A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Yes, but what would the astronomers on Rigel see, in the given example, and what does that have to do with world peace and free will, anyway?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

What in blue hell is the author driving at here?

Given the finitude of the speed of light, we see distant objects as they were in the past, not as they are in our present. The author disputes this?

Yes, he does. I know you are all going to be really pissed after reading this, but what can I say? For your benefit, I will post the next excerpt which still does not get into the implications of this knowledge.

Once again certain facts have been confused and all the
reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed are
completely fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since
the eyes are a sense organ it followed that light must reflect an
electric image of everything it touches which then travels through
space and is received by the brain through the eyes. What they
tried to make us believe is that if it takes 8 minutes for the light
from the sun to reach us it would take hundreds of years for the
reflection of Columbus to reach Rigel, even with a powerful
telescope. But why would they need a telescope? Let me show
you how confused these scientists are.

They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther
away we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as
light becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the
sound from a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will
tell us it is in the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is
being reflected towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer
is very simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the
plane simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was
impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a
telescope. We can’t see bacteria either with the naked eye, but we
can through a microscope.

The actual reason we are able to see the
moon is because there is enough light present and it is large
enough to be seen. The explanation as to why the sun looks to be
the size of the moon — although much larger — is because it is
much much farther away, which is the reason it would look like a
star to someone living on a planet the distance of Rigel. This
proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking,
and the object seen, has no relation to time because the images are
not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light, therefore it
takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant stars. To
paraphrase this another way; if you could sit upon the star Rigel
with a telescope powerful enough to see me writing this very
moment, you would see me at the exact same time that a person
sitting right next to me would — which brings us to another very
interesting point.

If I couldn’t see you standing right next to me
because we were living in total darkness since the sun had not yet
been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very
moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8
minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a
large star; the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would
have light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far
away that their light diminishes before it gets to us. Upon hearing
this explanation, someone asked, “If we don’t need light around us
to see the stars, would we need light around us to see the sun
turned on at 12 noon?” Once the light is here it remains here
because the photons of light emitted by the constant energy of the
sun surround us. When the earth rotates on its axis so the section
on which we live is in darkness, this only means the photons of
light are on the other side. When our rotation allows the sun to
smile on us again this does not mean that it takes another eight
minutes for this light to reach us because these photons are already
present.

If the sun were to explode while we were looking at it we
would see it the instant it happened, not 8 minutes later. We are
able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not because the
one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and the last many
light years away, but simply because these objects are large enough
to be seen at their great distance when enough light is present.
This fallacy has come into existence because the eyes were
considered a sense organ, like the ears. Since it takes longer for
the sound from an airplane to reach our ears when it is a thousand
feet away than when five thousand, it was assumed that the same
thing occurred with the object sending a picture of itself on the
waves of light.

If it was possible to transmit a television picture
from the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true
that the people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus
coming into America for the first time because the picture would
be in the process of being transmitted through space at a certain
rate of speed. But objects do not send out pictures that travel
through space and impinge on the optic nerve. We see objects
directly by looking at them and it takes the same length of time to
see an airplane, the moon, the sun, or distant stars.

To sum this up
— just as we have often observed that a marching band is out of
step to the beat when seen from a distance because the sound
reaches our ears after a step has been taken, so likewise, if we
could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope and hear
his voice on radio we would see his lips move instantly but not
hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later
due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000
miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric image of his
lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this distance.
Because Aristotle assumed the eyes functioned like the other four
and the scientific community assumed he was right, it made all
their reasoning fit what appeared to be undeniable. According to
their thinking, how else was it possible for knowledge to reach us
through our eyes when they were compelled to believe that man
had five senses? Were they given any choice? Let me prove in
still another way that the eyes are not a sense organ.

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight
distance away cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense;
if an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the
optic nerve then he would recognize his master instantly as he can
from sound and smell. In fact, if he was vicious and accustomed
to attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his
sense of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no
way of identifying his master’s face even if every feature was lit up
like a Christmas tree, and would attack. This is why he cannot
recognize his master from a picture or statue because nothing from
the external world is striking the optic nerve.

