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

[peacegirl]

Pg
Because they are two different things. I didn't say light is instantly at the eye when it is reflected off an object. I said the light that has been reflected has to be at the eye for the object to be seen.g

Sop again.

If elected light is required for vision and light is delayed at the eye, how can there be instant vision with no delay?

You just need to bear in mind that if an object can be seen, the light has to be at the eye. You are thinking that the reflected light is traveling so there has to be a delay, but this goes right back to the afferent account of vision, which is the very thing being disputed. This doesn’t mean light isn’t traveling at 186,000 miles a second. It just means the light isn’t bringing the wavelength/frequency to us through space/time. We can see a celestial object in real time, as long as it meets the requirements of brightness and size, which would be in proportion to the inverse square law. Conclusion: There is no conflict between the speed of light and real-time vision.

As an explanation, it doesn't make sense.

It does make sense, but only if you imagine (even for a second) that the eyes are efferent; otherwise, there's no way it will make sense to you at all.

Efferent and Afferent just refers to different aspects of neuron and nerve function. It doesn't mean that light is somehow at the eye without travel time, which is is wrong. Not only just wrong, but very badly wrong.

How else could he explain what he was talking about without using these words? There are no replacement words that come close to explaining the direction we see. These words were not defined to mean anything other than how neurons function. Now the dictionaries can add a second definition for each of these words.

1. af·fer·ent

conducting or conducted inwards or towards something (for nerves, the central nervous system; for blood vessels, the organ supplied). The opposite of efferent

ef·fer·ent

1. conducted or conducting outwards or away from something (for nerves, the central nervous system; for blood vessels, the organ supplied). The opposite of afferent.
"efferent neurons carry impulses outwards to the effector organs"

Yes, this process happens after the eyes detect light and acquire information, light that takes time to travel between the object and the eyes.

There is nothing implausible about seeing an object in real time, which still involves light and acquiring information. You're making it sound like it's a crazy idea, but it's far from it. I know you are so positive that he's wrong, there's nothing more I can say, so I'm letting you off the hook and anyone else who thinks this is all a bunch of baloney. You are free to find another thread.

 

[DBT]

Pg
Because they are two different things. I didn't say light is instantly at the eye when it is reflected off an object. I said the light that has been reflected has to be at the eye for the object to be seen.g

Sop again.

If elected light is required for vision and light is delayed at the eye, how can there be instant vision with no delay?

You just need to bear in mind that if an object can be seen, the light has to be at the eye. You are thinking that the reflected light is traveling so there has to be a delay, but this goes right back to the afferent account of vision, which is the very thing being disputed. This doesn’t mean light isn’t traveling at 186,000 miles a second. It just means the light isn’t bringing the wavelength/frequency to us through space/time. We can see a celestial object in real time, as long as it meets the requirements of brightness and size, which would be in proportion to the inverse square law. Conclusion: There is no conflict between the speed of light and real-time vision.

As an explanation, it doesn't make sense.

It does make sense, but only if you imagine (even for a second) that the eyes are efferent; otherwise, there's no way it will make sense to you at all.

Efferent and Afferent just refers to different aspects of neuron and nerve function. It doesn't mean that light is somehow at the eye without travel time, which is is wrong. Not only just wrong, but very badly wrong.

How else could he explain what he was talking about without using these words? There are no replacement words that come close to explaining the direction we see. These words were not defined to mean anything other than how neurons function. Now the dictionaries can add a second definition for each of these words.

1. af·fer·ent

conducting or conducted inwards or towards something (for nerves, the central nervous system; for blood vessels, the organ supplied). The opposite of efferent

ef·fer·ent

1. conducted or conducting outwards or away from something (for nerves, the central nervous system; for blood vessels, the organ supplied). The opposite of afferent.
"efferent neurons carry impulses outwards to the effector organs"

Yes, this process happens after the eyes detect light and acquire information, light that takes time to travel between the object and the eyes.

There is nothing implausible about seeing an object in real time, which still involves light and acquiring information. You're making it sound like it's a crazy idea, but it's far from it. I know you are so positive that he's wrong, there's nothing more I can say, so I'm letting you off the hook and anyone else who thinks this is all a bunch of baloney. You are free to find another thread.

I participate as I please. You have no say on the matter.

This has nothing to do with me being positive that he was wrong, but that the claim is demonstrably wrong.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
Because they are two different things. I didn't say light is instantly at the eye when it is reflected off an object. I said the light that has been reflected has to be at the eye for the object to be seen.g

Sop again.

If elected light is required for vision and light is delayed at the eye, how can there be instant vision with no delay?

You just need to bear in mind that if an object can be seen, the light has to be at the eye. You are thinking that the reflected light is traveling so there has to be a delay, but this goes right back to the afferent account of vision, which is the very thing being disputed. This doesn’t mean light isn’t traveling at 186,000 miles a second. It just means the light isn’t bringing the wavelength/frequency to us through space/time. We can see a celestial object in real time, as long as it meets the requirements of brightness and size, which would be in proportion to the inverse square law. Conclusion: There is no conflict between the speed of light and real-time vision.

As an explanation, it doesn't make sense.

It does make sense, but only if you imagine (even for a second) that the eyes are efferent; otherwise, there's no way it will make sense to you at all.

Efferent and Afferent just refers to different aspects of neuron and nerve function. It doesn't mean that light is somehow at the eye without travel time, which is is wrong. Not only just wrong, but very badly wrong.

How else could he explain what he was talking about without using these words? There are no replacement words that come close to explaining the direction we see. These words were not defined to mean anything other than how neurons function. Now the dictionaries can add a second definition for each of these words.

1. af·fer·ent

conducting or conducted inwards or towards something (for nerves, the central nervous system; for blood vessels, the organ supplied). The opposite of efferent

ef·fer·ent

1. conducted or conducting outwards or away from something (for nerves, the central nervous system; for blood vessels, the organ supplied). The opposite of afferent.
"efferent neurons carry impulses outwards to the effector organs"

Yes, this process happens after the eyes detect light and acquire information, light that takes time to travel between the object and the eyes.

There is nothing implausible about seeing an object in real time, which still involves light and acquiring information. You're making it sound like it's a crazy idea, but it's far from it. I know you are so positive that he's wrong, there's nothing more I can say, so I'm letting you off the hook and anyone else who thinks this is all a bunch of baloney. You are free to find another thread.

I participate as I please. You have no say on the matter.

I wasn't telling you that you have to leave. I just thought you might want to, if this claim is not to your liking. There is so much more to discuss regarding this discovery, but I can't make headway because people will not let me switch gears.

This has nothing to do with me being positive that he was wrong, but that the claim is demonstrably wrong.

Nothing has been demonstrated to prove him wrong. Hopefully, you will stay open to the idea that he might not have been wrong after all. The problem is that you are thinking in terms of time and distance, which is the antithesis of how efferent vision works. Until you can see that there is no violation of physics because there is no gap between light and the eyes -- due to a complete reversal in the direction we see -- it will never make sense to you.