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

[peacegirl]

You keep using his claim about light and sight against him when you really don't know if he was wrong.

Sorry, but I really do know the claim is wrong. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics and biology can see, without a doubt, that he was wrong.

Nageli, the leading authority of his time, was positive that Gregor Mendel was wrong in his fundamental principles of heredity. But it turned out that Mendel was not wrong, even though Nageli would have sworn on his life that Mendel was not right. Of course, this in itself doesn't mean Lessans was right because Mendel was, but it should make you pause before denying a claim that appears impossible.

The example you give doesn't relate to the claim being made, a claim where there is no means by which instant vision/light at the eye could possibly work. It's impossible in any way you look at it.

I didn’t say it was related other than the fact that Nageli said the core of Mendel’s claim had to wrong because he believed it was impossible to look at it any other way.

For the claim of instant vision/light at the eye, there is no other way to look at it. It's wrong in any way you look at it. It doesn't relate to how the world works, not physics, not biology, not the role of the senses or the function of a brain, so there is no chance of it being proven right.

It’s not wrong. You’re just looking at it in terms of light traveling, which it does, but this fact has nothing to do with seeing an object in real time because light is not bringing the image.

So if not conveyed through light/information, where do you think the image, what we are seeing, is coming from?

We see because of light, but light doesn't convey; it reveals. You are attributing a property to light that it doesn't have. Convey implies duration, and in real-time vision, there is no duration.

 

[steve_bank]

For peacegirl, a “pertinent question” would not be, “how is it possible for light to be instantly at the eye, while also taking time to I get there?” But rather, “How did you daddy get to be so damned smart???”

You are missing the entire point that light never stops traveling and being replaced by new photons, but instead of bringing the image to us by light bouncing off the object and traveling, we see the object through the reflected light that is already at the eye. We are not waiting for the light to get to us because it is already there as we look at the object in real time. It's a complete reversal of how vision works. I'm tired of discussing this topic.

Again you ignore optical theory backed by experimenter and application and claim Lessans is correct without any evidence.

The anatomy of the eye, optic nerves and brain are clear, by visual emanation.

There is no possi8bilty of what your claim to be true. There is nothing observable in the body to support it.

Your response is the usual gobbledygook.

Photons are produced by a source in a continuous stream yes, but that does not affect the argument.

Back to the wave particle duality. Light has both wave and particle like properties. Individual photons do not carry information of an image. The image in light is patterns created of a collection of photons traveling with wave like properties.

You have to understand the compete model of light and image formation which you do not. You have to understand wave interference.

Sound traveling in water also has a wave particle duality. Individual water molecules in a wave not carry sound information.

You can start with Maxwell;s Equations. I am not an expert in he math but I understand them.

Maxwell's equations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Maxwell’s equations and the speed of light

Pre-script (dated 26 June 2020): Our ideas have evolved into a full-blown realistic (or classical) interpretation of all things quantum-mechanical. In addition, I note the dark force has amused him…

readingfeynman.org

Lessans was a dabbler. He picked up bits and pieces with no real underwing.


Ripples on a pond are collections o molecules with wave like property.

 

[DBT]

You keep using his claim about light and sight against him when you really don't know if he was wrong.

Sorry, but I really do know the claim is wrong. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics and biology can see, without a doubt, that he was wrong.

Nageli, the leading authority of his time, was positive that Gregor Mendel was wrong in his fundamental principles of heredity. But it turned out that Mendel was not wrong, even though Nageli would have sworn on his life that Mendel was not right. Of course, this in itself doesn't mean Lessans was right because Mendel was, but it should make you pause before denying a claim that appears impossible.

The example you give doesn't relate to the claim being made, a claim where there is no means by which instant vision/light at the eye could possibly work. It's impossible in any way you look at it.

I didn’t say it was related other than the fact that Nageli said the core of Mendel’s claim had to wrong because he believed it was impossible to look at it any other way.

For the claim of instant vision/light at the eye, there is no other way to look at it. It's wrong in any way you look at it. It doesn't relate to how the world works, not physics, not biology, not the role of the senses or the function of a brain, so there is no chance of it being proven right.