The question as to
how man is able to accomplish this continues to confound our
scientists. The answer will be given shortly however let me make
one thing absolutely clear. The knowledge revealed thus far
although also hidden behind the door marked ‘Man Does Not Have
Five Senses’ is not what I referred to as being of significance.
Frankly, it makes no difference to me that the eyes are not a sense
organ, that our scientists got confused because of it, and that a dog
cannot identify his master from a picture. What does mean a great
deal to me — when the purpose of my discovery is to remove all
evil from the world (which word is symbolic of any kind of hurt
that exists in human relation) — is to demonstrate how certain
words have absolutely no foundation in reality, yet they have
caused more suffering and unhappiness than can be readily
imagined. Let me explain.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I had no idea I was trolling. . . .

There is much of which you are intentionally unaware. As noted, you have tried--and failed--to convince a number of boards to buy your product.

I am concerned that if you guys can't even understand why man's will is not free, . . .

No, you are concerned that no one will buy your argument that this is so. But, you see, we are free to recognize bullshit as bullshit, and what you have offered is, to use the technical term: bullshit:

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose (Frankfurt).

and you just ignore this truth as if it's nothing, . . .

Because it is not truth, Love. This has been explained to you before for years. Keep running head long into the brick wall, maybe you will end up on the other side.

Maybe I'll do some book signings.

Given your reviews on Amazon and other sites, this is more of your bullshit.

--J.D.

Reference

Franfurt HG. One Bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.

[davidm]

Erm ... no.

Your author is ... urm ... confused. Putting it charitably.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, but what would the astronomers on Rigel see, in the given example, and what does that have to do with world peace and free will, anyway?

David, the discovery regarding the eyes is not directly related to global peace, but it does change our relationship to what we see, and those that have been hurt by what they believe is true about what they see. I really want to go back to Chapter Two right now because his first discovery will lead us to world peace.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, he does. I know you are all going to be really pissed after reading this, but what can I say? For your benefit, I will post the next excerpt which still does not get into the implications of this knowledge.

Once again certain facts have been confused and all the
reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed are
completely fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since
the eyes are a sense organ it followed that light must reflect an
electric image of everything it touches which then travels through
space and is received by the brain through the eyes. What they
tried to make us believe is that if it takes 8 minutes for the light
from the sun to reach us it would take hundreds of years for the
reflection of Columbus to reach Rigel, even with a powerful
telescope. But why would they need a telescope? Let me show
you how confused these scientists are.

They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther
away we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as
light becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the
sound from a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will
tell us it is in the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is
being reflected towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer
is very simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the
plane simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was
impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a
telescope. We can’t see bacteria either with the naked eye, but we
can through a microscope.

The actual reason we are able to see the
moon is because there is enough light present and it is large
enough to be seen. The explanation as to why the sun looks to be
the size of the moon — although much larger — is because it is
much much farther away, which is the reason it would look like a
star to someone living on a planet the distance of Rigel. This
proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking,
and the object seen, has no relation to time because the images are
not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light, therefore it
takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant stars. To
paraphrase this another way; if you could sit upon the star Rigel
with a telescope powerful enough to see me writing this very
moment, you would see me at the exact same time that a person
sitting right next to me would — which brings us to another very
interesting point.

If I couldn’t see you standing right next to me
because we were living in total darkness since the sun had not yet
been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very
moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8
minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a
large star; the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would
have light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far
away that their light diminishes before it gets to us. Upon hearing
this explanation, someone asked, “If we don’t need light around us
to see the stars, would we need light around us to see the sun
turned on at 12 noon?” Once the light is here it remains here
because the photons of light emitted by the constant energy of the
sun surround us. When the earth rotates on its axis so the section
on which we live is in darkness, this only means the photons of
light are on the other side. When our rotation allows the sun to
smile on us again this does not mean that it takes another eight
minutes for this light to reach us because these photons are already
present.

