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

[pood]

This whole conversation is getting ridiculous. You're coming from one place, and I'm coming from another. No wonder there will be no resolution

It was resolved long ago.

You’re wrong.

 

[bilby]

If his claim is wrong, then yes, afferent vision would be right, and his observations can be thrown in the trash,

His claim is wrong. The proof is simple, unavoidable, and posted repeatedly in this thread.

His observations have been thrown in the trash;

By whom? You?

Yes.

To move this thread forward, please answer: What were his observations? Do you even know?

Nothing can move this thread forward. It's dead and buried.

The remaining mystery is why you continue to wallow in the trash with them, when there is nothing whatsoever to force you to do so, apart from your own stubborn refusal to engage your brain and think.

You think he was wrong, but you really don't know.

I do know. When any position entails a contradiction, it is wrong.

Before you can throw something in the trash, you need to know what you're throwing away and why.

I am throwing away the idea that we see in real-time; And because it entails a contradiction, and is therefore false.

You don't, because you still don't know why he made the claim in the first place.

I don't CARE why he made a false claim. No "why" can ever make it less wrong.

You keep talking about distance, speed, and time

Yes, because they are the heart of the claim.

in a 3-dimensional world,

There are more than three. But yes, I live in the real world, and it is only the real world in which I am interested. Your fantasy land where people see in real time, and distance simultaneously exists and does not exist, is just nonsense.

but you're barking up the wrong tree.

Nope.

 

[bilby]

I'm telling you point-blank, there is no contradiction.

Oh, well, that makes all the difference. Why didn't you say so earlier.

I thought your utter drivel with its obvious contradictions contained contradictions. But now that you have told us point-blank, well clearly it is simultaneously contradictory and not contradictory.

 

[peacegirl]

Your huffiness is losing ground. Why don't you pay attention to his claim for once?

I paid attention to it. It contains a contradiction, and is therefore false.

You're not doing that. You're assuming that he must be wrong because scientists got it right; therefore, you are throwing out his claim before you even understand it. That is not good science. it contains a contradiction

FTFY.

It does not contain a contradiction just because the eyes work differently and utilize light differently as a result.

Please stop with the slanderous claims about me. I am absolutely and obviously NOT assuming he must be wrong; I have shown that he is wrong. And I know he is wrong because his claims are contradictory.

But they aren't, bilby. I'm not purposely slandering you. I'm just telling you that you're wrong, and I have the right to call you out on it.

I have never suggested that "He must be wrong because scientists got it right"; Putting those words in my mouth is intellectually dishonest and vile misbehaviour on your part - and everyone can see you doing it. Heve you no shame?

Fair enough. Let me rephrase: You think he must be wrong not because scientists got it right, but because you think, in your own right, that his claim is contradictory. Is that better?

 

[bilby]

Fair enough. Let me rephrase: You think he must be wrong not because scientists got it right, but because you think, in your own right, that his claim is contradictory. Is that better?

Yes. And I think that because it is true:

I've explained that If we see a celestial object, the reflected light or pattern has to be at the eye, or the object would not be seen.

OK. Pattern is at eye. Got it. Pattern and eye are in the same location.

The object and the pattern are not separate.

OK. Pattern is not separate from object. Got it. Pattern and object are in the same location.

If eye is in the same location as the pattern, and the pattern is in the same location as the object, then the object is in the same location as the eye.

That's basic logic - If A=B and A=C then B=C.

So when I see the Moon, I am in the same location as the Moon.

But!

We know when we look at the Moon, there is distance between us.

So we have a contradiction. Your claims here quoted require that when we see the Moon, the Moon and the eye are in the same place, and simultaneously require that there is distance between them.

This is impossible; Therefore your claims MUST be false.

Game. Set. Match.