A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I misunderstood you. Photographic film would interact with the Sun at 12:00 because the light from the Sun would already be at the film if the Sun was in the camera's field of view, just like the retina.

You did not answer the question or address your previous statements at all. That is deceptive and evasive, Weasel

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

I don't have an in-between. There is no in-between between determinism and indeterminism. But compatibilist free will needs determinism. Without enough, or adequate determinism, we could not have free will: we would be random deciding dice. Of course if you define determinism as 'excluding all kinds of free will' then you are right. But that is a strange definition.

But don't you see that eliminating randomness does not grant us free will. It only means that our decisions are usually based on thoughtful contemplation. Free will does not enter into it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Giving a definition that says as long as a person is free of physical or emotional constraint gives a person a free choice is cherry picking the behaviors that are considered unfree, and those that are considered free only by definition.

Originally Posted by GdB

It is only inconsistent with your strange definition of determinism. If a determined conscious state machine is aware of the the moral consequences of his actions, he is responsible for his actions.

Yes, he is responsible for the action; no one else performed the action but him, but to say he is "morally" responsible is to imply that he could have chosen otherwise. I understand the dilemma, but you'll have to be patient if you really want to understand this discovery.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you recall that definitions mean NOTHING as far as reality is concerned? They only serve a useful purpose but they don't prove the reality of free will.

Originally Posted by GdB

This remark is so stupid. If this is true then the same holds for your definitions: you define free will as 'being able to do otherwise in exact the same situation, including my brain states'. That is also a definition, and it has nothing to do with reality, because we can never can get the exact situation back to see if it really is so. It is a useless definition. Same for your definition of determinism, as excluding this kind of free will: as your definition of free will is empirically empty, so is your definition of determinism.

We cannot go back in time to see if we could have chosen otherwise. All this shows is that free will will always remain a theory. That is a fact. It can never be proven true because we cannot reverse time, undo what has already been done, to show that under the same exact conditions a person could have chosen another alternative. I wish you would stop fighting me on this, so we can move forward. I understand that it's difficult to face the fact that freedom of the will and determinism are polar opposites and, as such, cannot exist together under any circumstance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is all well and good, but how can you judge him when this ability to accurately assess the moral dimensions of his actions, is also part and parcel of a causal pattern of events leading to whatever action he chooses to take?

Originally Posted by GdB

Every action is part of a causal network, i.e. is completely caused. So what? Important is that my actions are caused by motives that I recognise as my own. Then I feel responsible for my actions, and I can be made responsible for my actions.

The objective is to get a person to recognize his responsibility, but to say that he can be made responsible for his actions through threats of blame and punishment is not the optimal strategy, but the only strategy we have at this time in history. That's why this discovery is so important.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please remember that having a choice without constraint of any kind does not grant one free will, even in the compatabilist sense.

Originally Posted by GdB

Huh? Why would it not grant free will in the compatibilist sense? Please explain!

I only mean in the way compatibilists define "free will": Free will is having options that are not constrained by physical force or compulsive disorders.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the conventional definition of free will which doesn't prove its actual existence; it's just another definition.

Originally Posted by GdB

Yes, this is the conventional definition.

But having options is not free will, which Lessans explained very clearly. Free will means that we are free to choose any of the options without any compulsion. But there is compulsion to choose that which is most preferable. That is what having choice is all about otherwise you are making a mockery of choice itself. What does having a choice mean other than being able to contemplate our options based on our particular set of circumstances in order to determine which choice [we believe] is the most favorable. We are compelled to move in this direction. You seem to think that having the ability to think rationally is what gives us the freedom (the free will) and responsibility to choose the right option, and if we choose the wrong one, then we can be held accountable. This goes right back to the compatibilist definition which is useful, but does not win a prize because it assumes that a person, given the fact that he is not being held against his will, is free to make the responsible choice. But what if this choice is not the most preferable in his eyes? What if all of the threats of punishment don't stop him from making the "wrong" choice. Will threats of blame and punishment change his behavior to the degree that he will lose the desire to act on his criminal impulses? I think not, especially if he thinks he won't get caught. In order for our conversation to be productive, you need to let go of free will (temporarily) and follow where determinism leads to get to the truth.

