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

[bilby]

BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INVOLVE DISTANCE OR TIME.

YES IT DOES.

The object is over there. The eye is over here. Between them is a DISTANCE.

No matter what direction eyes work in, no matter whether or not they are sense organs, no matter what ideas we have about vision, that distance exists, and is crucial to any explanation of how we can see things.

 

[pood]

Obviously, if two premises contradict each other, something is wrong, but nothing in his proof has contradicted itself.

P1: Light takes time to get to the eye.

P2: Light is at the eye instantly.

Light flows.

No, it moves in straight lines at c. Water flows.

The only thing that is at the eye instantly is the light that is reflected onto our photoreceptors.

That's nonsense. Reflected light is at the reflecting object, in the instant of its reflection, and then takes time to travel from there to the eye.

No, you're missing the concept entirely.

Light is reflected off the object.

At which instant, the light is "at the object", right?

What are you talking about?

At the instant that a given photon is reflected off an object, that photon is "at the object", and is some distance from the eye.

Right?

Let's be careful with words.

There’s no making this up.

 

[pood]

That's all you keep saying without even considering the possibility that he is right. It's probably too upsetting for you to even think that science may have gotten something so wrong. That's the only thing I can think of.

Ad hom again. You really are contemptible.

But that's probably the reason. I am not trying to be mean. It would be hard for anyone who first hears about something that challenges what has been taken for granted as true for millennia.

No, it’s not the reason. The reason is that your writer’s claims about light and sight are objectively wrong, indeed objectively crap, and all these reasons have been repeatedly given to you. You cannot respond to them. You cannot meet the rebuttals, and you know it, so you fall back on ad hom which is a contemptible tactic used by contemptible people.

 

[bilby]

Obviously, if two premises contradict each other, something is wrong, but nothing in his proof has contradicted itself.

P1: Light takes time to get to the eye.

P2: Light is at the eye instantly.

Light flows.

No, it moves in straight lines at c. Water flows.

The only thing that is at the eye instantly is the light that is reflected onto our photoreceptors.

That's nonsense. Reflected light is at the reflecting object, in the instant of its reflection, and then takes time to travel from there to the eye.

No, you're missing the concept entirely.

Light is reflected off the object.

At which instant, the light is "at the object", right?

What are you talking about?

At the instant that a given photon is reflected off an object, that photon is "at the object", and is some distance from the eye.

Right?

Let's be careful with words.

Yes, let's. That would make for a very refreshing change from you.

Photons travel, so when you say "the photon is at the object", it isn't making sense.

Yes, it is. Cars travel. When I say "my car is at home" that makes complete sense. It is where my car is, at the time when I am speaking.

When talking about the location of an object that can move, we must "be careful with words", and remember to specify what time we are talking about:

"At the instant that a given photon is reflected off an object, that photon is "at the object", and is some distance from the eye."

See, right there, in bold? That bit makes the rest make perfect sense.

Remember, we are talking about two different things. One is light traveling at 186,000 miles per second. The other is unrelated to distance and time.

Well, thanks for saying what the other isn't; But you leave me no less confused about what it IS.

Please stop conflating the two.

I am highly doubtful that there are two things to conflate here. Perhaps you could be more "careful with words"?

And we know that (in your own words):

If it is not at the eye in that instant, we won't be able to see the object. You are still looking at this from the point of view of afferent vision, but what I'm trying to get you to see is that if we see the object, the light has to be at the eye.

So it follows that at the instant that that photon reflects off the object, it is not at the eye (because we just noted that it is at the object); And therefore, as "it is not at the eye in that instant, we won't be able to see the object" as it is in that instant; Instead, we will see it as it was at some earlier instant, when the photons that were "at the object" then have arrived at the eye now.

No, this is wrong. There is no travel time.

Sure there is. The object is over there; The eye is over here; that photon travels only at c; Therefore that photon took time to travel from there to here.

Travel time is unavoidable, as long as we are "careful with words", and make sure to talk about a specific time and place for each of the three things - the object, the eye, and the photon.

If we see the object, there is enough light in which to see it.

At the eye. Yes.

This does not mean that photons don't travel at lightspeed.

No, it doesn't. Photons always travel at lightspeed.

It just means that the object's light does not bounce and travel through space/time.

What is "the object's light"? Be careful with words. Be precise.

The object is revealed through light as we turn our gaze toward it.

Through light that has crossed the gap between object and eye, yes.

That crossing took time, because when the light was at the object, it was not at the eye; And now that the light is at the eye, it is no longer at the object; And there is a gap between object and eye; And photons travel at lightspeed.

In other words, we see the object as it was in the past.