It’s not wrong. You’re just looking at it in terms of light traveling, which it does, but this fact has nothing to do with seeing an object in real time because light is not bringing the image.

So if not conveyed through light/information, where do you think the image, what we are seeing, is coming from?

We see because of light, but light doesn't convey; it reveals. You are attributing a property to light that it doesn't have. Convey implies duration, and in real-time vision, there is no duration.

How does light 'reveal' the object without travel time from the object it was emitted from?

How is that possible? What could make it possible?

 

[peacegirl]

For peacegirl, a “pertinent question” would not be, “how is it possible for light to be instantly at the eye, while also taking time to I get there?” But rather, “How did you daddy get to be so damned smart???”

You are missing the entire point that light never stops traveling and being replaced by new photons, but instead of bringing the image to us by light bouncing off the object and traveling, we see the object through the reflected light that is already at the eye. We are not waiting for the light to get to us because it is already there as we look at the object in real time. It's a complete reversal of how vision works. I'm tired of discussing this topic.

Again you ignore optical theory backed by experimenter and application and claim Lessans is correct without any evidence.

The anatomy of the eye, optic nerves and brain are clear, by visual emanation.

Where in this animation does it prove that we are interpreting the image in the visual cortex?

There is no possi8bilty of what your claim to be true. There is nothing observable in the body to support it.

Your response is the usual gobbledygook.

Where, other than what looks like a perfectly fitting model, does it prove that we see an image created in the mind in the visual cortex?

Photons are produced by a source in a continuous stream yes, but that does not affect the argument.

Back to the wave particle duality. Light has both wave and particle like properties. Individual photons do not carry information of an image. The image in light is patterns created of a collection of photons traveling with wave like properties.

Where is it proven that the light bounces off the object carrying the pattern with it through space/time? This alternative model is not dead in the water, like you think. Photons do not have patterns in and of themselves. They are fundamental particles with no internal structure.

What Photons Are Made Of​

Photons are fundamental particles — they are not made of smaller components like electrons or protons. In the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are the force carriers (gauge bosons) for the electromagnetic force, and they are considered elementary particles with no internal structure quantumatlas.umd.edu+1.

The Sun emits photons — it does not reflect them in the way a mirror would. Photons are the fundamental particles of light and all other electromagnetic radiation. The Sun produces them through thermonuclear fusion in its core, where hydrogen nuclei fuse to form helium, releasing vast amounts of energy in the form of gamma-ray photons NASA. These high-energy photons travel outward through the Sun’s dense interior, gradually losing energy through collisions and scattering, until they reach the surface.

At the Sun’s visible surface (photosphere), the temperature is about 5,700 K, and most of the emitted radiation is characteristic of a blackbody radiator at that temperature NASA. This produces a broad spectrum of photons across the electromagnetic spectrum — from gamma rays and X-rays to ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, and radio waves Britannica. The visible portion is what we perceive as sunlight, while the rest is invisible but still carries energy.

Reflection is a property of matter: when photons from the Sun strike a surface, they can be reflected, absorbed, or transmitted. For example, clouds, water, and ground surfaces reflect some of the Sun’s photons, which is why we see light and color in our environment Pressbooks at the Robertson Library. However, the Sun itself is not a reflector — it is the source of the photons that are later reflected by other objects.

In summary:

• Emission: The Sun continuously emits photons via fusion and thermal radiation.
• Reflection: The Sun does not reflect photons; other surfaces in the solar system do.
• Result: The Sun’s emitted photons travel through space and can be reflected, absorbed, or scattered by objects in their path, ultimately reaching Earth and other planets NASA+2.

You have to understand the compete model of light and image formation which you do not. You have to understand wave interference.

The fact that photons can travel with wavelike patterns and have interference has nothing to do with vision.

Sound traveling in water also has a wave particle duality. Individual water molecules in a wave not carry sound information.

You can start with Maxwell;s Equations. I am not an expert in he math but I understand them.

Maxwell's equations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Maxwell’s equations and the speed of light

Pre-script (dated 26 June 2020): Our ideas have evolved into a full-blown realistic (or classical) interpretation of all things quantum-mechanical. In addition, I note the dark force has amused him…

readingfeynman.org

Lessans was a dabbler. He picked up bits and pieces with no real underwing.

