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

[steve_bank]

Yea, Seattle. We have a view of the bay from our roof deck.

I'm ok, but my heart failure is catching up with me. Slowing down.

I was in Jacksonville in the 70s in the Navy and Fort Lauded in the 90s when my fatter was dying.. Way too hot. Tue ocean was like bathwater.

 

[peacegirl]

Yea, Seattle. We have a view of the bay from our roof deck.

I'm ok, but my heart failure is catching up with me. Slowing down.

I was in Jacksonville in the 70s in the Navy and Fort Lauded in the 90s when my fatter was dying.. Way too hot. Tue ocean was like bathwater.

I'm sorry you have heart failure. I hope you can still have a quality of life with modification. Yes, it's very hot and humid in Florida in the summer months. Without AC, I wouldn't survive.

 

[steve_bank]

I had a good run. Quality of life is ok.

I am in a senior building with plenty of company to commiserate with.

Thanks.

 

[DBT]

Getting through to someone? The fact that light at the eye/ instant vision is impossible appears something that's hard to get through.

But it does appear that way instantly?

Because appearances are illusive! Go deeper my friends and you will find the treasure.

Going deeper negates the authors claims. Not that you need to go very deep to do that. Understanding the basic role of the eyes in relation to the function of the brain in generating consciousness is enough.

 

[peacegirl]

Getting through to someone? The fact that light at the eye/ instant vision is impossible appears something that's hard to get through.

But it does appear that way instantly?

Because appearances are illusive! Go deeper my friends and you will find the treasure.

Going deeper negates the authors claims. Not that you need to go very deep to do that. Understanding the basic role of the eyes in relation to the function of the brain in generating consciousness is enough.

You’re wrong but unfortunately this has precluded any further discussion because you won’t consider the possibility — even temporarily— that his observations were accurate in order to move forward. It’s your loss.

 

[pood]

Getting through to someone? The fact that light at the eye/ instant vision is impossible appears something that's hard to get through.

But it does appear that way instantly?

Because appearances are illusive! Go deeper my friends and you will find the treasure.

Going deeper negates the authors claims. Not that you need to go very deep to do that. Understanding the basic role of the eyes in relation to the function of the brain in generating consciousness is enough.

You’re wrong but unfortunately this has precluded any further discussion because you won’t consider the possibility — even temporarily— that his observations were accurate in order to move forward. It’s your loss.

One can dismiss without further consideration any claim that violates the law of non-contradiction, as your writer’s claim about light and sight obviously does.

One can also dismiss without further consideration someone, like you, who refuses even to test your writer’s claim — simply by watching the sun rise in the morning.

 

[peacegirl]

Getting through to someone? The fact that light at the eye/ instant vision is impossible appears something that's hard to get through.

But it does appear that way instantly?

Because appearances are illusive! Go deeper my friends and you will find the treasure.

Going deeper negates the authors claims. Not that you need to go very deep to do that. Understanding the basic role of the eyes in relation to the function of the brain in generating consciousness is enough.

You’re wrong but unfortunately this has precluded any further discussion because you won’t consider the possibility — even temporarily— that his observations were accurate in order to move forward. It’s your loss.

One can dismiss without further consideration any claim that violates the law of non-contradiction, as your writer’s claim about light and sight obviously does.

But there isn't a contradiction. You think there is because you haven't thought it through.

One can also dismiss without further consideration someone, like you, who refuses even to test your writer’s claim — simply by watching the sun rise in the morning.

Why do you keep bringing that up? Dawn shows up before the Sun rises over the horizon. We are not waiting 8.5 minutes for the image to get here. The light is already here (it's been here for 4.6 billion years), and as the Earth turns on its axis, different parts of the Earth receive that morning light. Shortly, thereafter, we see the Sun rise over the horizon in real time.

 

[DBT]

Getting through to someone? The fact that light at the eye/ instant vision is impossible appears something that's hard to get through.

But it does appear that way instantly?

Because appearances are illusive! Go deeper my friends and you will find the treasure.

Going deeper negates the authors claims. Not that you need to go very deep to do that. Understanding the basic role of the eyes in relation to the function of the brain in generating consciousness is enough.

You’re wrong but unfortunately this has precluded any further discussion because you won’t consider the possibility — even temporarily— that his observations were accurate in order to move forward. It’s your loss.

As the claim of instant vision has no evidence to support it, and abundant evidence against it, what more is there to consider?

The claim has been falsified.

The question is, why won't you take consideration of the evidence that goes against it?

 

[peacegirl]

Getting through to someone? The fact that light at the eye/ instant vision is impossible appears something that's hard to get through.

But it does appear that way instantly?