Originally Posted by GdB

And making responsible is a conventional reaction on this free will. Do you think that money does not exist, because it is also 'just conventional'? 'Reality' is not just physical reality, it is also the reality that is 'built on top of physical reality'.

I didn't mean to imply that just because it is a conventional definition, it is necessarily wrong. I only said this because this IS the standard definition of free will. This is not my definition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot get people to take responsibility in a blame filled society. It hasn't worked (the prisons are filled to capacity), and it never will, as long as people can justify what they're doing even at the risk of getting caught and having to face the consequences.

Originally Posted by GdB

That is for another time: but what does behaving responsibly mean when people have no possibility to do otherwise than they do? What is responsibility, from my own point of view, balancing all pros and contras, and decide based on them? Does that not presuppose some form of free will?

No it doesn't. It is a necessary illusion, but the illusion will be supplanted by something much more powerful (this law of our nature that I'm trying so hard to explain) and will get the results we all want.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You did not answer the question or address your previous statements at all. That is deceptive and evasive, Weasel

I have no idea what you're asking me. I am not being deceptive LadyShea.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Hellooooo

As long as the hole acts as a lens, light will be at the back of the box instantly because it is still operating like a crude camera.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As long as the hole acts as a lens, light will be at the back of the box instantly because it is still operating like a rude camera.

Give me a number. What size is allowed for the hole so that it's still instant?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no idea what you're asking me. I am not being deceptive LadyShea.

Yes, you are.

[LadyShea]

See if your memory is refreshed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, that's exactly right. We discussed this a few years ago. If the eyes work the way Lessans described, and cameras mimic the eyes as we know they do, a pinhole camera would collect the light from the object and project it onto a backdrop in real time as long as the object (the moon) was within the lenses' field of view. Even though we would see the moon instantly, there would be no interaction of the Sun's light on the paper until the light reached Earth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What if a small magnifying glass was laid on a large piece of photosensitive paper that is laying on the ground? Would the paper under the lens react at 12:00 but the paper outside the lens not react until 12:08?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A magnifying glass does not have the same properties as a camera lens. The light would be striking the lens at 12:08, but if the magnifying glass was put in front of a camera lens, the image would show up on the film at 12:00, although much larger.

Magnifying Glass Lens! How to use a Magnifying Glass as a DSLR Lens - YouTube

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Give me a number. What size is allowed for the hole so that it's still instant?

This is easy to figure out. It can be tested to see when the hole is too big to get any kind of image. If the pinhole can no longer collect the light (remember, in this account the object [in this case the moon] is within optical range of the pinhole], then if the moon was just turned on, we would have to wait 2 seconds for the light to arrive.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is easy to figure out. It can be tested to see when the hole is too big to get any kind of image. If the pinhole can no longer collect the light (remember, in this account the object [in this case the moon] is within optical range of the pinhole], then if the moon was just turned on, we would have to wait 2 seconds for the light to arrive.

So you don't know. Thought so.

Also, why would a hole become worse at collecting light when it's bigger?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People balk at his demonstration so I don't feel like repeating it. If you have a desire, purchase the book and read it carefully. It may change your outlook in a positive way.

The key phrase, "purchase the book", so that Peacegirl can make exorbitant profits and recoup her investment in the book. FYI, she has stated in the past that her intention was to get back the money she has invested in promoting the book. This whole scam is about selling the book and recovering the money she has thrown away on the book. If it really did what she claims, she would be giving it away, and recovering the rewards from the fame it would bring her. There will be No fame, and no reward, Lessans will remain just another unregarded crackpot.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But having options is not free will, which Lessans explained very clearly. Free will means that we are free to choose any of the options without any compulsion. But there is compulsion to choose that which is most preferable. That is what having choice is all about otherwise you are making a mockery of choice itself. What does having a choice mean other than being able to contemplate our options based on our particular set of circumstances in order to determine which choice [we believe] is the most favorable. We are compelled to move in this direction. You seem to think that having the ability to think rationally is what gives us the freedom (the free will) and responsibility to choose the right option, and if we choose the wrong one, then we can be held accountable. This goes right back to the compatibilist definition which is useful, but does not win a prize because it assumes that a person, given the fact that he is not being held against his will, is free to make the responsible choice. But what if this choice is not the most preferable in his eyes? What if all of the threats of punishment don't stop him from making the "wrong" choice. Will threats of blame and punishment change his behavior to the degree that he will lose the desire to act on his criminal impulses? I think not, especially if he thinks he won't get caught. In order for our conversation to be productive, you need to let go of free will (temporarily) and follow where determinism leads to get to the truth.

