Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
So, to sum up:
- Efferent vision does not explain any phenomena that cannot be explained by real sight.
- Efferent vision has no explanation for many phenomena that can be explained by real sight
- Efferent vision does not have any mechanism - nobody knows how it works, if it works at all
- Efferent vision contradicts causality
- Efferent vision contradicts relativity
And the cherry on the cake: since it contradicts causality, that means it contradicts the core idea of the book, which is a version of determinism (albeit a fallacious one) which cannot be upheld without causality.
It is completely untenable. It has to be changed, or no-one will ever consider the rest of the book. Not now, not ever!
|
You're right, not if they use your reasoning that efferent vision contradicts causality. That is absurd! |
The fact remains that an object instantly having an effect on another object without anything travelling between them to cause that effect is pretty much the definition of a contradiction of causality.
Feel free to refute this, but merely claiming it is not good enough. You need to show how you can have direct and instant sight and not contradict causality. |
That will have to be done through an understanding of the difference between seeing efferently and afferently, and why a mirror image involves no travel time between photon A and photon B. I just hope you can at least visualize what I'm saying, even if you don't know at this point if it's true. |
Point a: whatever you are talking about, it is not a mirror image. They do not work that way.
Point b: that means that it IS a contradiction of causality, which means the book contradicts itself. |
What we get is an upside down mirror image on the light sensitive cones and rods, or on the light sensitive film or pixels. When I say mirror image I mean there is no space where photons travel when we're looking at the world in real time. This is in no way a contradiction of causality. |
I am afraid that without photons travelling, nothing is causing the image, which is a contradiction of causality. This is a simple fact: it is practically the definition of a contradiction of causality.