You're grasping at straws now.
Nope. Let's review. You said, "
There’s a difference between acquiring and processing information in order to generate a mental representation of the external world that is retrieved from memory and reconstructing vision in delayed time." To which
DBT replied, "
Images, what we are seeing, are not 'retrieved from memory.' Memory function enables recognition, which is not a matter of retrieving images." And your response to that was: "
Images are part of memory DBT. I see an image of my mother at my birthday party in the year 2000. Where did this image come from? MEMORY!" I then pointed out that "
Light is not necessary to see an image that comes from memory" even though you claim light is a necessary condition for vision. Why did you respond to
DBT's point about the issue of seeing not being identical to the matter of memory retrieval by insisting that "images are part of memory" other than to evade his point? I already told you why and did so without grasping at straws. Your response was disingenuous for being an attempt at being evasive. This is especially the case because you acknowledge that "acquiring and processing information" is essential "in order to generate a mental representation of the world that is retrieved from memory", and, yet, you never say even generally how it is that visual information is acquired and processed to be stored so as to be retrievable from memory.
He explained how we see, which is the reason the author made the claim he did. If you disagree with his explanation, then stick with your belief that science got it right. He was clear as to what the brain and eyes are doing, which is the opposite of delayed vision.
You say that light does not provide information for acquisition and processing. Indeed, you can't say that light provides information to be acquired and processed for storage in memory, because the inverse square limitation which you accept would necessitate that you accept what you call delayed-seeing. But you reject the so-called delayed-seeing, and you accept the inverse square factor by proclaiming that light presents no information to be acquired and processed for storage as memory. So, to reiterate, you never say even generally how it is that visual information is acquired and processed to be stored so as to be retrievable from memory. You say light is a necessary condition for seeing to occur, but we know that with regards to images retrieved from memory this is most definitely not the case.
I never said it was the case. I am only making a distinction between afferent and efferent. You are getting into a convoluted discussion over memory and storage, which is secondary to his claim. Taking for granted his claim is true, a new concept can be ascertained as to how the brain uses what is seen (in real time), which then processes and categorizes that information. This entire claim that we see in real time is due to how we are conditioned to seeing what doesn't exist, which could not occur any other way, and disputes that the object's wavelength/frequency is sent to us through space/time. That's it!
You insist that light is constructively necessary in order to see, but the only source of information to which you have thus far referred is that information which is already in memory. You fail to describe how that visual information gets stored as memory. Your allegedly instant, real-time seeing is not even conceivably the case much less possibly the case if your fabricated "theory" fails to address how visual information becomes memory.
No, you're placing the cart before the horse. The most important aspect of his claim is to see whether he is correct regarding how we are conditioned in the way he described. If he is right, then trying to figure out the exact mechanism is worthwhile. Scientists believe they have the exact mechanism for how sight occurs, but if they're wrong, what good is it?
You cannot say it is by means of the light which is already at the eye before light travels from the seen object. You cannot say that because saying that does not explain how that light conveys the visual information which, according to you, light cannot convey under any circumstances. You cannot say instant, non-delayed seeing is dependent on the brightness and size of the object seen, because apparent brightness is distance dependent, and distance is sufficient for there being a delay. That makes size an insufficient basis for seeing, because in itself size has nothing to do even with the luminosity of the object seen. Until you suggest a coherent means by which visual information is acquired, your non-delayed seeing notion does not qualify as possible.
You've gone right back to afferent vision, which presupposes that light has to travel for us to get the image. But if this author is right, it has nothing to do with distance and time, yet light would still be at the photoreceptors when looking at the object IF IT IS BRIGHT ENOUGH AND LARGE ENOUGH TO BE SEEN, with no violation of physics at all. Light still travels, but it reveals the external world as it travels and strikes matter.
the brain is using the eyes to see, it records what is seen at the same time and holds it in memory.
That statement makes it sound as if information is acquired through the eyes.
Information is acquired through the eyes. The brain and eyes work in unison. You cannot separate the two. They are part of the CNS, which is why this alternative view should be taken seriously.
The eyes are sensitive to light. In fact, you yourself say that the eyes have
photoreceptors. "Photo" means light. The eyes receive light - not images.
I never said the eyes receive images.
This means that light acquisition is achieved by (or through) the eyes, but that still leaves you having to identify the source of the visual information which you say is not to be found in or with the light received by or through the eyes. Until there is visual information, there is no visual processing to be done. That means the brain does not process light. Of course, your claim is that the brain "records". And you would probably say that it records images but not light. No other light or image "recorders" actually record light or images. No, what they record is information conveyed by light, and, on the face of it, that same description seems appropriately applied to the human neuro-optical system. So, again, until you provide a means by which the brain records photo-images without information being provided by the light aspect of those images, you fail to provide the slightest reason for thinking that Lessans-vision is worthy of consideration as even a possibility.
None of what you just said makes any sense to me. Information is recorded based on what is seen. Information is provided by light, for without it, we could not see. But light does not carry information through time, if he is right. If he was right about how words cause physical conditioning, then that aspect of his claim needs to be addressed. People need to look at his claim to see if it is accurate, not argue about memory acquisition, which is off the beaten track.