The problem is asserting that any compulsion eliminates free will, but there is a difference between external influences and internal influences. The external influences are part of the deterministic view, but the internal influences are part of the free will equation. If the primary influences are internal, then the decision is of the free will.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But don't you see that eliminating randomness does not grant us free will. It only means that our decisions are usually based on thoughtful contemplation. Free will does not enter into it.

Of course eliminating randomness does not grant us free will. But that is not what I said: I said that compatibilism needs determinism. In a bit more technical language: determinism is a necessary condition for compatibilist free will, but not a sufficient condition for free will. Got that?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, he is responsible for the action; no one else performed the action but him, but to say he is "morally" responsible is to imply that he could have chosen otherwise. I understand the dilemma, but you'll have to be patient if you really want to understand this discovery.

So somebody is aware of the moral dimensions of his actions, moral considerations play a role in his decision what to do, but he is not morally responsible? And again, you are not giving an argument against compatibilism: you are just saying that your definition ('could have done otherwise') is the correct one. You cannot argue against compatibilism just by saying that you are right.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We cannot go back in time to see if we could have chosen otherwise. All this shows is that free will will always remain a theory. That is a fact. It can never be proven true because we cannot reverse time, undo what has already been done, to show that under the same exact conditions a person could have chosen another alternative. I wish you would stop fighting me on this, so we can move forward. I understand that it's difficult to face the fact that freedom of the will and determinism are polar opposites and, as such, cannot exist together under any circumstance.

You do realise that this has nothing to with my objection: you are defining free will in a way that has nothing to do with reality (it is empirically empty), but you blame me for just playing with definitions? You should stop with saying that my definition of free will has nothing to do with reality. What you do is saying 'this is free will' and then you say 'it does not exist'. What has that to do with reality?
What is needed is in the first place a rational reconstruction of how the ideas of free will, responsibility and morality work in society. That is the empirical part. As you see, it has nothing to do with determinism. Then you can look if this rational reconstruction is consistent in itself, e.g. if praise and blame are justified by it on its own terms. And then as a last step, you can investigate metaphysical assumptions it needs. You say it needs libertarian free will, I say the compatibilist notion suffices.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The objective is to get a person to recognize his responsibility, but to say that he can be made responsible for his actions through threats of blame and punishment is not the optimal strategy, but the only strategy we have at this time in history. That's why this discovery is so important.

I don't know what this 'he can be made responsible for his actions through threats of blame and punishment' exactly means. It has nothing to do with my view on responsibility. You are responsible if you recognise the motives that caused your action as your own. That makes you culpable when you did some objectionable action.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I only mean in the way compatibilists define "free will": Free will is having options that are not constrained by physical force or compulsive disorders.

Sorry, you are confused: having a choice without constraint of any kind is according to the compatibilist notion of free will, so we have it then.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But having options is not free will, which Lessans explained very clearly.

Again: having options is not enough to say that somebody has free will. You're making the same error again: not distinguishing between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition. Having a choice, and being capable to evaluate these options and then act according the result of you evaluation, that is free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Free will means that we are free to choose any of the options without any compulsion. But there is compulsion to choose that which is most preferable.

Here you go again: you implicitly say that free will means that you do what do not want. Just doing what you want, what you prefer, is not a compulsion. If that would be true, how can we then so easily distinguish between people who really have a OCD, and those that have not? You are misusing the world compulsion here. Determinism does not mean that we are forced to do what we want: it means that there are regularities in nature, and so also in my behaviour. Sometimes this regularity is called character.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is what having choice is all about otherwise you are making a mockery of choice itself. What does having a choice mean other than being able to contemplate our options based on our particular set of circumstances in order to determine which choice [we believe] is the most favorable. We are compelled to move in this direction.

Again, misuse of the word compelled. You are compelled to give your money to the robber on gun point, that means you are forced to do something that you normally would not do. In determinism nothing is compelled. In determinism, things just run their course.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't mean to imply that just because it is a conventional definition, it is necessarily wrong. I only said this because this IS the standard definition of free will. This is not my definition.

