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

[DBT]

It was a fair question. A question that has not yet been explained.

I did not paint myself into a corner because there is no conflict between light traveling and seeing in real time. Brain function, as he described it, does not take time for light to reach the eye when we are focused, not on the light, but on the object. The light interacts with the rods and cones necessarily or the object would not be in view.

[/PRE[/

There is more than just a conflict. There is a complete contradiction between light travel time and "real time vision/light at the eye.' Where if one is true, the other must be false.....and we already know which one is true.

They are not contradictions.

So you sidestepped the question.

I did not sidestep. Light travels but light does not reflect images that would land on the retina over long distances where the object would be long gone. The object absorbs and reveals itself as we look at it. This does not cancel out the speed of light that is always traveling at C.

Let's pretend that's true.....how then is the image of an object acquired by the eyes without the information that light provides?

 

[peacegirl]

It was a fair question. A question that has not yet been explained.

I did not paint myself into a corner because there is no conflict between light traveling and seeing in real time. Brain function, as he described it, does not take time for light to reach the eye when we are focused, not on the light, but on the object. The light interacts with the rods and cones necessarily or the object would not be in view.

[/PRE[/

There is more than just a conflict. There is a complete contradiction between light travel time and "real time vision/light at the eye.' Where if one is true, the other must be false.....and we already know which one is true.

They are not contradictions.

So you sidestepped the question.

I did not sidestep. Light travels but light does not reflect images that would land on the retina over long distances where the object would be long gone. The object absorbs and reveals itself as we look at it. This does not cancel out the speed of light that is always traveling at C.

Let's pretend that's true.....how then is the image of an object acquired by the eyes without the information that light provides?

The object is seen by the eyes because the light emanating from the object is AT THE RETINA. The light is necessary because it allows us to see and integrate the information (e.g., that which is within our field of view) in the same way we would integrate that same information if it were interpreted as a virtual image within the brain.

 

[pood]

The object is seen by the eyes because the light emanating from the object is AT THE RETINA.

How is it at the retina instantly when you also say it takes time to get there?

 

[DBT]

It was a fair question. A question that has not yet been explained.

I did not paint myself into a corner because there is no conflict between light traveling and seeing in real time. Brain function, as he described it, does not take time for light to reach the eye when we are focused, not on the light, but on the object. The light interacts with the rods and cones necessarily or the object would not be in view.

[/PRE[/

There is more than just a conflict. There is a complete contradiction between light travel time and "real time vision/light at the eye.' Where if one is true, the other must be false.....and we already know which one is true.

They are not contradictions.

So you sidestepped the question.

I did not sidestep. Light travels but light does not reflect images that would land on the retina over long distances where the object would be long gone. The object absorbs and reveals itself as we look at it. This does not cancel out the speed of light that is always traveling at C.

Let's pretend that's true.....how then is the image of an object acquired by the eyes without the information that light provides?

The object is seen by the eyes because the light emanating from the object is AT THE RETINA. The light is necessary because it allows us to see and integrate the information (e.g., that which is within our field of view) in the same way we would integrate that same information if it were interpreted as a virtual image within the brain.

But you have acknowledged that light has travel time. So without light providing information, instant seeing, where does the information come from?

 

[peacegirl]

The object is seen by the eyes because the light emanating from the object is AT THE RETINA.

How is it at the retina instantly when you also say it takes time to get there?

Ohhhh my goddddddd!! I need a break!

 

[peacegirl]

It was a fair question. A question that has not yet been explained.

I did not paint myself into a corner because there is no conflict between light traveling and seeing in real time. Brain function, as he described it, does not take time for light to reach the eye when we are focused, not on the light, but on the object. The light interacts with the rods and cones necessarily or the object would not be in view.

[/PRE[/

There is more than just a conflict. There is a complete contradiction between light travel time and "real time vision/light at the eye.' Where if one is true, the other must be false.....and we already know which one is true.

They are not contradictions.

So you sidestepped the question.

I did not sidestep. Light travels but light does not reflect images that would land on the retina over long distances where the object would be long gone. The object absorbs and reveals itself as we look at it. This does not cancel out the speed of light that is always traveling at C.

Let's pretend that's true.....how then is the image of an object acquired by the eyes without the information that light provides?

The object is seen by the eyes because the light emanating from the object is AT THE RETINA. The light is necessary because it allows us to see and integrate the information (e.g., that which is within our field of view) in the same way we would integrate that same information if it were interpreted as a virtual image within the brain.

But you have acknowledged that light has travel time. So without light providing information, instant seeing, where does the information come from?

Between you and Pood, I need an aspirin. Just remember light is not sending us an image. We are seeing the object due to light's presence.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
Between you and Pood, I need an aspirin. Just remember light is not sending us an image. We are seeing the object due to light's presence.

