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

[pood]

Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

What doesn't make sense?

Any of it. It is just gibberish. It can barely be parsed.

If light is at our eye instantly, how were we able to measure its speed in the first place?

If we see instantly, it would not be possible to measure a finite velocity for light. Yet you claim we see instantly and that light has a finite velocity!

How do you reconcile this logical contradiction?

Per peacegirl’s request: *BUMP*

 

[peacegirl]

Swing and a miss!

Sreeee-riike 2

The count is 0 and 2.

It is bottom of the 9th folks, Pg is down a gazillion runs to none, two outs and Pg is on her last strike.

She will simply say that well-defined ratiocination, including the very laws of logic, don’t apply to her or her “genius” of a dad — who was greater than Einstein! — and keep on swinging and missing at pitches that no longer even arrive. Then she will declare that she hit a walk-off home run in the bottom of the ninth and wins!

Why do you keep bringing up Einstein? You are the one who said you don't believe everything Einstein concluded, so who are you to determine who was right in this case? Do you only agree when it's convenient? You can't just say Lessans was wrong because Einstein was right. That's pure folly. And how do you measure intelligence objectively anyway?

 

[peacegirl]

Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

What doesn't make sense?

Any of it. It is just gibberish. It can barely be parsed.

If light is at our eye instantly, how were we able to measure its speed in the first place?

If we see instantly, it would not be possible to measure a finite velocity for light. Yet you claim we see instantly and that light has a finite velocity!

How do you reconcile this logical contradiction?

Per peacegirl’s request: *BUMP*

I can't believe after all this time, you haven't understood a word. We see in real time, which is not the same thing as the ability to measure the finite speed of light. It's a different phenomenon altogether, so there IS NO CONTRADICTION. It is the speed of light that was used to conclude that we see in delayed time, which was a mistake.

 

[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.

Of course it does. As explained too many times, the brain generates vision based on the information it gets from the eyes.

The brain does not generate vision.

The eyes detect light and transmit the acquired information to the brain.

The eyes see the external world using light as a medium, which the brain then integrates into usable information. The light does not transmit information on its own.

Light travels from the object, be it emitted or reflected, to the eyes.

Light is inert. It doesn't bring anything because the pattern of the object does not get reflected.

Given that light has a finite speed, and there is travel distance, it takes time for the eyes to detect that light and the brain to generate sight based on the acquired information.

Which makes instant vision impossible. It cannot happen.

You are seeing this through the lens of afferent vision. If he is wrong about how the brain and eyes work (i.e., efferent vision), then your explanation would be correct. But if he is right, your explanation is 100% wrong.

The claim is wrong.

No, your explanation is wrong if his explanation is right. The verdict is still out.

 

[peacegirl]

@peacegirl labors all morning mightily over such stupid posts and brings forth not even a mouse, but nothing at all except a sea of gibberish.

She throws rhetorical spaghetti at a metaphorical wall, hoping some of it will stick. None of it ever does. She tosses great big bowls of word salad, hoping someone will buy them. No one does, ever has, or ever will.

This is a guy who says a bee could recognize its beekeeper in a lineup. How can we believe anything he has to say after a comment like that? Even if scientists confirmed Lessans was right, and we achieved world peace, that wouldn't be enough for Pood. He would rather sulk and say Lessans was wrong because he couldn't bring himself to admit that we don't live in a block universe, and there is no closed loop where we could begin our lives over again. I'm sorry to give you the bad news, Pood, but there's something even better on the other side.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

Another thought experiment.

You are standing in a dark room with an object behind and to the side of you and a mirror in front of you.

A light is swished on. What is the process of you seeing the object in the mirror?

Light does what it does when it strikes objects, and patterns are reflected (please don't misinterpret the word "reflected") back to the mirror. If the object was removed from the background, and we still saw an image of it in the mirror, then that light would be the cause of sight, but we don't see an image of the object in the mirror when the real object is no longer there, since the light is no longer carrying a pattern which would create an image in the mind. Scientists want us to believe that we are seeing images from celestial objects that fizzled out long ago, which is the very thing being contested. In summary, nothing in the way light interacts with mirrors disproves seeing in real time.