Because appearances are illusive! Go deeper my friends and you will find the treasure.

Going deeper negates the authors claims. Not that you need to go very deep to do that. Understanding the basic role of the eyes in relation to the function of the brain in generating consciousness is enough.

You’re wrong but unfortunately this has precluded any further discussion because you won’t consider the possibility — even temporarily— that his observations were accurate in order to move forward. It’s your loss.

As the claim of instant vision has no evidence to support it, and abundant evidence against it, what more is there to consider?

The claim has been falsified.

The question is, why won't you take consideration of the evidence that goes against it?

Because there IS evidence to support it. You’re just not seeing it, especially when you’ve been taught your whole life that we see the past. This idea of seeing in real time feels foreign and doesn’t seem possible, until you understand how the brain and eyes work, which was never understood. It was a logical assumption, not a fact, that light bounces off of objects and travels over long distances through space/time. This alternate view — when it is realized that it does not violate physics — gives us a more accurate understanding of reality, believe it or not.

 

[DBT]

Getting through to someone? The fact that light at the eye/ instant vision is impossible appears something that's hard to get through.

But it does appear that way instantly?

Because appearances are illusive! Go deeper my friends and you will find the treasure.

Going deeper negates the authors claims. Not that you need to go very deep to do that. Understanding the basic role of the eyes in relation to the function of the brain in generating consciousness is enough.

You’re wrong but unfortunately this has precluded any further discussion because you won’t consider the possibility — even temporarily— that his observations were accurate in order to move forward. It’s your loss.

As the claim of instant vision has no evidence to support it, and abundant evidence against it, what more is there to consider?

The claim has been falsified.

The question is, why won't you take consideration of the evidence that goes against it?

Because there IS evidence to support it. You’re just not seeing it, especially when you’ve been taught your whole life that we see the past. This idea of seeing in real time feels foreign and doesn’t seem possible, until you understand how the brain and eyes work, which was never understood. It was a logical assumption, not a fact, that light bounces off of objects and travels over long distances through space/time. This alternate view — when it is realized that it does not violate physics — gives us a more accurate understanding of reality, believe it or not.

What evidence? The claim is not evidence for instant vision. The description you have given is not evidence for instant vision.

So where is this evidence?

 

[peacegirl]

Getting through to someone? The fact that light at the eye/ instant vision is impossible appears something that's hard to get through.

But it does appear that way instantly?

Because appearances are illusive! Go deeper my friends and you will find the treasure.

Going deeper negates the authors claims. Not that you need to go very deep to do that. Understanding the basic role of the eyes in relation to the function of the brain in generating consciousness is enough.

You’re wrong but unfortunately this has precluded any further discussion because you won’t consider the possibility — even temporarily— that his observations were accurate in order to move forward. It’s your loss.

As the claim of instant vision has no evidence to support it, and abundant evidence against it, what more is there to consider?

The claim has been falsified.

The question is, why won't you take consideration of the evidence that goes against it?

Because there IS evidence to support it. You’re just not seeing it, especially when you’ve been taught your whole life that we see the past. This idea of seeing in real time feels foreign and doesn’t seem possible, until you understand how the brain and eyes work, which was never understood. It was a logical assumption, not a fact, that light bounces off of objects and travels over long distances through space/time. This alternate view — when it is realized that it does not violate physics — gives us a more accurate understanding of reality, believe it or not.

What evidence? The claim is not evidence for instant vision. The description you have given is not evidence for instant vision.

So where is this evidence?

I answered you. The description IS conclusive evidence for seeing in real time, but you will not allow yourself to even consider the possibility that it is true because the explanation that he gave doesn't suffice in your estimation. You want more. The irony is that there is no proof that we see a delayed image in the brain. You cannot prove it, even though the means and mechanisms of how it works make logical sense and appear airtight. But if it's wrong DBT, what good is it?

 

[pood]

I answered you. The description IS conclusive evidence for seeing in real time, but you will not allow yourself to even consider the possibility that it is true because the explanation that he gave doesn't suffice in your estimation. You want more. The irony is that there is no proof that we see a delayed image in the brain. You cannot prove it, even though the means and mechanisms of how it works make logical sense and appear airtight. But if it's wrong DBT, what good is it?

How is it logically possible that light should be at the eye instantly even as you admit that it takes light time to get to the eye?

 

[DBT]

Getting through to someone? The fact that light at the eye/ instant vision is impossible appears something that's hard to get through.

But it does appear that way instantly?

Because appearances are illusive! Go deeper my friends and you will find the treasure.

Going deeper negates the authors claims. Not that you need to go very deep to do that. Understanding the basic role of the eyes in relation to the function of the brain in generating consciousness is enough.

