[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

While it is true that the photons have to be at the retina there is no necessity that they be there instantly. That is simply a condition that you and Lessans have invented as part of the argument for real-time vision. I can edit your statement like this, "if the object is within optical range, the non-absorbed light is at the retina or we wouldn't be able to see said object...", and it would be correct. The 'instantly' is simply unnecessary and its inclusion makes the statement incorrect.

The 'instantly' is very necessary because it is the antithesis of time. It takes no time for us to see the material world as long as light is present.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

See, this is where Lessans (and you) went astray. It is not instant. It just appears to happen instantly because the speed of light is so great and the distance at which the candle can be seen is so short that the time interval between when the candle is lit and the light can be seen is, for all practical purposes, immeasurably small. However, immeasurably small is not the same thing as instantaneous.

But that's wrong Angakuk. This is a correct analogy because it shows that the object (the candle) is within optical range. You cannot move a candle out of optical range and get an image. Again, what you are saying is the logic of the afferent account, but I'm offering a completely different but plausible model of sight. Until this claim of efferent vision gains attention, the resentment that people feel toward Lessans will only get worse.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Different, yes. Plausible? Not even a little bit. Plausible and imaginable are not synonymous.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is inevitable that this new world is going to come about but the timing cannot be ascertained definitively. Mankind is moving at a mathematical rate and we cannot get ahead of ourselves. First, this law must be confirmed valid by science. Once it is established that man does not have free will, and that as a result we have the understanding to create a world of peace and brotherhood, we will be compelled to apply this knowledge because it is inevitable that we move in the direction of what is best for ourselves, not worse. But this does require understanding and development. Why do you think I'm working so hard to get this knowledge brought to light, so that the Great Transition to a new way of life can commence?

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

What if this "law" is never confirmed valid by science? Given that scientists are universally close minded, mean spirited and dogmatic authoritarians who invariably close ranks against any new ideas that might challenge the existing orthodoxy, this is a very real possibility.

Bad boy, bad boy
Whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do
When they won't listen to you?

I have hope that it will be, even if it's a long time from now.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I left this thread today, people would drop this discovery like a hot potato and move on to the next thread, which just goes to show how little people are thinking for themselves.

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

It's odd that you should say that. When you came back here, after your brief hiatus, wasn't it because people were still saying stuff in this thread, even though you weren't here? So which is it? Are we going to drop the thread like a hot potato or are we going to keep on bad-mouthing you and Lessans behind your back.

I didn't say people were badmouthing Lessans. I don't know what they were discussing but it didn't seem to have anything to do with the purpose of this thread. It's unfortunate that this conversation has turned into something so different than what was originally intended. One day I'll look back and wonder why I stayed so long.