Humm .. if light doe mot bring the image how do eyeglasses improve vision?

Actually that the image is formed by light interacting with an object is observable. Theory describes a causal chain from light source to object to eye to brain.

What were the details of Lessans' observations? Can I repeat them?

I van physically measure the time form a light being switched on and arriving at the eye. JHv ae somebody 'focus' and the object and repeat the exertion and the arrival delay time will not change.

I worked on RADAR systems. Not visible light, 'light' in the L band 1-2 gigahertz.

I don't know what the test equipment costs today, but the experiment would be pretty simple.

 

[DBT]

It was a fair question. A question that has not yet been explained.

I did not paint myself into a corner because there is no conflict between light traveling and seeing in real time. Brain function, as he described it, does not take time for light to reach the eye when we are focused, not on the light, but on the object. The light interacts with the rods and cones necessarily or the object would not be in view.

[/PRE[/

There is more than just a conflict. There is a complete contradiction between light travel time and "real time vision/light at the eye.' Where if one is true, the other must be false.....and we already know which one is true.

They are not contradictions.

So you sidestepped the question.

I did not sidestep. Light travels but light does not reflect images that would land on the retina over long distances where the object would be long gone. The object absorbs and reveals itself as we look at it. This does not cancel out the speed of light that is always traveling at C.

Let's pretend that's true.....how then is the image of an object acquired by the eyes without the information that light provides?

The object is seen by the eyes because the light emanating from the object is AT THE RETINA. The light is necessary because it allows us to see and integrate the information (e.g., that which is within our field of view) in the same way we would integrate that same information if it were interpreted as a virtual image within the brain.

But you have acknowledged that light has travel time. So without light providing information, instant seeing, where does the information come from?

Between you and Pood, I need an aspirin. Just remember light is not sending us an image. We are seeing the object due to light's presence.

I don't remember anything of the sort. Images are not sent, information is, patterns, wavelength, etc.. The brain uses that information to generate sight.

You acknowledge that we are seeing an object due to the presence of light, that light has a speed and time travel, then insist that the eyes somehow bypass the process and we see instantly.

How does that make sense?

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
Between you and Pood, I need an aspirin. Just remember light is not sending us an image. We are seeing the object due to light's presence.

Humm .. if light doe mot bring the image how do eyeglasses improve vision?

By bending light so it focuses properly on the retina.

Actually that the image is formed by light interacting with an object is observable. Theory describes a causal chain from light source to object to eye to brain.

He is not disputing that light interacts with an object. We know it takes time for light to reach the moon. I did say that we use light speed in many practical applications, but it doesn't prove the direction we see, and it doesn't prove that a causal chain exists from a light source to object to eye to brain. If light has traveled from the light source (for example, the sun), we will see the external world because light has arrived. The requirement for sight has been met (light has to be surrounding the object or event, which is why he said we could see the Sun turned on before we could see each other), but that doesn't mean the light, once it is here, is interpreted by the brain as sight.

What were the details of Lessans' observations? Can I repeat them?

I van physically measure the time form a light being switched on and arriving at the eye. JHv ae somebody 'focus' and the object and repeat the exertion and the arrival delay time will not change.

I worked on RADAR systems. Not visible light, 'light' in the L band 1-2 gigahertz.

I don't know what the test equipment costs today, but the experiment would be pretty simple.

You need to separate Lessans' claim from the fact that he was not disputing the speed of light. You keep conflating the two. No one has actually proven that normal vision occurs in the brain. It is a scientific theory, and scientists believe they have explained the exact mechanism, but is it true? No one has actually proven that this is how we see. Where are these images identified? Why can't they pinpoint these images through MRIs or CT scans? They may see activity in the visual cortex by it lighting up, but that's not proof. People may see shadows when data collection bypasses the photoreceptors that no longer work, but so far, it has not shown success. Whether more data collection will give people true sight is yet to be seen. The latest technology to help the totally blind by sending impulses directly to the visual cortex has, once again, not shown real promise. People are helped when they are not completely blind. Their remaining vision can be improved upon by visual aids, but nothing as yet proves that we receive impulses through the optic nerve that are transduced in the brain as true vision.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

The question is if light does not carry the image how do corrective glasses improve vision ?

Corrective glasses/lenses work on the fact that the image travels from object to eye via light. If light does not convey the image then Lessans' theory has a lot to explain.

No different in science. A new theory in one thing has to also account or other things.

I believe you aid when we are not focused on an object light takes time, when we focus on an object light arrives instantaneous. I said I could physically test for that.

I still want to know what his observation were to conclude instant vision without physical experimenter, so I can repeat the observation for myself.