You’re wrong but unfortunately this has precluded any further discussion because you won’t consider the possibility — even temporarily— that his observations were accurate in order to move forward. It’s your loss.

As the claim of instant vision has no evidence to support it, and abundant evidence against it, what more is there to consider?

The claim has been falsified.

The question is, why won't you take consideration of the evidence that goes against it?

Because there IS evidence to support it. You’re just not seeing it, especially when you’ve been taught your whole life that we see the past. This idea of seeing in real time feels foreign and doesn’t seem possible, until you understand how the brain and eyes work, which was never understood. It was a logical assumption, not a fact, that light bounces off of objects and travels over long distances through space/time. This alternate view — when it is realized that it does not violate physics — gives us a more accurate understanding of reality, believe it or not.

What evidence? The claim is not evidence for instant vision. The description you have given is not evidence for instant vision.

So where is this evidence?

I answered you. The description IS conclusive evidence for seeing in real time, but you will not allow yourself to even consider the possibility that it is true because the explanation that he gave doesn't suffice in your estimation. You want more. The irony is that there is no proof that we see a delayed image in the brain. You cannot prove it, even though the means and mechanisms of how it works make logical sense and appear airtight. But if it's wrong DBT, what good is it?

The description is the claim. The description describes the claim, but it does not describe how it's supposed to work.

That is the question: how does it work? How can light be instantly at the eye when light has a finite speed and travel time?

 

[pood]

The description is the claim. The description describes the claim, but it does not describe how it's supposed to work.

That is the question: how does it work? How can light be instantly at the eye when light has a finite speed and travel time?

This is the crucial point we are waiting for peacegirl to address. So far, bupkis!

 

[peacegirl]

I answered you. The description IS conclusive evidence for seeing in real time, but you will not allow yourself to even consider the possibility that it is true because the explanation that he gave doesn't suffice in your estimation. You want more. The irony is that there is no proof that we see a delayed image in the brain. You cannot prove it, even though the means and mechanisms of how it works make logical sense and appear airtight. But if it's wrong DBT, what good is it?

How is it logically possible that light should be at the eye instantly even as you admit that it takes light time to get to the eye?

Because light travels, but you are assuming that light takes the object's image (or reflection) with it over millions of years, when in reality it doesn't do that. The only way you can get a glimpse of what Lessans was conveying is to take the speed of light out of it and think only in terms of the eyes and brain. Then you will see there is no contradiction at all.

 

[peacegirl]

Getting through to someone? The fact that light at the eye/ instant vision is impossible appears something that's hard to get through.

But it does appear that way instantly?

Because appearances are illusive! Go deeper my friends and you will find the treasure.

Going deeper negates the authors claims. Not that you need to go very deep to do that. Understanding the basic role of the eyes in relation to the function of the brain in generating consciousness is enough.

You’re wrong but unfortunately this has precluded any further discussion because you won’t consider the possibility — even temporarily— that his observations were accurate in order to move forward. It’s your loss.

As the claim of instant vision has no evidence to support it, and abundant evidence against it, what more is there to consider?

The claim has been falsified.

The question is, why won't you take consideration of the evidence that goes against it?

Because there IS evidence to support it. You’re just not seeing it, especially when you’ve been taught your whole life that we see the past. This idea of seeing in real time feels foreign and doesn’t seem possible, until you understand how the brain and eyes work, which was never understood. It was a logical assumption, not a fact, that light bounces off of objects and travels over long distances through space/time. This alternate view — when it is realized that it does not violate physics — gives us a more accurate understanding of reality, believe it or not.

What evidence? The claim is not evidence for instant vision. The description you have given is not evidence for instant vision.

So where is this evidence?

I answered you. The description IS conclusive evidence for seeing in real time, but you will not allow yourself to even consider the possibility that it is true because the explanation that he gave doesn't suffice in your estimation. You want more. The irony is that there is no proof that we see a delayed image in the brain. You cannot prove it, even though the means and mechanisms of how it works make logical sense and appear airtight. But if it's wrong DBT, what good is it?

The description is the claim. The description describes the claim, but it does not describe how it's supposed to work.

That is the question: how does it work? How can light be instantly at the eye when light has a finite speed and travel time?

Yes, the description IS the claim. He explains his observations that cannot be denied if understood. He did not have to dissect the brain to show that there is no other way we can become conditioned to seeing what does not exist. IOW, the brain cannot tell the difference between words that accurately describe real substance and words that have no corresponding accuracy. Once we begin to separate the two, we will be able to get a glimpse of the real world from a world that is a projection of our realistic imagination.