If the sun were to explode while we were looking at it we
would see it the instant it happened, not 8 minutes later. We are
able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not because the
one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and the last many
light years away, but simply because these objects are large enough
to be seen at their great distance when enough light is present.
This fallacy has come into existence because the eyes were
considered a sense organ, like the ears. Since it takes longer for
the sound from an airplane to reach our ears when it is a thousand
feet away than when five thousand, it was assumed that the same
thing occurred with the object sending a picture of itself on the
waves of light.

If it was possible to transmit a television picture
from the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true
that the people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus
coming into America for the first time because the picture would
be in the process of being transmitted through space at a certain
rate of speed. But objects do not send out pictures that travel
through space and impinge on the optic nerve. We see objects
directly by looking at them and it takes the same length of time to
see an airplane, the moon, the sun, or distant stars.

To sum this up
— just as we have often observed that a marching band is out of
step to the beat when seen from a distance because the sound
reaches our ears after a step has been taken, so likewise, if we
could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope and hear
his voice on radio we would see his lips move instantly but not
hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later
due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000
miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric image of his
lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this distance.
Because Aristotle assumed the eyes functioned like the other four
and the scientific community assumed he was right, it made all
their reasoning fit what appeared to be undeniable. According to
their thinking, how else was it possible for knowledge to reach us
through our eyes when they were compelled to believe that man
had five senses? Were they given any choice? Let me prove in
still another way that the eyes are not a sense organ.

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight
distance away cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense;
if an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the
optic nerve then he would recognize his master instantly as he can
from sound and smell. In fact, if he was vicious and accustomed
to attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his
sense of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no
way of identifying his master’s face even if every feature was lit up
like a Christmas tree, and would attack. This is why he cannot
recognize his master from a picture or statue because nothing from
the external world is striking the optic nerve.

The question as to
how man is able to accomplish this continues to confound our
scientists. The answer will be given shortly however let me make
one thing absolutely clear. The knowledge revealed thus far
although also hidden behind the door marked ‘Man Does Not Have
Five Senses’ is not what I referred to as being of significance.
Frankly, it makes no difference to me that the eyes are not a sense
organ, that our scientists got confused because of it, and that a dog
cannot identify his master from a picture. What does mean a great
deal to me — when the purpose of my discovery is to remove all
evil from the world (which word is symbolic of any kind of hurt
that exists in human relation) — is to demonstrate how certain
words have absolutely no foundation in reality, yet they have
caused more suffering and unhappiness than can be readily
imagined. Let me explain.

The above is, needless to say, complete gibberish.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by davidm

The above is, needless to say, complete bullshit.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, the discovery regarding the eyes. . . .

Was proven wrong

Do try to pay attention.

--J.D.

[Stephen Maturin]

Let me explain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

There is much of which you are intentionally unaware. As noted, you have tried--and failed--to convince a number of boards to buy your product.

I have no interest in anyone buying my product. I'm giving it away for free.

I am concerned that if you guys can't even understand why man's will is not free, . . .

Originally Posted by Doctor X

No, you are concerned that no one will buy your argument that this is so. But, you see, we are free to recognize bullshit as bullshit, and what you have offered is, to use the technical term: bullshit:

I don't think you can even repeat his definition of determinism because you don't know what it is.

Originally Posted by Doctor X

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose (Frankfurt).

All bets are off with us continuing to talk if you think that I'm a bullshitter and am cherry picking to suit my reality. It's getting funnier and funnier by the minute.

Originally Posted by Doctor X

and you just ignore this truth as if it's nothing, . . .

Because it is not truth, Love. This has been explained to you before for years. Keep running head long into the brick wall, maybe you will end up on the other side.

Maybe I'll do some book signings.

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Given your reviews on Amazon and other sites, this is more of your bullshit.

--J.D.

Reference

Franfurt HG. One Bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.

I told people that this guy was angry about the claim that the eyes aren't a sense organ. He went behind my back and wrote this horrible review. It wasn't even accurate. He didn't read the book. He just went online from a forum like this and wrote these comments. Believe me, when the book comes out and people actually read it, the reviews will be a lot more flattering.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

The above is, needless to say, complete gibberish.

Regardless of what you think, it does have important implications if it turns out to be true. Can I continue?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the
sound from a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will
tell us it is in the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is
being reflected towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer
is very simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the
plane simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was
impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a
telescope. We can’t see bacteria either with the naked eye, but we
can through a microscope.

