“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?

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
said "if" to placate everyone. They don't like my use of the term "when." It makes them bristle at the mere thought he could be right.

What we are interested in is you explaining how it is all supposed to work in detail resolving conflicts with established science.

Being placated neither required nor wanted.

Now that I think of it holograms refute Lessans once and for all.

BTW according to vision, images, and light from, Lessans how does a camera using film createe an image? Where does the image come from that cause an image to form on the film?

If not the image in light then what?

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

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.

False. We do NOT assume "the eyes function like the other four". We recognize that the eyes function differently than the other four senses.

I'm sure there are similarities, and I'm not disputing this, but the optic nerve operates differently

Given that the eyes function differently than the other four senses, it is coherent to say "the eyes function like the other four" because the "like" indicates that there is some similarity.

To say that there is similarity is not to say that there are no distinctions. The question then is whether the similarities are sufficient to justify the broad category referred to as senses as well as incorporation therein.

The fact that vision occurs differently than does touch, hearing, smelling, and taste is not in itself sufficient to justify denying that vision is one of the senses. Likewise, the fact that, among the reputed senses, the optical pathway alone does not depend on nerve endings in order to function is not itself sufficient to justify concluding that vision is not one of the senses.

The nerve endings difference is but a purely arbitrary basis for determining what is and what is not one of the senses.

It is purely arbitrary, because that way of distinguishing does not take into account just what it is that is meant when some sort of system is said to be a sense - what it is that is necessary for some sort of system to be a sense. A sense is that (system) which transforms data about the environment (usually the surrounding or external environment) into information usable by the brain. This means that the only way to justify denying that vision is a sense is to demonstrate that no external environment data is ever delivered to the brain by the optical system. If the optical system can ever so deliver information to the brain without that system needing nerve endings, then vision is a sense despite not having nerve endings.

Of course, there are human optical systems which do not deliver information to the brain. That situation occurs as what is called blindness, and persons who are blind do not have that sense called vision.

You (and apparently Lessans) deny that information available within light is ever delivered to the brain even in the case of humans who are not blind.

Until you demonstrate that the optical system (vision) does not deliver information to the brain, your use of the nerve ending distinction in an attempt to deny that vision is one of the senses is indistinguishable from desperate apologetics.

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

If the remark cited immediately above is imagined as being the demonstration necessary in order to justify denying that vision is one of the senses, then the inescapable conclusion is that you (and presumably Lessans) are very poor logicians.

Even if it were an indubitable fact (which it is not; so, even if we make believe) that no newborn human ever had a physiological response to light via the eyes, what your "demonstration" would not establish is that humans who are not neonates do not react to light as a stimulus sensed through the eyes. Of course, it is an indubitable fact that most humans who are not neonates do physiologically (including optically) respond to light stimuli; therefore, vision is one of the senses in the case of most humans, and Lessans is absolutely wrong to insist or suggest otherwise.

the brain contacts the various objects by peering through the eyes

Lessans there appears to claim (without feeling a need for demonstration beyond the already shown to be fallacious "thought-experiment") that the eyes are for brain emissions rather than brain reception. It is not specified just what it is that the brain supposedly emits when the brain peers through the eyes, but somehow "there has to be light at the eye" for the brain emission to actually succeed at whatever that emission does in place of conventionally understood vision.

It should be blatantly obvious that the Lessans notion that the brain is not informed by light and vision is baseless. But worse still is not that there has been no bothering with demonstrating that there is the alleged through-the-eyes brain emission, no, worse than that is the fact that this way of thinking offers no new possibilities for thinking about and solving problems.

At least the brain-informed-by-light concept has resulted in some actual, practical benefits to humans, but the through-the-eyes brain emission concept has not even been accompanied with any apparently possible and otherwise unavailable benefit - even in principle.

And, please, do not resort here to the issue of body or face ugliness, because ugliness does not depend on brain emissions through the eyes. Sure, ugliness can be regarded as generated in and by the brain, but in no way does that necessitate thinking that it is emitted by the brain, because, after all, ugliness would be generated in like fashion if, contrary to Lessans' claim, light informs the brain. The brain-emissions concept adds nothing while being less useful than is the vision-informed brain concept.

You have provided no reason for thinking that the brain is not optically informed.

 

[pood]

Pg
said "if" to placate everyone. They don't like my use of the term "when." It makes them bristle at the mere thought he could be right.

What we are interested in is you explaining how it is all supposed to work in detail resolving conflicts with established science.

Being placated neither required nor wanted.

Now that I think of it holograms refute Lessans once and for all.

BTW according to vision, images, and light from, Lessans how does a camera using film createe an image? Where does the image come from that cause an image to form on the film?

If not the image in light then what?

At FF we challenged her with this. She was completely flummoxed. She shifted her position from cameras don’t take pictures in real time to that they do, and then back again. She was all over the place. She has not the slightest clue what she is talking about.

 

[steve_bank]

OMG! 55,000+ pots at FF. Started in 2011.

 

[peacegirl]

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?

I'd forgotten about holograms. A hologram capture the reflected light off an object. Not a visual image.

I wonder how Pg thinks she can the hologram of an object without there being an actual image of the object.

This is very interesting. All of these applications work due to the properties of light, but once again, nothing about holograms invalidates real-time VISION.

A hologram works by recording and reconstructing the light waves reflected from an object, creating a three-dimensional image that preserves depth and perspective.

The​

A hologram is fundamentally a recording of an interference pattern created when two beams of coherent light, usually from a laser, meet. One beam, called the object beam, reflects off the object being recorded, while the other, the reference beam, bypasses the object and goes directly to the recording medium. When these beams intersect on a photosensitive surface, they form a complex pattern of light and dark fringes that encodes both the amplitude and phase of the light waves from the object.

Wikipedia+1

Creating​

To make a hologram, a laser beam is split into two paths using a beam splitter. The object beam illuminates the object and then reflects onto the recording plate, while the reference beam directly illuminates the same plate. The resulting interference pattern is captured on a special holographic film or plate. Unlike a photograph, the developed hologram does not immediately resemble the object; it appears as a seemingly random pattern of lines and swirls.

HowStuffWorks+1

Viewing​

When the developed hologram is illuminated with light similar to the reference beam, the interference pattern diffracts the light to reconstruct the original wavefront. This creates a 3D image that appears to float in space, showing depth, parallax, and perspective. As you move around the hologram, the image changes realistically, just as if you were looking at the real object from different angles.

Wikipedia+1

Types​

• Transmission holograms: Light passes through the hologram from behind, producing vivid, detailed images but requiring controlled lighting conditions.
• Reflection holograms: Light shines on the hologram from the front, allowing it to be viewed with ordinary white light, like the holograms on credit cards.
  https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=070a...YW5kLWhvdy1kb2VzLWhvbG9ncmFwaHktd29yay8&ntb=1

Key​

Holography relies on the wave nature of light, coherence of the laser, and precise recording of phase information. This is what allows holograms to preserve depth information, unlike traditional photographs, which only capture intensity. The human eye perceives the reconstructed light as if it were coming from the original object, giving a true sense of three-dimensionality.

HowStuffWorks+1
Holograms are used in art, security, data storage, and scientific imaging, demonstrating the versatility of this technology in both practical and visual applications.