If the light is switched off, the photons at the lightsource the instant before it is switched off will travel to the object (taking time to do so); Then will reflect off the object, and travel to the eye (taking more time to do that), and will therefore be "at the eye" allowing us to see the object for a brief time after the light goes out.

And the reverse is also true. When the light is switched on, the photons at the lightsource the instant after it is switched on will travel to the object (taking time to do so); Then will reflect off the object, and travel to the eye (taking more time to do that), and will therefore not be "at the eye" allowing us to see the object for a brief time after the light comes on.

Instant vision cannot be possible, if everything else you say is true:

I don't know where the confusion began,

When you read your dad's book, and started elevating what it says over what you can learn about reality by simple observation and a commitment to being careful with words.

probably when I used the word "reflected." All of the above is wrong because, as I said over many pages, duration is not part of this account.

Well, I am telling you that it MUST BE, because there is a gap that must be crossed, and nothing can cross a gap without that crossing having a duration.

There is no travel time where the light is reflected,

Correct; There is no travel time where the light is reflected, because the light is reflected at the object, and the object is in one place.

There IS however travel time between where the light is reflected (at the object), and where the light is seen (at the eye), because these are in two different places.

and contains the image through space/time.

"Contains the image through space/time" is vague. I thought we were going to be "careful with words"?

No matter how you try to slice it, it doesn't change reality.

Indeed. And the reality is that there is no distance or travel time between one place; But there is ALWAYS distance and travel time between two different places.

Light is reflected off the object.

If it is not at the eye in that instant, we won't be able to see the object

How is light reflected off the object unless that light is "at the object"? If it is "at the object", it is not "at the eye", and cannot be until it travels the distance between object and eye. And as we know:

I don't want to use the word "reflected" anymore because it is misleading. Nothing gets reflected, therefore the image doesn't get reflected.

You don't have to use the word, but it remains the case that light is reflected off objects.

We see the object because it is bright enough and large enough to be seen, period.

That's not true, as has already been demonstrated. If you put an opaque object between yourself and the Sun, the Sun's brightness is unchanged; The Sun's size is unchanged; But you no longer see it.

By conducting this incredibly simple experiment, you can undisputably prove to yourself that the statement: "We see the object because it is bright enough and large enough to be seen, period", is FALSE.

Light travels at a finite speed, but, once again, it does not bounce off objects

...yes it does...

taking the images with it,

That's not meaningful. Remember, be "careful with words" - an image is a plane at which the pattern of photons matches the pattern with which photons are reflected from an object's surface. Images do not travel, photons do.

which is a logical conclusion but is invalid, according to this version of sight, which has never been carefully analyzed.

We have analyzed it to death, right here in this thread. It has been proven to be utter bollocks.

 

[DBT]

I came across a patient case summary in a blog entry which strikes me as very interesting. I am not the least bit concerned that anyone might regard this as giving credence to there being an actual efferent-afferent "question".

The part that I found particularly interesting is this:

the doctors studying her did something interesting – they performed a visual evoked potential (VEP) on her while she was exhibiting a personality that was blind and again while she was exhibiting a personality that could see. What a rare opportunity to compare the two states. The VEP essentially is a test in which a flash of light is given to the patient while electrodes record the response from her visual cortex. There is typically a delay of about 100 ms. If this is significantly slow or absent that could indicate a lesion in the visual pathway. ... They found that the VEP was present and normal while she expressed a personality that could see, but was absent when she had a personality with persistent psychogenic blindness. That is a rather incredible result, indicating that there is some process in her brain that is actually suppressing her visual system. To be clear, there is no conscious way to do this (again, at least not known, but I guess this could be the way in which she is very neuroatypical). So it seems that her psychogenic blindness was [due] to a reversible inhibition of her visual pathway, in a way that would block the VEP.

[This was in contrast to] a 2001 study of 72 subjects with psychogenic blindness found that every one had normal VEPs. VEPs are still used to assess these patients – a normal VEP does suggest a nonorganic cause of blindness, however it is recognized that an abnormal VEP does not rule out a psychogenic cause.

This is a new one for me, that someone could actually cause psychogenic blindness depending on the personality that came forward.

It's the brain that generates vision, not only vision but dream landscapes, visual illusions, etc. The case study in no way supports the authors claim of instant vision.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

If you have trouble with photons traveling for millions of years what about the Earth going around the Sun which has been going around the galaxy for billions of yers?

And millionths of galaxies in the observable inverse.

 

[steve_bank]

'When the Moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that's amore'

Dino

Dino made a revolutionary scientific discovery of a link between the Moon, pizza, and love.
.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
No, I hope you understand that the physics of light is not being disputed. The only thing being disputed is that traveling light does not bounce off objects and take the images...

You are disputing very fundamental physics.

As I said, Steve, the only thing being disputed is afferent vision. Physics wasn't even part of what drove him to this conclusion.