1. Light bounces off the plane.

2. Since the speed of light is finite, the light takes time to travel to the eye.

3. Therefore, when we see the plane, we will see it as it looked some time in the past.

4. In the case of very distant objects, we will see them as they appeared in the very distant past.

Why in the world would anyone dispute such an obvious point? The author says, "an image is not being reflected." What does that mean? Is he denying that what the brain sees is the light reflected off the plane? That what does he claim we are seeing?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Regardless of what you think, it does have important implications if it turns out to be true. Can I continue?

You don't need my permission to continue, but until this is clarified, no one will take this the least bit seriously. See my post above. I invite your reply.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm giving it away for free.

Nothing, not even Chuck F's Mom, is free.

I am concerned that if you guys can't even understand why man's will is not free, . . .

I don't think you can even repeat his definition of determinism because you don't know what it is.

You have provided no evidence that it is accurate, Love. Can you repeat P's description of the Flat Earth? To prove the Earth is . . . what? Flat?

No, your tactic is this: argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam--you cannot provide evidence for his or your claims, so you keep dancing around screaming "you just don't understand!" Sorry, a fallacy, Love. It is FAIL.

All bets are off with us continuing to talk if you think that I'm a bullshitter. . . .

You keep bullshitting, we will keep recognizing it as such. It is not terribly complicated.

It's getting funnier and funnier by the minute.

No, actually, you are quite sad. Nothing really funny about you. Can you juggle?

--J.D.

[davidm]

the author writes:

But objects do not send out pictures that travel
through space and impinge on the optic nerve. We see objects
directly by looking at them and it takes the same length of time to
see an airplane, the moon, the sun, or distant stars.

It's true objects don't "send out pictures." Light, however, reflects off objects, and since the velocity of light is finite, we will not see that reflected light until some period of time x after it leaves the object. When we do see the light, our brain "processes" it to create a picture in our hends.

Thus, the author is demonstrably wrong. What in the world does he actually think is going on, when we see things?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by davidm

The above is, needless to say, complete gibberish.

Good grief! It's not just gibberish, it's demonstrably false!

It's not as if we don't have the capacity to measure this, after all. For instance, we have put astronauts on the Moon and then observed that there is a delay of more than a second between when they did something and when observers on Earth saw them do it. Following the same physical principles, we still use radar reflectors placed onto the Moon's surface by Apollo astronauts to measure the Moon's distance from us.

Heck, we've been able to document -- and measure -- the delay between the occurrence of a distant event and when we see it for over a century now.


If the work in question is chock full of stuff that's not just demonstrably false, but demonstrably absurd, why should anyone take seriously the notion that it holds hidden knowledge that can be unearthed through careful study?

I don't doubt your sincerity, peacegirl, but you should seriously consider the possibility that a big part of the reason that people don't accept the book's claims isn't because they're difficult to understand, and isn't because the readers are either stupid or close-minded. It's because the claims are based at least partly on notions that are demonstrably false and even patently absurd.

[davidm]

The author writes:

The answer
is very simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the
plane simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was
impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a
telescope. We can’t see bacteria either with the naked eye, but we
can through a microscope.

Pray, what is this man's theory of how we see? Since he admits that the speed of light is finite, it follows inevitably that distant objects will appear to us now, as they were in the past.

But he says, "an image is not being reflected." Is he saying that light is not being reflected off the plane? Then, pray tell, what is happening? How does he think that we see anything at all?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I don't doubt your sincerity, peacegirl, but you should seriously consider the possibility that a big part of the reason that people don't accept the book's claims isn't because they're difficult to understand, and isn't because the readers are either stupid or close-minded. It's because the claims are based at least partly on notions that are demonstrably false and even patently absurd.

This is why nobody is taking your or your book seriously, peacegirl.

The author's claims about light and vision are just demonstrably false; they have been demonstrated to be false.

[davidm]

See, here is what's weird. I can imagine someone arguing that we see everything as it is in real time because the speed of light is infinite; i.e., it propagates instantaneously. Anyone who argued thus, would be wrong, to be sure; but at least the claim, however false, would be coherent.

