuity of the digs you use? Color vison?

An experiment with dogs being trained to push a lever and get a reward does not trump a real life observation.

The video doesn't show that dogs are unable to recognize their owners by sight. That a dog has trouble recognising their owner after a long period away is a memory issue...which does not mean that dogs are unable to recognize faces.

If it was the case that it was a memory issue, why would they remember them when sniffing them but not recognizing them by sight. It doesn’t add up. So if you’re unsure, do your own experiment to prove that it’s just a memory issue. My dog always approached me with caution when coming home, even after an hour, until he smelled me. And if it’s the case that dogs can recognize faces, why can’t they recognize faces on a computer screen? The light is still traveling right toward them at less than 20 feet away.

Maybe because dogs are better with smell than sight.

They are better with smell, and need it to recognize.

Which does not mean that dogs cannot recognize people by sight. They can. It has been shown that they can.

So far, this has not been proven to be true when there are no other cues helping them.

Not only dogs, but other animals.

Birds, crows, magpies, etc, are able to recognize individuals.....and may hold grudges if a person offends them in some way.

''....scientists are increasingly recognizing their remarkable intelligence. The question “Can magpies hold grudges?” isn’t just a whimsical inquiry; it probes the depths of avian cognition and forces us to reconsider our understanding of animal behavior. This article delves into the scientific evidence, exploring how magpies’ impressive memories and social complexities allow them to form and retain negative associations with specific individuals.''

Can magpies hold grudges? - The Institute for Environmental Research and Education

Can Magpies Hold Grudges? A Deep Dive into Avian Memory and Behavior Yes, magpies can hold grudges, demonstrating a remarkable […]

iere.org

Animals have amazing abilities. Lots of animals have good memories and can make accurate associations whether negative or positive. Elephants are known to have amazing long-term memories, but none of this proves that dogs can recognize from sight alone or other animals for that matter. You're grasping at straws.

I bet that you haven't read the articles or opened any of the links to the research. Dismissing anything that contradicts the authors claims, you fail to account for the evidence.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl wants to talk about something else besides her writer’s claims about light and sight, which she knows she cannot defend and which moreover have been demonstrated to be both physically and logically impossible.

There's no point. In no way does this mean he was wrong in his observations.

If they are demonstrated to be both physically and logically impossible, then yes, it pretty much means exactly that.

But they aren't.

But they absolutely are. His "reasoning" contradicts itself, and his claims are demonstrably wrong in several ways.

I even gave you some simple experiments that you could perform for yourself, that proves that we don't see the Sun until the same time that the light from the Sun arrives here - some eight minutes after that light left the Sun.

No special equipment is required, just dawn on a clear morning. No special training is needed. Have you performed these experiments?

When we see the sunset, the light from the Sun is also illuminating the objects nearby. But if we were seeing those objects only after the eight and a half minutes needed for that light to arrive, but seeing the Sun in real time, then the light would still be illuminating our surroundings eight minutes after the last of the Sun's disk had fallen below the horizon.

Similarly, at sunrise, we would see the Sun well above the horizon*, before the first of the direct sunlight arrived to illuminate our surroundings. This is a prediction that is made by your model, and it is easy to test. Anyone can observe it to be false. No special equipment, and no qualifications, accreditations, or memberships are needed; Anyone can test it for themselves.

And anyone who does, will see that the direct light from the sun illuminates our surroundings at the same time that we first see its disk rise above the horizon. We see the Sun after the exact same delay required to see its light illuminate our surroundings. Therefore your model cannot be right.

Your claims:

1) That we see the Sun instantly, but
2) That our surroundings are not visible until the photons complete their eight and a half minute journey,

...cannot both be true. If they were, we would not see direct sunlight illuminate our surroundings until the Sun was some two degrees (four times it's own diameter) above the horizon.




* The Sun appears to travel it's own apparent diameter in about two minutes, so it would be seen to be four times it's own diameter above the horizon before the light illuminated our surroundings.

Well, we can do another simple experiment to test the same hypothesis. I call it "The Human Sundial Experiment".

Here's how it works:

At any time during the day, when the sun is unobscured by cloud and shadows are cast, we can see that the Sun appears to move across the sky at roughly four times its own diameter every eight minutes. The shadows it casts "move" across the ground at the same angular velocity. That's how a sundial works - a sundial shows how the Sun appears to move across the sky at a steady rate that matches the rotation of the Earth.