 

[DBT]

I answered you. The description IS conclusive evidence for seeing in real time, but you will not allow yourself to even consider the possibility that it is true because the explanation that he gave doesn't suffice in your estimation. You want more. The irony is that there is no proof that we see a delayed image in the brain. You cannot prove it, even though the means and mechanisms of how it works make logical sense and appear airtight. But if it's wrong DBT, what good is it?

How is it logically possible that light should be at the eye instantly even as you admit that it takes light time to get to the eye?

Because light travels, but you are assuming that light takes the object's image (or reflection) with it over millions of years, when in reality it doesn't do that. The only way you can get a glimpse of what Lessans was conveying is to take the speed of light out of it and think only in terms of the eyes and brain. Then you will see there is no contradiction at all.

That doesn't make sense. Light doesn't carry images, it conveys.
information, the eyes detect light and transmit that information to the brain, which uses that information to generate mental imagery.

The information cannot be 'at the eye' before it gets there. Frankly,
it's nonsense.

 

[peacegirl]

I answered you. The description IS conclusive evidence for seeing in real time, but you will not allow yourself to even consider the possibility that it is true because the explanation that he gave doesn't suffice in your estimation. You want more. The irony is that there is no proof that we see a delayed image in the brain. You cannot prove it, even though the means and mechanisms of how it works make logical sense and appear airtight. But if it's wrong DBT, what good is it?

How is it logically possible that light should be at the eye instantly even as you admit that it takes light time to get to the eye?

Because light travels, but you are assuming that light takes the object's image (or reflection) with it over millions of years, when in reality it doesn't do that. The only way you can get a glimpse of what Lessans was conveying is to take the speed of light out of it and think only in terms of the eyes and brain. Then you will see there is no contradiction at all.

That doesn't make sense. Light doesn't carry images, it conveys.
information, the eyes detect light and transmit that information to the brain, which uses that information to generate mental imagery.

Light conveys information but not through light speed.

The information cannot be 'at the eye' before it gets there. Frankly,
it's nonsense.

You're getting confused by thinking in terms of afferent vision. If Lessans is right (which I believe he was), we see the object only because there is enough luminosity (brightness) and size for the object to be seen. Try to think in reverse; you are not interpreting the light that has traveled to you with the image (or wavelength/frequency) through space/time; you are looking at the object directly through its properties of absorption and reflection. To repeat: it is a condition, not a cause of sight. It's similar to a mirror image that would be at the retina instantly. There is no travel time or distance where the information has to arrive. Although light travels, seeing in real time has nothing to do with the properties of light, but rather with the brain, which does not violate physics in any way.

 

[DBT]

That explanation doesn't work. The reasons why it doesn't work have already been described too many times.

 

[bilby]

How is it logically possible that light should be at the eye instantly even as you admit that it takes light time to get to the eye?

Because light travels, but you are assuming that light takes the object's image (or reflection) with it over millions of years, when in reality it doesn't do that. The only way you can get a glimpse of what Lessans was conveying is to take the speed of light out of it and think only in terms of the eyes and brain. Then you will see there is no contradiction at all.

That doesn't make sense. Light doesn't carry images, it conveys.
information, the eyes detect light and transmit that information to the brain, which uses that information to generate mental imagery.

Light conveys information but not through light speed.

Then through WHAT?

The information cannot be 'at the eye' before it gets there. Frankly,
it's nonsense.

You're getting confused by thinking in terms of afferent vision.

Nobody is confused except you.

If Lessans is right (which I believe he was),

He wasn't and your belief does nothing.

we see the object only because there is enough luminosity (brightness) and size for the object to be seen.

And yet, we can't see highly luminous and very large objects, such as distant stars. So clearly there MUST be more to it than that. Those criteria are demonstrably insufficient.

Try to think in reverse; you are not interpreting the light that has traveled to you with the image (or wavelength/frequency) through space/time; you are looking at the object directly through its properties of absorption and reflection.

How? The object is over there. My retina and my brain are over here. I look towards the object. How does the fact of its existence and the detail of its appearance get from over there to over here?

To repeat: it is a condition, not a cause of sight.

Why? What is the light contributing that makes it necessary?

It's similar to a mirror image that would be at the retina instantly.

Wha? A mirror image would NOT be at the retina instantly. Light travels to the mirror, is reflected, and travels back. At a finite speed.

There is no travel time or distance where the information has to arrive.

Sure there is. The object is over there. My retina and my brain are over here. How do I see the object if nothing crosses that distance? How?

Although light travels, seeing in real time has nothing to do with the properties of light, but rather with the brain, which does not violate physics in any way.

If all of this is happening ONLY in the brain, how come two people standing in the same place, looking at the same scene, ALWAYS see the same objects in front of them?