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

[bilby]

The only flaw is with the idea that the object's wavelength/frequency (IMAGE) travels to the brain rather than the brain looking through the eye to see the object itself. That's it.

Nope, that's not it. That's not anything, because literally nobody is saying that "the object's wavelength/frequency (IMAGE) travels to the brain", and the parenthetical "(IMAGE)" is a bizarre non-sequitur.

Light reflects off objects, and travels to the brain.

Light consists of a number of photons; Each has a frequency that, for visible light, we call colour (in the US, "color").

As photons are constrained to travel at c, the frequency and wavelength of light become interchangeable; A photon of known frequency has a known wavelength and vice-versa.

Unless the object in question has a pure colour, or is illuminated by a pure colour source (such as a laser), the photons that reflect from it will have a wide range of individual frequencies, the average of which we call the colour(s) of the object's surface.

The pattern formed by these photons can be resolved into an image of the object. An image is a pattern on a plane through the straight-line path that light takes from object to that plane; By focussing the light through a lens, the pattern can be made to match the suface pattern of the object, and such a matching pattern is called an image of the object.

When a retina lies exactly on the focal plane of the lens, the pattern of light on the retinal cells matches the pattern of light on the surface of the object. If the retina is offset from the focal plane, then the image formed will be blurry, and will not match the pattern of the surface of the object - this can be corrected by interposing additional lenses to bring the focal plane more accurately onto the retina.

This is what you are denying. (It is also how spectacles and contact lenses work).

Now, please provide your similarly detailed description of what you are claiming.

How does "the brain [look] through the eye to see the object itself"? What role does light play in this, exactly?

How do spectacles or contact lenses enable the brain to look through the eye to see the object clearly, when it could not be seen clearly without them, and without light taking time to travel the (short but non-zero) distance from retina to lens?

In order for the mechanism you claim to supplant the mechanism you are denying, it must explain all of the things that we observe, including such phenomena as correcting vision with spectacles; And it must explain them as well as, or better than, our existing explanation, while also explaining something else that the existing explanation does not.

If it can't, it would be unreasonable to adopt a new explanation or to give credence to a new mechanism.

 

[pood]

For the eleven-billionth goddamn time, science does not say that an “image” travels to the eye. LIGHT travels to the eye.

Can you actually comprehend anything?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Peacegirl

You are in a dark room and switch on a light source.

According to Lessans when and where in the process shown does the image appear to us after light is turned on?

t0 immediately when light is turned on?
t1 when light reaches object?
t2 when light leaves object>
t3 when light reaches eye?
t4 when nerve signals reaches brain?
t5 after delay for brain to work?

Not presentation quaiity but good enough to talk to.

View attachment 53669
t0 when light is swi

That is a pretty good map of light traveling and the present belief as to how sight works, but nothing in that diagram explains how the eyes work. There is no proof that nerve signals reach the brain and become images, which is the main argument.

How the eyes and brain work together is perfectly understood. The Lone Ranger, who has dissected eyes, explained all of this down to the atomic level in a paper you admitted you did not read. Shall I try to fetch up the paper from you at FF?

By contrast, the claim that the brain is a “movie” projector that looks out through the “windows of the eyes” and “projects” something or other onto a “screen of undeniable substance” is not only unevidenced, it is idiot nonsense babble.

Sooo what exactly happens when the optic nerve is damaged, according to whatever their nonsense babble argument is?

 

[DBT]

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

No it hasn’t.

That's not true. The problem is that you ignore any given explanation, only to reset and repeat the authors claims.

Of course, I'm going to repeat his claims because people are trying to prove him wrong. This is what anyone would do if the present scientific explanation has flaws that haven't been brought to the forefront.

Claims that are not only not supported by evidence, but are contrary to the evidence that we do have (physics).

That, again, has to do with science explaining its narrative of what is occurring without realizing that there is a loophole when it comes to vision. This account DOES NOT violate physics, so stop telling me it does.

That is how faith is defined. That is how theists tend to defend their own faith.

This has nothing to do with faith because he has an understandable explanation.

He wrote: I know that 2+2=4; I don’t have faith or believe that this is true.”

The same goes for his proof of no free will and that the brain and eyes work differently than what was previously believed.

An understandable explanation? That has yet to be shown.

You have not explained how light at the eye/ instant vision could possibly work.

It has not been explained how information about a distant object can be at the eye before it is transmitted or even arrives.

As that isn't physically possible, to believe it is true a matter of faith.

The claim is a faith based belief.

 

[peacegirl]

The only flaw is with the idea that the object's wavelength/frequency (IMAGE) travels to the brain rather than the brain looking through the eye to see the object itself. That's it.

Nope, that's not it. That's not anything, because literally nobody is saying that "the object's wavelength/frequency (IMAGE) travels to the brain", and the parenthetical "(IMAGE)" is a bizarre non-sequitur.