When you look into a mirror, you see an image that appears to be behind you. This is because the mirror reflects light rays from the object behind you, which are then directed to your eyes. The image you see is a virtual image, meaning it is not real light rays but the tracing of real rays to the location of the image. The image is upright and appears to be the same distance behind the mirror as the object is from you. This phenomenon is due to the law of reflection, which states that the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. The light rays from the object hit the mirror at the same angle they hit the object, reflecting off the mirror and traveling into your eyes. This creates the illusion that the image is behind the mirror, despite the object being behind it.
LibreTexts+5

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

Another thought experiment.

You are standing in a dark room with an object behind and to the side of you and a mirror in front of you.

A light is swished on. What is the process of you seeing the object in the mirror?

Light does what it does when it strikes objects, and patterns are reflected (please don't misinterpret the word "reflected") back to the mirror. If the object was removed from the background, and we still saw an image of it in the mirror, then that light would be the cause of sight, but we don't see an image of the object in the mirror when the real object is no longer there, since the light is no longer carrying a pattern which would create an image in the mind. Scientists want us to believe that we are seeing images from celestial objects that fizzled out long ago, which is the very thing being contested. In summary, nothing in the way light interacts with mirrors disproves seeing in real time.

When you look into a mirror, you see an image that appears to be behind you. This is because the mirror reflects light rays from the object behind you, which are then directed to your eyes. The image you see is a virtual image, meaning it is not real light rays but the tracing of real rays to the location of the image. The image is upright and appears to be the same distance behind the mirror as the object is from you. This phenomenon is due to the law of reflection, which states that the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. The light rays from the object hit the mirror at the same angle they hit the object, reflecting off the mirror and traveling into your eyes. This creates the illusion that the image is behind the mirror, despite the object being behind it.
LibreTexts+5

Again you are not able to explain how the Lessans theory of vision works.

The short answer is you can not explain it probably because there is no clear explanation in the book. Which is why you deflect by saying you have not read the book.

Maybe you do not realize you contradict yourself. I don't blame you, it is not your faulty. You don't have the basic scene background to comprehend what people post.

Strike 3 and you are out, game over.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

Another thought experiment.

You are standing in a dark room with an object behind and to the side of you and a mirror in front of you.

A light is swished on. What is the process of you seeing the object in the mirror?

Light does what it does when it strikes objects, and patterns are reflected (please don't misinterpret the word "reflected") back to the mirror. If the object was removed from the background, and we still saw an image of it in the mirror, then that light would be the cause of sight, but we don't see an image of the object in the mirror when the real object is no longer there, since the light is no longer carrying a pattern which would create an image in the mind. Scientists want us to believe that we are seeing images from celestial objects that fizzled out long ago, which is the very thing being contested. In summary, nothing in the way light interacts with mirrors disproves seeing in real time.

When you look into a mirror, you see an image that appears to be behind you. This is because the mirror reflects light rays from the object behind you, which are then directed to your eyes. The image you see is a virtual image, meaning it is not real light rays but the tracing of real rays to the location of the image. The image is upright and appears to be the same distance behind the mirror as the object is from you. This phenomenon is due to the law of reflection, which states that the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. The light rays from the object hit the mirror at the same angle they hit the object, reflecting off the mirror and traveling into your eyes. This creates the illusion that the image is behind the mirror, despite the object being behind it.
LibreTexts+5

Again you are not able to explain how the Lessans theory of vision works.

Are you kidding? He explained exactly how it works, but you want me to say, "Oh, you're right, I contradicted myself." That won't happen because I didn't.

The short answer is you can not explain it probably because there is no clear explanation in the book. Which is why you deflect by saying you have not read the book.

Well, that's part of it. I posted important excerpts. In fact, I posted the entire chapter somewhere in this tome.

Maybe you do not realize you contradict yourself.

I am not contradicting myself, Steve. Light travels; there are applications due to the speed of light that have been proven to work, but this has absolutely nothing to do with this version of sight. According to Lessans, light does not bring an image or pattern or wavelength to the eye to be interpreted as normal vision. Seeing in real time doesn't bring all of science to its knees, though our reality may shift if we have believed for decades that we are seeing the past. It may even change our relationship to time itself, but most importantly, this knowledge opens up new doors of understanding that were never given any thought.

I don't blame you, it is not your faulty. You don't have the basic scene background to comprehend what people post.

Strike 3 and you are out, game over.

I'm in overtime. The game ain't over until the fat lady sings.