The author's claims here do not even meet the standard of coherency. Given that he accepts that light travels at a finite speed, how can he maintain that what we see, is seen exactly as it happens? His claim then is, "an image is not reflected"; by which I take it to mean that he says light is not reflected off of objects. But of course it is. So, what in the world is he talking about? How does he think that we see objects?

[davidm]

Peacegirl, what is the mechanism by which we see the plane, the moon, or a distant galaxy?

[davidm]

nothing from the external world is striking the optic nerve.

OK. So how do we see, peacegirl?

[davidm]

From slogging my way a bit further through this book, the author claims that nothng from the outside world impinges on the optic nerve! Well, then, how do we see? It appears his claim is that we have four senses: I take those to be hearing, touch, taste and smell. When the four senses are combined, a "photograph" or some such appears to be created in the head, and this is what we see.



Well, we can't smell, hear or taste the sun. But we can feel the sensation of warmth, due to the photons from the sun falling on us. So when we see the sun, we're really feeling it?

Of course, if this is the claim, it remains the case that it takes the photons coming from the sun about eight minutes to reach us. Thus, even if vision were touched off by sensation, it's still the case that we would be "seeing" the sun as it was, eight minutes in the past.

Of course, there is no reason to take the "four senses conspire to create vision" claim seriously at all. It's just wrong, obviously, and this whole discussion becomes ludicrous.

I gave up when, on reading a bit ahead, I discovered that all of the above somehow creates disrespect between the genders owing to "differing world slides."

[davidm]

Earlier in the book, the author states:

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.

But later in the book, he says nothing from the outside world strikes the optic nerve; but here above he is saying something does: light.

And yet, he argues, the eyes are not a sense organ.

Erm.... why not??

[Doctor X]

I guess he never studied basic physiology either.

--J.D.

[erimir]

So I'm interested in how your dad's discovery will affect homosexuality and sexuality more generally.

Will there be no more gay people after the discovery is put into practice? Will people only participate in vaginal procreative sex, or will blowjobs and buttsex still happen?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of light to impinge on our optic nerve.

This is dumb.

Was your dad under the impression that the claim of mainstream science was that each ray of light carries an entire picture in it?

And was he under the impression that sound was also conveyed in this manner? (That is, that each "sound wave" or vibration carries an entire "sound picture" so to speak?)

Because both of those notions are horribly wrong.

Our eyes have to construct the image, it doesn't receive a full image from each ray of light. If you look closely at your TV screen (easier on a non-HD screen), you can see that it is composed of many tiny pixels, each one sending out three colors. When each of these tiny points of color is added together in proper relation to each other, you get the full image. Your eye works on a similar principle, except that the total number of "pixels" is much much higher.

The only slight kernel of truth in there is that the other senses do help your brain properly interpret the sense data coming from your eyes. When you see the corners of a room, your brain interprets them differently than someone who has never lived in modern squarish buildings - your experience with seeing that type of image and its correspondence to the box shape (which would be informed by your sense of touch) leads your brain to automatically interpret it a certain way.

This is the reason that this optical illusion works:



You probably see the bottom line as longer than the top line, when if you actually put a straight edge up to them, you can see that they're the same length.

However, people who grow up in different cultures where boxy rooms and buildings are less common are less susceptible to this illusion.

But this of course doesn't mean that we can't see unless we can touch, because it quite simply is not the case that people who have impairments in their other senses have less acute sight. Deaf people see fine, the rare person who can't feel much by touch, people who can't smell or taste can see, people with inner ear (sense of balance) can see, and I imagine that someone who lacked several of those senses (someone deaf with no sense of smell or taste, for example) would still be able to see fine.

Because quite simply your dad's theories are absurd and idiotic.

According to Lessans' observations, a baby cannot focus his eyes until other sense experience awakens the brain to focus the eyes to see what it is experiencing.

Now when you say "observations" you mean stuff that your dad pulled out of his ass. Because your dad can't remember learning how to see, and as you admit, he wasn't a scientist. He did no scientific study of how sight develops in infants.