It is not a non-sequitur. It is central to this discussion. When I say the object's wavelength/frequency, I mean the light that has the potential to bring to the eye the image of the object. It might not be the words you use, but you should know what I mean by now.

Light reflects off objects, and travels to the brain.

Okay.

Light consists of a number of photons; Each has a frequency that, for visible light, we call colour (in the US, "color").

Got it.

As photons are constrained to travel at c, the frequency and wavelength of light become interchangeable; A photon of known frequency has a known wavelength and vice-versa.

So far so good.

Unless the object in question has a pure colour, or is illuminated by a pure colour source (such as a laser), the photons that reflect from it will have a wide range of individual frequencies, the average of which we call the colour(s) of the object's surface.

Right.

The pattern formed by these photons can be resolved into an image of the object. An image is a pattern on a plane through the straight-line path that light takes from object to that plane; By focussing the light through a lens, the pattern can be made to match the suface pattern of the object, and such a matching pattern is called an image of the object.

This is where we part ways. By focusing the light through the lens, we see the object through the pattern, which is called seeing in real time.

When a retina lies exactly on the focal plane of the lens, the pattern of light on the retinal cells matches the pattern of light on the surface of the object. If the retina is offset from the focal plane, then the image formed will be blurry, and will not match the pattern of the surface of the object - this can be corrected by interposing additional lenses to bring the focal plane more accurately onto the retina.

Correct.

This is what you are denying. (It is also how spectacles and contact lenses work).

Not at all. Corrective lenses work when the retina is offset from the focal plane, which can be corrected by bringing the focal plane more accurately on the retina. I'm not sure where you think this disproves efferent vision.

Now, please provide your similarly detailed description of what you are claiming.

How does "the brain [look] through the eye to see the object itself"? What role does light play in this, exactly?

I can only give you what he wrote because I can't say it any better, especially when I'm under a microscope. I am sure this won't satisfy you, but I'll keep trying.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

At a very early age, our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but also photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation, whereas a dog is incapable of this. When he sees the features of his master without any accompanying sound or smell, he cannot identify them because no photograph was taken. A dog identifies through his sense of sound and smell and what he sees in relation to these sense experiences, just as we identify most of the differences that exist through words and names. If the negative plate on which the relation is formed is temporarily disconnected — in man’s case the words and names and in a dog’s case the sounds and smells — both would have a case of amnesia. This gives conclusive evidence as to why an animal cannot identify too well with his eyes. As we have seen, if a vicious dog accustomed to attacking any person who should open the fence at night were to have two senses, hearing and smell, temporarily disconnected, and assuming that no relation was developed as to the way in which an individual walked, he would actually have amnesia, and even though he saw with his eyes his master come through the gate, he would have no way of recognizing him and would attack. But a baby, having already developed negatives of relations that act as a slide in a movie projector, can recognize at a very early age. The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts as a tape recorder through our ears and the other three senses and a camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as a movie projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded, they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since the eyes are the binoculars of the brain, all words that are placed in front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world, and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses, man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and if words correctly describe, then he will be made conscious of actual differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for those who do not know the words.

How do spectacles or contact lenses enable the brain to look through the eye to see the object clearly, when it could not be seen clearly without them, and without light taking time to travel the (short but non-zero) distance from retina to lens?

Light travels to the lens, but this doesn't explain how the brain and eyes see. They are two different things.

In order for the mechanism you claim to supplant the mechanism you are denying, it must explain all of the things that we observe, including such phenomena as correcting vision with spectacles; And it must explain them as well as, or better than, our existing explanation, while also explaining something else that the existing explanation does not.

If it can't, it would be unreasonable to adopt a new explanation or to give credence to a new mechanism.

Seeing in real time does not disrupt the way lenses work to correct vision. It has nothing to do with it. It has other important implications, but does not dispute any of the applications that use light in their technologies that are proven to work.

 

[bilby]

When I say the object's wavelength/frequency, I mean the light that has the potential to bring to the eye the image of the object.

OK. That's meaningless; So you are talking gibberish.

Good to know.

I did explain in some detail what "wavelength/frequency" means, and that it applies not to objects, but to individual photons of light.

However, it is interesting that you say "the light that has the potential to bring to the eye the image of the object". That light would be travelling at c when it "brings to the eye the image of the object", no?

So we would see the object only once the light arrives, and we would therefore see it as it was when the light departed, right?

We would see the image of the object as it was in the past. Right?

Or is "the light that has the potential to bring to the eye the image of the object" also meaningless gibberish that you take to mean something it does not in fact mean?

 

[bilby]

It might not be the words you use,

clearly not

but you should know what I mean by now.

How?

How could I possibly know what you mean, when you have utterly failed to say what you mean, using words with their actual meanings as used by every English speaker other than you (and perhaps some of your cult followers)?

You are using well defined words to mean something (you won't say what) that under their plain meanings is gibberish. You have no need nor justification for this, unless you are deliberately trying to avoid being understood.