You're wrong.

Ripples on a pond are collections o molecules with wave like property.

Nothing to do with vision.

 

[peacegirl]

You keep using his claim about light and sight against him when you really don't know if he was wrong.

Sorry, but I really do know the claim is wrong. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics and biology can see, without a doubt, that he was wrong.

Nageli, the leading authority of his time, was positive that Gregor Mendel was wrong in his fundamental principles of heredity. But it turned out that Mendel was not wrong, even though Nageli would have sworn on his life that Mendel was not right. Of course, this in itself doesn't mean Lessans was right because Mendel was, but it should make you pause before denying a claim that appears impossible.

The example you give doesn't relate to the claim being made, a claim where there is no means by which instant vision/light at the eye could possibly work. It's impossible in any way you look at it.

I didn’t say it was related other than the fact that Nageli said the core of Mendel’s claim had to wrong because he believed it was impossible to look at it any other way.

For the claim of instant vision/light at the eye, there is no other way to look at it. It's wrong in any way you look at it. It doesn't relate to how the world works, not physics, not biology, not the role of the senses or the function of a brain, so there is no chance of it being proven right.

It’s not wrong. You’re just looking at it in terms of light traveling, which it does, but this fact has nothing to do with seeing an object in real time because light is not bringing the image.

So if not conveyed through light/information, where do you think the image, what we are seeing, is coming from?

We see because of light, but light doesn't convey; it reveals. You are attributing a property to light that it doesn't have. Convey implies duration, and in real-time vision, there is no duration.

How does light 'reveal' the object without travel time from the object it was emitted from?

How is that possible? What could make it possible?

What makes it possible? The way the brain and eyes work as one unit through the CNS. It's not that far out of the realm of possibility that it cannot be true.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

I and others went though how vision works many times. You see it, ignore what is said, and ask again the same qustion how vision works.

Either you are just plain ignorant, willfully ignorant, or have a mental block I can't know. I suspect it is a mental block you developed against accepting anything contrary to your image of Lessans.

You are ignorant o the physics that you claim is wrong. Lessans was equally ignorant.

Pg
What makes it possible? The way the brain and eyes work as one unit through the CNS. It's not that far out of the realm of possibility that it cannot be true.

Real time visin is impossible. For all the reasons posted. I think the question was asking about specifics of where the image already at there comes from.

Pg
Nothing to do with vision

Obviously you are unable to see the analogies that relate to the model of light and how images are formed.

Pg
The fact that photons can travel with wavelike patterns and have interference has nothing to do with vision.

It has everything to do with vision. It is basic tested physics. Standard text book theory.

Your usual shtick is to say something is wrong and Lessans is right. Lessans was as ignorant as a tree stump om psychs. You are transparent, the only pertness you fool is yourself.

How can you say theory of vision is wrong when you do not understand that theory.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg

I and others went though how vision works many times. You see it, ignore what is said, and ask again the same qustion how vision works.

Either you are just plain ignorant, willfully ignorant, or have a mental block I can't know. I suspect it is a mental block you developed against accepting anything contrary to your image of Lessans.

You are ignorant o the physics that you claim is wrong. Lessans was equally ignorant.

Pg
What makes it possible? The way the brain and eyes work as one unit through the CNS. It's not that far out of the realm of possibility that it cannot be true.

Real time visin is impossible. For all the reasons posted. I think the question was asking about specifics of where the image already at there comes from.

Pg
Nothing to do with vision

Obviously you are unable to see the analogies that relate to the model of light and how images are formed.

Pg
The fact that photons can travel with wavelike patterns and have interference has nothing to do with vision.

It has everything to do with vision. It is basic tested physics. Standard text book theory.

Your usual shtick is to say something is wrong and Lessans is right. Lessans was as ignorant as a tree stump om psychs. You are transparent, the only pertness you fool is yourself.

How can you say theory of vision is wrong when you do not understand that theory.

Oh the irony! I understand it enough to know that photons don't carry an object's pattern across space/time, which has nothing to do with the electromagnetic energy of photons themselves.