If you stand near a post, building or other structure, theres a spot you can be in where Sun can be 'hidden' behind that object, so that you can't see it. Lets pick a telegraph or power pole (you could use a tree or a shed, or whatever, if you prefer, as long as it's tall enough and thin enough that there's somewhere to stand where the Sun is only just hidden behind the pole).

Pick a spot to stand, facing the Sun, far enough back so that the Sun is only just blocked by the pole - so that if you move even the tiniest bit to either side, you will see the edge of the Sun.

Now, the ground at your feet is illuminated on either side by sunlight that left the Sun eight and a half minutes ago. The shadow is pointing directly at where the Sun was when that light left the Sun - if it wasn't, the shadow wouldn't be where it is*.

But the Sun has moved since that light left it. It is eight and a half minutes, or four solar diameters, further along its apparent path across the sky than it was when it sent out that light.

So, if we see the Sun instantly, with no delay, then we should see it, four 'pole widths' to one side of the pole, while we are standing in the shadow; And when we stand so that the Sun is exactly blocked by the pole, we should be in sunlight, with the shadow falling off to one side, four times it's own width counter-clockwise from where we are standing.

That's an unavoidable result, IF we see the Sun instantly, but see the light reflect off the ground only after that eight and a half minute delay. The spot where the Sun is completely obscured from view should, according to your hypothesis, be outside the shadow cast by the post.

This is an observation that is directly implied by your hypothesis. If you are right, then the above is exactly what we must see. It's also not what we actually observe, if and when we do the experiment. Don't take my word for it - do the experiment for yourself. Anyone can, on any sunny day.






*The Human Sundial Experiment is functionally much the same as the Sunrise Experiment; In the latter, we used the Earth itself to cast the shadow, but in this new experiment, we use something that's small enough so that the Sun is only just obscured from our vantage point. The benefit of this is that a telegraph pole doesn't have an atmosphere to scatter light, so we aren't at risk of being confused by the pre-dawn brightness of the sky.

These experiments demonstrate that instant vision is nonsense.

And his "reasoning" is contradictory, so it is logically impossible that he is right - we know he is wrong without needing to do the above experiments, and are doing them only to show that we are openminded.

light is constantly traveling

Photons that the object reflects do not arrive because they do not travelh

T

Science will have to take the lead in affirming the accuracy of these principles before they can be applied worldwide.

It has. It confirmed that these principles are nonsense. They will never (indeed, can never) be applied anywhere; Reality does not permit it.

I don't think you have a clue what science is. Are you expecting the king of science to issue a proclaimation? Do you want the pope of science to issue an ex-cathedra decree? Perhaps the board of world scientists needs to vote to accept your father's work?

No, they need to understand it, which they have not because they haven't studied this work thoroughly. No one has. It's not about a vote.

Science has taken the lead, right here in this thread; It has confirmed that these "principles" are nonsense; And your response has been to ignore or denigrate that science, in favour of your emotions and of appeals to the emotions of others.

No, this is not about emotions bilby. It has nothing to do with it. You are so wrong, it's upsetting.

 

[pood]

I bet that you haven't read the articles or opened any of the links to the research. Dismissing anything that contradicts the authors claims, you fail to account for the evidence.

Of course she hasn’t read the articles. She reads nothing that threatens her precious world view or makes her angry.

 

[pood]

Here is what we have learned so far in this thread (as if these things were things that most of us had to learn):

It is physically and logically impossible for light to be at the eye instantly even though it takes light time to travel to the eye. This is self evident, except to peacegirl.

The eye is a sense organ, the most important one that humans have.

Dogs and many other animals can recognize humans by sight alone, even in photos and videos. No other sense cues are required.

Peacegirl does not understand science or how it works.

Peacegirl dismisses out of hand any scientific study, no matter how rigorously set up and tested, if it contradicts her writer’s claims. She will not even read them, much less entertain them.

She will accept any crackpot claim if she thinks it supporters her writer’s claims or her own weird views (see: vaccines).

Peacegirl is unable to learn anything.

Peacegirl does not even understand basic logic, such as ad hom, labeling it “double talk,” or the Law of Noncontradiction.

Speaking of talk, peacegirl has no idea what she is talking about.

Are we done here?

