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

[peacegirl]

The reason that traveling light in no way contributes to images generated by the mind is that vision is not a sense organ. The optic nerve is not like the other sense organs, which receive and transmit external stimuli.

Point number 1: The link you provide does not support your position. It refers to "the optic nerve's ability to transmit visual information rapidly and efficiently to the brain". You deny that visual information is supplied to the brain. Your reference contradicts your position.

I realize that it's the present-day theory. That's what AI has learned. The optic nerve is the connection (i.e., the cable) that connects our inner world with the outer world, but it does not prove that it transmits visual information as the other sense organs do.

Point number 2: Nerves other than the optic nerve are myelinated. For instance, the auditory nerve is myelinated: "Myelin allows for the rapid and precise timing of action potential propagation along neuronal circuits and is essential for healthy auditory system function." Also, "Myelination is essential for the rapid propagation of action potentials along axons in both the central and peripheral nervous systems".

The important difference is that it is part of the central nervous system, and it does not have direct nerve endings. This opens the door for a different interpretation of how the eyes actually work.

It is an undeniable fact that light travels at a high rate of speed, but great confusion arises when this is likened to sound, as you will soon have verified. The reason we say man has taste, touch, smell, sight, and hearing is because these describe individual differences that exist, but when we say that these five are senses, we are assuming the eyes function like the other four, which they do not. When you learn what this single misconception has done to the world of knowledge, you won’t believe it at first. So, without further delay, I shall prove something never before understood by man, but before I open this door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ to show you all the knowledge hidden behind it, it is absolutely necessary to prove exactly why the eyes are not a sense organ. Now tell me, did it ever occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult, since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a baby that no object is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of sounds, tastes, touches, or smells can get an immediate reaction since the nerve endings are being struck by something external.

Point number 3: Note that there is this other similarity between the optic and olfactory nerves, the nerves for vision and smelling: "There are twelve pairs of cranial nerves (CN) that lead directly from the brain to various parts of the head, neck, and trunk. Ten of the twelve cranial nerves originate in the brainstem; the two that do not are CN I (olfactory nerve) and CN II (optic nerve)."

I'm sure there are similarities, and I'm not disputing this, but the optic nerve operates differently than any of the other senses because it does not have direct nerve endings. Optic nerves are cables that transmit electrical impulses. They are crucial for vision, but this crucial connecting link between the external and internal world does not prove that vision is created in the mind.

The olfactory system goes directly from smelling something to the olfactory nerve.

• Odorants are detected by specialized receptors in the olfactory epithelium located in the nasal cavity.
  
  
• These receptors send signals through the olfactory nerve to the brain, where the olfactory bulb processes the information.
  
  
• The olfactory nerve is crucial for the perception of smell, allowing us to identify and remember different odors.
  
  
  Thus, the olfactory system operates through a direct pathway from the nasal cavity to the olfactory nerve.

 

[bilby]

The word "reflect" is getting us me in trouble.

FTFY. Nobody else is troubled in any way by your failure to grasp the implications of your own absurd claims.

 

[peacegirl]

The word "reflect" is getting us me in trouble.

FTFY. Nobody else is troubled in any way by your failure to grasp the implications of your own absurd claims.

You did not fix anything for me, and I have not failed to grasp the implications of these claims.

 

[bilby]

Now Pg is down to 'if Lessans is true'.

I said "if" to placate everyone.

No you didn't.

You said "when". Steve said "if".

You literally have no idea what you are saying. If you don't care what you are talking about, why should anyone else?

 

[pood]

She always said at FF she was saying “if” her father was right only because she wanted to placate everyone. She condescendingly said she understood that her claims were damaging our fragile egos or challenging our precious world view or some crap like that, so she wanted to spare us the upset. She also said that she was our teacher and we were her pupils. Her whole stupid schtick is nauseating when it is not amusing.

 

[pood]

The word "reflect" is getting us me in trouble.

I have not failed to grasp the implications of these claims.

Of course you have.

How is it logically possible for light to be at the eye instantly even as you agree it takes light time to get to the eye?

These are mutually exclusive claims. If one is right, the other must be wrong.

 

[pood]

the requirements for sight, which are luminosity (there has to be light at the eye), and the object's size (too small or too distant, there will be no light in which to see said object.)

The term luminosity in conventional usage regards radiated or emitted electromagnetic waves. In the context of this discussion about light, it is NOT luminosity that determines whether light is visible by humans; rather, it is the apparent brightness upon which visibility depends, and that brightness derives at least from luminosity and distance. This means necessarily that light travels, and you agree that light travels.

With regards to luminosity, the sun emits light. Does the moon emit light? If it is said that the moon emits light, then there is a distinction between sunlight and moonlight in that the light emitted by the moon is not light for which the moon is the source whereas the sun is the source of sunlight. Another way of depicting this difference is to say that the moon reflects light; moonlight is a reflection; moonlight is reflected light.

However, you apparently deny that the moon reflects light. You say:

light travels, but it doesn't bounce off an object, traveling with that information to the eye through space/time and allowing the mind to generate an image.

Light that is reflected is light that "bounces off". If you deny that the moon reflects light, do you regard the moon as the very source of its own light?

No

So the moon is not the source of its light. Yet you deny light “bounces off” objects, which presumably must include the moon.

So if the moon does not produce light but does not reflect it either, how do we see the moon?

Do you think that the sun generates its own light?

Yes

I will presume that you think that the sun is the source of its own light, and I will presume that you do not think of the moon as generating its own light.

If the moon is not the source of its own light and if the moon does not reflect light, then the moon always and utterly lacks luminosity and, therefore, brightness; hence, the moon can never be seen.

The word "reflect" is getting us in trouble.

We have no trouble with it at all.

But the moon can be seen.

Yes, it can be seen because parts of the moon are illuminated as it orbits the Earth.

Oh? How is it illuminated, if you say the moon is not a light source but also light does not bounce off of it?