So what is the standard definition of free will:

• the ability to think rationally is what gives us the freedom (the free will) and responsibility to choose the right option, and if we choose the wrong one, then we can be held accountable. This goes right back to the compatibilist definition which is useful, but does not win a prize because it assumes that a person, given the fact that he is not being held against his will, is free to make the responsible choice.
• being capable to do otherwise in exactly the same circumstances, including my brainstates?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, who in the world said mirrors can be explained without light? Not me.

So how do they work, peacegirl? Why can we see our reflection on a mirror, but not a wall? Can you explain that?

Oh, that's right. You can't. Just like you can't explain why a hole acts like a lens, or any of your other idiotic statements.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As long as the hole acts as a lens, light will be at the back of the box instantly because it is still operating like a crude camera.

So if I have a pinhole camera, and then slowly make the hole bigger and bigger, until it does not work as a crude camera, at some size light is not immediately at the backdrop, but only after 8 minutes?

Let's make a concrete example:



This is a picture of the shadow of a tree during a sun eclipse. Small holes between the leaves work like many pinhole cameras. So you see many pictures of the nearly completely eclipsed sun.
Now assume that this is shortly before a total solar eclipse. What would we see during the rest of the eclipse? According to your account:

• the pictures of the sun would get smaller and smaller until the sun is completely covered (efferent, instantaneous vision)
• only after 8 minutes the light around the trees disappears
• but even before the light disappears, the pictures of the sun appear again (total sun eclipses take afaik never more than 7 minutes, due to the relative size of the moon)
• then, 8 minutes after the pictures of the sun appear, the environment is lighting up again.

If this would really happen, you had a proof. It this does not happen, Lessan's claim is falsified.

Do you really think this happens, peacegirl?

Attached is a picture of mine: the big image of the sun comes from one tube of a binocular. But now look precisely at the lower right corner (click on the picture to see it full size): at the border of the towel (that I used to have a bit more shadow), you also see small crescents. These are numberless small pictures of the sun, caused by small fluff of the towel. Do you think that by a total suneclipse, first these pictures disappear, and then after 8 minutes the light around it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

See if your memory is refreshed.

If you were setting up a crude camera (which it sounds like you're trying to do) where the magnifying glass was the lens, then you would see the image instantly. The only difference is that the image would be enlarged due to the convex lens.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

So if I have a pinhole camera, and then slowly make the hole bigger and bigger, until it does not work as a crude camera, at some size light is not immediately at the backdrop, but only after 8 minutes?

Let's make a concrete example:



This is a picture of the shadow of a tree during a sun eclipse. Small holes between the leaves work like many pinhole cameras. So you see many pictures of the nearly completely eclipsed sun.
Now assume that this is shortly before a total solar eclipse. What would we see during the rest of the eclipse? According to your account:

• the pictures of the sun would get smaller and smaller until the sun is completely covered (efferent, instantaneous vision)
• only after 8 minutes the light around the trees disappears
• but even before the light disappears, the pictures of the sun appear again (total sun eclipses take afaik never more than 7 minutes, due to the relative size of the moon)
• then, 8 minutes after the pictures of the sun appear, the environment is lighting up again.

If this would really happen, you had a proof. It this does not happen, Lessan's claim is falsified.

Do you really think this happens, peacegirl?

Attached is a picture of mine: the big image of the sun comes from one tube of a binocular. But now look precisely at the lower right corner (click on the picture to see it full size): at the border of the towel (that I used to have a bit more shadow), you also see small crescents. These are numberless small pictures of the sun, caused by small fluff of the towel. Do you think that by a total suneclipse, first these pictures disappear, and then after 8 minutes the light around it?

I don't think these examples apply because the Sun's light is already here; the light is just being hidden by the eclipse. Therefore, when the eclipse is finished, the light is instantly shining again, but this really doesn't prove his claim. I don't think it's possible to recreate the Sun first being turned on except hypothetically. That's why using examples with light is a difficult way to confirm or falsify his claim. There are better ways using the eyes, not light, to do the testing.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think these examples apply because the Sun's light is already here; the light is just being hidden by the eclipse. Therefore, when the eclipse is finished, the light is instantly shining again, but this really doesn't prove his claim. I don't think it's possible to recreate the Sun first being turned on except hypothetically. That's why using examples with light is a difficult way to confirm or falsify his claim. There are better ways using the eyes, not light, to do the testing.