As an aside, speaking of sight, it is fascinating how some animals, like crows and I think many (all?) other birds have much better vision than humans and can see in the ultraviolet and some even in the infrared. Where we see a black crow, other crows see a vivid tapestry of colors that we can’t even imagine. Crows talk to each other and even have “councils” in which they plan hunting strategies. There is scientific dispute over whether their conversation constitutes a “true” language, whatever that is exactly supposed to mean. And, yes, crows, like many other animals, including dogs, recognize individual humans by sight alone. My pigeon pals here in NYC certainly recognize me by sight alone.

 

[peacegirl]

To reiterate: we can rule out peacegirl’s claims about real-time seeing on logic alone, without any need for experiment.

She claims that light takes time to get to the eyes.

She also claims that light is at the eyes instantly.

This is obviously self-contradictory logical claptrap.

No experiments or investigations are needed to rule it out a priori

I want to say again that you’re wrong. Light from the Sun takes 8.5 minutes to get to Earth. He never said

Pg

People here are generally open minded and curious, but also critical. You can't just trow anything out and not expect criticism.

The book and your clans were not prejudged. You were listened to, debated and your claims rejected as debate evolved.

No, the book has not been read. I bet no one read anything I painstakingly posted. The only thing people seem interested in is his claim regarding the eyes, when this was important but not as important as his first discovery.

As to being on a par with ancient philosophers, they had many ideas on reality without the benefit of our modern science and all of it fell by the wayside. Ancient philosophy is more of an historical footnote.

Modern empirical science is based in experiment, data driven. Experiment always trumps claims.

This was more than a claim.

And the example of the claims of a successful cold fusion. Enormous practical and economic implcations. It was quickly rejected globally, nobody could repeat the ex[prment.

So saying the object lightwave travels and the image is already at the eye gets nowhere without an experiment. Sayig dogs can not recognize a picture of an object because it 'does not have essence of the object' requires clear definitions and a controlled experiment.

A step by step procedure that anyone can run which will result inn the same concision without question.

I asked people to do an experiment to see if their dog can recognize them on a computer screen without any movement or other cues. That's easy enough to do.

How do you select the dogs? How do you check visual acuity of the digs you use? Color vison?

An experiment with dogs being trained to push a lever and get a reward does not trump a real life observation.

The video doesn't show that dogs are unable to recognize their owners by sight. That a dog has trouble recognising their owner after a long period away is a memory issue...which does not mean that dogs are unable to recognize faces.

If it was the case that it was a memory issue, why would they remember them when sniffing them but not recognizing them by sight. It doesn’t add up. So if you’re unsure, do your own experiment to prove that it’s just a memory issue. My dog always approached me with caution when coming home, even after an hour, until he smelled me. And if it’s the case that dogs can recognize faces, why can’t they recognize faces on a computer screen? The light is still traveling right toward them at less than 20 feet away.

Maybe because dogs are better with smell than sight.

They are better with smell, and need it to recognize.

Which does not mean that dogs cannot recognize people by sight. They can. It has been shown that they can.

So far, this has not been proven to be true when there are no other cues helping them.Ar

Not only dogs, but other animals.

Birds, crows, magpies, etc, are able to recognize individuals.....and may hold grudges if a person offends them in some way.

''....scientists are increasingly recognizing their remarkable intelligence. The question “Can magpies hold grudges?” isn’t just a whimsical inquiry; it probes the depths of avian cognition and forces us to reconsider our understanding of animal behavior. This article delves into the scientific evidence, exploring how magpies’ impressive memories and social complexities allow them to form and retain negative associations with specific individuals.''

Can magpies hold grudges? - The Institute for Environmental Research and Education

Can Magpies Hold Grudges? A Deep Dive into Avian Memory and Behavior Yes, magpies can hold grudges, demonstrating a remarkable […]

iere.org

Animals have amazing abilities. Lots of animals have good memories and can make accurate associations whether negative or positive. Elephants are known to have amazing long-term memories, but none of this proves that dogs can recognize from sight alone or other animals for that matter. You're grasping at straws.

I bet that you haven't read the articles or opened any of the links to the research. Dismissing anything that contradicts the authors claims, you fail to account for the evidence.

Articles don't prove anything. They can try to make something fit their narrative. The only proof that is worth its salt is to see the actual proof that we can see for ourselves. You have not provided this.