Despite all the information about demonstrated physics which shows images are formed bylight reflecting off oceanic you dispute it.

I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing what goes on in the brain. That's it.

This is not arcane and obscure science theory. it is common in everyday science and engineering. Routine.

And I agree. I'm not obscuring science theory.

So gain according to Lessans how does image of an object get to tfe eye?

You have to think in reverse. If you can't do that, you will continue to think in terms of objects reflecting images traveling to the eyes and brain over space and time, and you will continue to tell me I'm obscuring science theory.

In a dark room is an object you have never seen. A light is switched on. What is the chain of events that lead to you seeing the object?

If a light is switched on, it takes time for light to reach the object (which takes time), but once the light is surrounding the object, I will see that object in real time because it's meets the requirements for vision.

A causal chain like a cue ball hitting a pool ball setting off a chain of collisions in a combination shoot leading to sinking the ball.

He knew all about causal chains on a pool table leading to sinking the ball. After all, he became the 9-ball champ of Maryland.

 

[peacegirl]

'When the Moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that's amore'

Dino


.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
How is light reflected off the object unless that light is "at the object"? If it is "at the object", it is not "at the eye", and cannot be until it travels the distance between object and eye. And as we know:

Throw a ball at a wall. It travels trough space, bonces off the wall, and goes in another direction hitting you in the eye.

Of course the ball can not bounce off the wall until it is at the wall, and cannot hit your eye until it is at your eye.

It is incorrect to say the ball is at your eye instantly and disregard how the ball got there.

No different with light and photons.

We are not talking about balls traveling through space. Light also travels through soace, and it takes time for that light to strike an object, but this has nothing to do with his claim. Gosh, I hope someone gets it soon.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

You have no clue about science and keep schlepping Lessans pseudo science and phony baloney..
A lite mustard on the baloney will make it easier to swallow.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
How is light reflected off the object unless that light is "at the object"? If it is "at the object", it is not "at the eye", and cannot be until it travels the distance between object and eye. And as we know:

Throw a ball at a wall. It travels trough space, bonces off the wall, and goes in another direction hitting you in the eye.

Of course the ball can not bounce off the wall until it is at the wall, and cannot hit your eye until it is at your eye.

It is incorrect to say the ball is at your eye instantly and disregard how the ball got there.

No different with light and photons.

We are not talking about balls traveling through space. Light also travels through soace, and it takes time for that light to strike an object, but this has nothing to do with his claim. Gosh, I hope someone gets it soon.

You keep hiding behind the same retort. Then answer th question.

You are in a dark room with an object you have never seen before.

A light is switched on. What is rthe sequence of events that leads to vision of the object?\

In your own words.

I am tossing you an easy slow ball softball pitch.

 

[peacegirl]

ADDING TO THIS POST FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION: It isn't that light doesn't get reflected off the object. It's that we wouldn't see the object if that object's reflection weren't already at the eye. This reflection has nothing to do with the speed of light because the light is not what we're interpreting.

What is an object's reflection supposed to be made of, if not light?

This doesn't clarify anything.

Light IS made of photons, but it's been the belief that, due to light traveling, the conclusion was that the light that struck the object reflected an image or wavelength that traveled independently of the object. That's the theory, but it's not true. It's all backwards.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

You have no clue about science and keep schlepping Lessans pseudo science and phony baloney..
A lite mustard on the baloney will make it easier to swallow.

You just don't get it, but that's okay. Not everyone will.

 

[bilby]

ADDING TO THIS POST FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION: It isn't that light doesn't get reflected off the object. It's that we wouldn't see the object if that object's reflection weren't already at the eye. This reflection has nothing to do with the speed of light because the light is not what we're interpreting.

What is an object's reflection supposed to be made of, if not light?

This doesn't clarify anything.

Light IS made of photons,

Yes.

but it's been the belief that, due to light traveling, the conclusion was that the light that struck the object reflected an image or wavelength that traveled independently of the object.

What? I thought we were supposed to be careful with words.

That's a mess.

"it's been the belief that, due to light traveling, the conclusion was that..." is a weird and ungrammatical preamble that could probably have just been something like "People used to believe that..." - Right?

Sadly, that's the least of our problems.

"the light that struck the object reflected" ...so far so good...

"an image or wavelength" NOPE!

Literally nobody believes that light reflects anything.

Nor that light can "reflect an image or wavelength".

All of these words are being used in a way that fails to make any sense in English.

"that traveled independently of the object"

Too little, too late. Yes, light (but not images or wavelengths) travels independently of the objects from which it reflects. But that fact can't salvage a shred of meaning from this trainwreck of a sentence.

That's the theory,

No, it really, REALLY, isn't.

but it's not true. It's all backwards.