Right. I realised this after I posted it. But it is the shadow of the moon. So would the pictures of the sun appear 1.5 seconds before the environment is lit?

But now assume we do this experiment turning the sun on at noon. Would we first see the scattered images of the sun between the leaves, and then 8 minutes later the light around it?

Oh, and please give Lessan's proof of efferent vision?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So how do they work, peacegirl? Why can we see our reflection on a mirror, but not a wall? Can you explain that?

Oh, that's right. You can't. Just like you can't explain why a hole acts like a lens, or any of your other idiotic statements.

I think you have misunderstood me which is probably because I'm not being clear. When Lessans said the "image" is not reflected, he was trying to explain that although light does bounce off of objects with the wavelength/frequency of the object, it is assumed that this light is what travels through space/time (even if the object is no longer present) bringing us the image which is logical. But if the eyes work in the way he described, this is a fallacy. We would be seeing the object, not the image of the object from the light itself. Light becomes the conduit to the real world. That means that although the wavelength/frequency, (which is just light as LadyShea said), is traveling through space/time, it does not bring the image to us in the way scientists have believed. He is not disputing how mirrors work.

What's wrong about that statement?

The pinhole in a pinhole camera acts as the lens. The pinhole forces every point emitting light in the scene to form a small point on the film, so the image is crisp. The reason a normal camera uses a lens rather than a pinhole is because the lens creates a much larger hole through which light can make it onto the film, meaning the film can be exposed faster.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Right. I realised this after I posted it. But it is the shadow of the moon. So would the pictures of the sun appear 1.5 seconds before the environment is lit?

I believe so, if I understand you correctly.

Originally Posted by GdB

But now assume we do this experiment turning the sun on at noon. Would we first see the scattered images of the sun between the leaves, and then 8 minutes later the light around it?

We would not see any difference between the scattered images of the Sun between the leaves and the surrounding environment because it takes 8 minutes for anything to be seen on Earth. We're only talking about being able to see the Sun at noon. The requirements of efferent vision are that light has to be at the object and the object has to be large enough and bright enough to be seen. If the Sun's light hasn't gotten here yet (which takes 8 minutes), the requirements would not have been met. In other words, if there is no light striking the leaves because the Sun was just turned on (which takes 8 minutes to reach Earth), we would not be able to see the scattered images before the surrounding environment.

Originally Posted by GdB

Oh, and please give Lessan's proof of efferent vision?

I cannot cut and paste the entire chapter which reading is required for a complete understanding. I will give you a preview but I'm not breaking the chapter up. I'm sorry, I just can't cater to everyone's wishes.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality

Our problem of hurting each other is very deep-rooted
and begins with words through which we have not
been allowed to see reality for what it really is.
Supposing I stood up in one of our universities and
said — “Ladies and gentlemen, I am prepared to prove that man
does not have five senses, which has nothing to do with a sixth
sense,” wouldn’t all the professors laugh and say, “Are you serious
or are you being funny? You can’t be serious because everybody
knows man has five senses. This is an established fact.” The
definition of epistemology is the theory or science of the method
and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and
validity. For the modern empiricist, the only way knowledge
becomes ‘stamped’ onto the human conscience is through internal
and external sensations, or through sense experience. But there is
surprising evidence that the eyes are not a sense organ. The idea
that man has five senses originated with Aristotle and it has never
been challenged. He did this just as naturally as we would name
anything to identify it. But he made an assumption that the eyes
functioned like the other senses so he included them in the
definition. This is equivalent to calling an apple, pear, peach,
orange and potato, five fruit. The names given to these foods
describe differences in substance that exist in the real world, but we
certainly could not call them five fruit since this word excludes the
potato which is not grown in the same manner as is described by
the word fruit.

Believe it or not, the eyes, similar to the potato in
the above example, were classified in a category they did not belong.
We cannot name the organs with which we communicate with the
outside world, five senses, when they do not function alike.
Aristotle, however, didn’t know this. His logic and renown delayed
an immediate investigation of his theory because no one dared
oppose the genius of this individual without appearing ridiculous
for such audacity, which brought about almost unanimous
agreement. In fact, to disagree was so presumptuous that nobody
dared to voice their disagreement because this would only incur
disdainful criticism. Everyone believed that such a brilliant
individual, such a genius, had to know whereof he spoke. This is
not a criticism of Aristotle or of anyone. But even today, we are
still in agreement regarding a fallacious observation about the brain
and its relation to the eyes. Those who will consider the possibility
that you might have a discovery reveal their confusion by trying to
nullify any value to it with this comment as was made to me,
“What difference does it make what we call them as a group, this
isn’t going to change what we are. Whether we call them 5 senses,
or 4 senses and a pair of eyes is certainly not going to change them
in any way.” However, if man doesn’t really have five senses, isn’t
it obvious that just as long as we think otherwise we will be
prevented from discovering those things that depend on this
knowledge for their discovery? Consequently, it does make a
difference what we call them.

Just as my first discovery was not
that man’s will is not free but the knowledge revealed by opening
that door for a thorough investigation, so likewise my second
discovery is not that man does not have five senses but what
significant knowledge lies hidden behind this door. Many years
later we have an additional problem which is more difficult to
overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated
dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is
actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors,
doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against
anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is
the truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear any evidence to
the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful the
resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would
do it in the name of justice and truth. However, it appears that
they will not be given the opportunity because the very moment the
will of God is perceived and understood, man is given no alternative
as to what direction he must travel — which is away from
condemning someone who has uncovered a falsehood. The real
truth is that there are thousands upon thousands of differences
existing in the external world, but when words do not describe these
differences accurately we are then seeing a distorted version of what
exists — as with free will.

Mankind has been slowly developing and if you go back far
enough in history you will find that we believed pregnancy was
caused by the bite of an enamored snake which prevented many
girls from bathing at certain times, but never prevented them from
mating. Today we have thousands of lesser Aristotle’s preventing
breakthroughs into various hermetically sealed doors. We call them
professors and Ph.D.’s. Again, this is not a criticism but they
accept what has been taught to them and pass it along from
generation to generation which makes it very difficult for them to
listen to any explanation that must contravene their reputation as
leading authorities. That is why they reject people; put anyone
down who does not have what they are proud of — their formal
education. But please remember they, too, are moving in the
direction of greater satisfaction and it isn’t fair to criticize them for
being proud of their scholastic achievements. I refused to let a
Ph.D. in math read my book not because he gave me the wrong
answer to a math problem, but because he said my answer must be
wrong since he was a Ph.D. and I was not.

You might find this
problem of interest since it was originated with Sir Isaac Newton.
If it takes 3 cows two weeks to eat two acres of grass and all the
grass that grows on the two acres in two weeks; and if it takes two
cows four weeks to eat two acres of grass and all the grass grown on
the two acres in the four weeks; how many cows would be required
to eat 6 acres of grass in 6 weeks and all the grass that grows on the
6 acres in the six weeks? Because it was difficult for this Ph.D. to
accept the fact that he could not work out this problem, it gave him
greater satisfaction to put me and my answer down. Are you
beginning to recognize how difficult it has been for me to bring this
knowledge to light when it is utterly impossible for our leading
authorities to get greater satisfaction listening to any explanation
of new knowledge that must reveal their unconscious ignorance
that they never knew the truth, only thought they knew? I,
however, know the truth and know that I know the truth, and one
day as Gregor Mendel declared when he didn’t bring his discovery
to light, “My time will come.” Now let’s continue.

Someone whose interest had never been sufficiently aroused to
pursue my discoveries because they sounded ridiculous, was visiting
an exposition in Canada where he saw a sign on one pavilion that
read, “Come inside and let us prove scientifically that the eyes are
not a sense organ.” He was absolutely amazed because he knew
when I said that man does not have five sense organs that I was also
referring to the eyes. When seeing this sign he couldn’t believe it,
however, after convincing himself in Canada that man only has
four senses and a pair of eyes, he became very much involved in my
work upon his return. But to show you again how the person not
the knowledge is the one being judged, when someone else told his
cousin who is a dentist that the eyes are not a sense organ, the reply
was, “That’s ridiculous, how can you know what is true and what is
not true, you only went to grade school,” to which he responded,
“Well, you don’t have to take my word for it. In Canada, the proof
has already been made a part of a scientific exposition.” The
dentist then replied, “Well, I haven’t seen anything to that effect
in the newspapers.”