It's not meaningful enough to be "backwards".

You are not being careful with words. You are being wantonly careless with words, throwing them around with zero care for their meanings, much less where they might fit into a grammatically sound sentence.

 

[steve_bank]

Strike One!

The count is 0 and 1.

 

[steve_bank]

ADDING TO THIS POST FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION: It isn't that light doesn't get reflected off the object. It's that we wouldn't see the object if that object's reflection weren't already at the eye. This reflection has nothing to do with the speed of light because the light is not what we're interpreting.

What is an object's reflection supposed to be made of, if not light?

This doesn't clarify anything.

Light IS made of photons, but it's been the belief that, due to light traveling, the conclusion was that the light that struck the object reflected an image or wavelength that traveled independently of the object. That's the theory, but it's not true. It's all backwards.

It is experimentally demonstrated. Theory predicts outcomes. Stop saying you and Lessans do not conflict with physics.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
How is light reflected off the object unless that light is "at the object"? If it is "at the object", it is not "at the eye", and cannot be until it travels the distance between object and eye. And as we know:

Throw a ball at a wall. It travels trough space, bonces off the wall, and goes in another direction hitting you in the eye.

Of course the ball can not bounce off the wall until it is at the wall, and cannot hit your eye until it is at your eye.

It is incorrect to say the ball is at your eye instantly and disregard how the ball got there.

No different with light and photons.

We are not talking about balls traveling through space. Light also travels through soace, and it takes time for that light to strike an object, but this has nothing to do with his claim. Gosh, I hope someone gets it soon.

You keep hiding behind the same retort. Then answer th question.

You are in a dark room with an object you have never seen before.

A light is switched on. What is rthe sequence of events that leads to vision of the object?\

In your own words.

I am tossing you an easy slow ball softball pitch.

The ball travels from your pitch to me, which takes time. Light travels from A to B, which takes time. But I see you throw the pitch in real time, not because light doesn't travel, but because the only requirement for efferent vision is the object being bright and large enough, which would put the object (you, the pitcher) in view without any travel time. If you were testing a laser going to the moon and back, there would be a delay because it takes time for this concentrated light to travel there and back, and because it doesn't involve the direction we see, which is the only thing Lessans is correcting.

 

[peacegirl]

That's all you keep saying without even considering the possibility that he is right. It's probably too upsetting for you to even think that science may have gotten something so wrong. That's the only thing I can think of.

Ad hom again. You really are contemptible.

But that's probably the reason. I am not trying to be mean. It would be hard for anyone who first hears about something that challenges what has been taken for granted as true for millennia.

No, it’s not the reason. The reason is that your writer’s claims about light and sight are objectively wrong, indeed objectively crap, and all these reasons have been repeatedly given to you. You cannot respond to them. You cannot meet the rebuttals, and you know it, so you fall back on ad hom which is a contemptible tactic used by contemptible people.

It was not an ad hom because it wasn't a put-down. It was a possible reason why this model of sight would be hard to grasp, and why it would be difficult to even imagine that it could be true.

 

[peacegirl]

I came across a patient case summary in a blog entry which strikes me as very interesting. I am not the least bit concerned that anyone might regard this as giving credence to there being an actual efferent-afferent "question".

The part that I found particularly interesting is this:

the doctors studying her did something interesting – they performed a visual evoked potential (VEP) on her while she was exhibiting a personality that was blind and again while she was exhibiting a personality that could see. What a rare opportunity to compare the two states. The VEP essentially is a test in which a flash of light is given to the patient while electrodes record the response from her visual cortex. There is typically a delay of about 100 ms. If this is significantly slow or absent that could indicate a lesion in the visual pathway. ... They found that the VEP was present and normal while she expressed a personality that could see, but was absent when she had a personality with persistent psychogenic blindness. That is a rather incredible result, indicating that there is some process in her brain that is actually suppressing her visual system. To be clear, there is no conscious way to do this (again, at least not known, but I guess this could be the way in which she is very neuroatypical). So it seems that her psychogenic blindness was [due] to a reversible inhibition of her visual pathway, in a way that would block the VEP.

[This was in contrast to] a 2001 study of 72 subjects with psychogenic blindness found that every one had normal VEPs. VEPs are still used to assess these patients – a normal VEP does suggest a nonorganic cause of blindness, however it is recognized that an abnormal VEP does not rule out a psychogenic cause.

This is a new one for me, that someone could actually cause psychogenic blindness depending on the personality that came forward.

It's the brain that generates vision, not only vision but dream landscapes, visual illusions, etc. The case study in no way supports the authors claim of instant vision.

We can create all kinds of dreamlike illusions in the brain. Our dreams are created by the brain. Hallucinations are created by the brain. But this in no way proves that we create virtual images of reality in delayed time.