This proves conclusively that what he accepts
as the truth is determined by who tells him something is true, not
by his ability to perceive relations revealing these truths. However,
I have my own proof, so let us get on with what is necessary to open
our minds to the fresh air of undeniable knowledge. The dictionary
states that the word ‘sense’ is defined as any of certain agencies by
or through which an individual receives impressions of the external
world; popularly, one of the five senses. Any receptor, or group of
receptors, specialized to receive and transmit external stimuli as of
sight, taste, hearing, etc. But this is a wholly fallacious observation
where the eyes are concerned because nothing from the external
world, other than light, strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon
the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell. Upon hearing
this my friend asked me in a rather authoritarian tone of voice,
“Are you trying to tell me that this is not a scientific fact? ”

I replied, “Are you positive because you were told this, or
positive because you yourself saw the relations revealing this truth?
And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on the
chopping block to show me how positive you really are?”

“I am not that positive, but we were taught this.”

It is an undeniable fact that light travels at a high rate of speed,
but great confusion arises when this is likened to sound as you will
soon have verified. The reason we say man has taste, touch, smell,
sight, and hearing is because these describe individual differences
that exist, but when we say that these five are senses we are
assuming the eyes function like the other four — which they do
not. When you learn what this single misconception has done to
the world of knowledge, you won’t believe it at first. So without
further delay, I shall prove something never before understood by
man, but before I open this door marked ‘Man Does Not Have
Five Senses’ to show you all the knowledge hidden behind it, it is
absolutely necessary to prove exactly why the eyes are not a sense
organ.

Now tell me, did it ever occur to you that many of the
apparent truths we have literally accepted come to us in the form
of words that do not accurately symbolize what exists, making our
problem that much more difficult since this has denied us the
ability to see reality for what it is? In fact, it can be demonstrated
at the birth of a baby that no object is capable of getting a reaction
from the eyes because nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to
cause it, although any number of sounds, tastes, touches or smells
can get an immediate reaction since the nerve endings are being
struck by something external.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think you have misunderstood me which is probably because I'm not being clear. When Lessans said the "image" is not reflected, he was trying to explain that although light does bounce off of objects with the wavelength/frequency of the object, it is assumed that this light is what travels through space/time (even if the object is no longer present) bringing us the image which is logical. But if the eyes work in the way he described, this is a fallacy. We would be seeing the object, not the image of the object from the light itself. Light becomes the conduit to the real world. That means that although the wavelength/frequency, (which is just light as LadyShea said), is traveling through space/time, it does not bring the image to us in the way scientists have believed. He is not disputing how mirrors work.

So tell me: why don't I see my reflection on a wall, but I do in a mirror? Nothing you have said above explains it, and I don't think you can except by using the standard explanation of vision. Your father's nutty ideas don't allow room for this, so you're stuck unable to explain something as simple as a mirror. You come very close to explaining a mirror, and then say "But if the eyes work in the way he described, this is a fallacy." Well indeed: contrary to your assertion, this precisely disputes how mirrors work. So you need an explanation.

Unfortunately, you don't have one. You're unable to explain mirrors, just like you're unable to explain the observations of the moons of Jupiter, or supernovae, or simple experiments involving the speed of light, or anything surrounding optical theory.

What's wrong about that statement?

The pinhole in a pinhole camera acts as the lens.

Because apparently, a hole acts as a lens! Then, at some magical length you have no way of knowing, the hole stops acting as a lens. Your answer to But was utter nonsense, you know? Because aside from holes having some magical properties, it's not a case of 'no image' and 'perfect image'. It's always a case of rough image, and how 'blurry' it is depends on the size of the hole. So your answer of 'it's instant when there's an image, and delayed when there isn't' describes scenarios that never exist. What about when it's a blurry image (which is always)? How blurry does it need to get before it magically turns from instant into delayed?

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would not see any difference between the scattered images of the Sun between the leaves and the surrounding environment because it takes 8 minutes for anything to be seen on Earth. We're only talking about being able to see the Sun at noon. The requirements of efferent vision are that light has to be at the object and the object has to be large enough and bright enough to be seen. If the Sun's light hasn't gotten here yet (which takes 8 minutes), the requirements would not have been met. In other words, if there is no light striking the leaves because the Sun was just turned on (which takes 8 minutes to reach Earth), we would not be able to see the scattered images before the surrounding environment.

So when the images of the sun are made by holes between leafs then we must wait 8 minutes before seeing the images, but with a human made pinhole an image of the sun appears immediately? Please explain the difference!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I cannot cut and paste the entire chapter which reading is required for a complete understanding. I will give you a preview but I'm not breaking the chapter up. I'm sorry, I just can't cater to everyone's wishes.

So why do you copy all this stuff, instead of just the proof? It is just one big preliminary strain of thoughts about how people can be wrong, you could have left that away.

What remains is only this:

In fact, it can be demonstrated
at the birth of a baby that no object is capable of getting a reaction
from the eyes because nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to
cause it, although any number of sounds, tastes, touches or smells
can get an immediate reaction since the nerve endings are being
struck by something external.

And this is totally unclear written, and a very subjective observation. And wrong in the light of everything we know of child development and the development of vision when a human or animal grows up.

[LadyShea]

Uu

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you were setting up a crude camera (which it sounds like you're trying to do) where the magnifying glass was the lens, then you would see the image instantly. The only difference is that the image would be enlarged due to the convex lens.

I am trying to determine the conditions under which light photons appear instantaneously or when they must travel

You said a piece of photosensitive paper lying on the ground would not react until 12:08 if the Sun were turned on at 12:00

You said a piece of photosensitive paper inside a box with a hole poked in it would react at 12:00 if the Sun were turned on at 12:00

I am asking about a third scenario which you haven't answered as you did the above.

1. A sheet of photosensitive paper that is 8.5 x 11 inches is on the ground with a 1 inch diameter magnifying glass sitting in the center

2. The sun is turned on at noon

Q - When does the photosensitive paper react to the light from the newly ignited Sun? Does the 1 inch of paper under the lens react at 12:00 or 12:08, what about the rest of the paper that is not under the lens?

[thedoc]

The timing of a Solar eclipse can and has been tested. Astronomers can predict the exact time when the Moon will cover the Sun, and Astronomers know that they will see the event 8.5 minutes after the predicted time. This has been observed to be true, the image that is seen, either in a telescope or by naked eye, is seen approximately 8.5 minutes after the event is known to have happened. This proves that what a person sees, happens after the light has had time to travel the distance from the object to the eye or camera, since both happen at the same time. 8.5 minutes is plenty of time for a person to notice the difference. On Earth the travel time of light from an object to a person's eye, is measured in nanoseconds, and cannot be detected by most people, so vision of objects on Earth seem to be instantaneous, which probably accounts for Lessans confusion about sight.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The timing of a Solar eclipse can and has been tested. Astronomers can predict the exact time when the Moon will cover the Sun, and Astronomers know that they will see the event 8.5 minutes after the predicted time. This has been observed to be true, the image that is seen, either in a telescope or by naked eye, is seen approximately 8.5 minutes after the event is known to have happened. This proves that what a person sees, happens after the light has had time to travel the distance from the object to the eye or camera, since both happen at the same time. 8.5 minutes is plenty of time for a person to notice the difference. On Earth the travel time of light from an object to a person's eye, is measured in nanoseconds, and cannot be detected by most people, so vision of objects on Earth seem to be instantaneous, which probably accounts for Lessans confusion about sight.

I corrected myself already on this point: the moon is only 1.5 lightseconds away, so its shadow also comes only with a delay of 1.5 seconds.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by GdB

I corrected myself already on this point: the moon is only 1.5 lightseconds away, so its shadow also comes only with a delay of 1.5 seconds.

I was not responding to your post about the Moon, but making a separate point about the light arriving from the sun. With an eclipse, there is no need for a hypothetical situation, the events are real and have been timed and observed. Lessans was wrong.

And I believe a more correct figure is 1.3 light seconds, one way, and 2.6 seconds for the round trip of light to the moon and back, 1.5 is an acceptable approximation.

BTW, at one point Peacegirl claimed that 1.3 seconds was too quick for a human observer to detect, as if an observer couldn't tell the difference.

Another time she claimed that if light was traveling at 186 thousand miles a second, it would be traveling too fast for the eye to see it.

Just thought I'd throw those details out for you to consider.