A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can you project this Spacemonkey?

Inductively.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought you were into science.

Science allows induction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I could die tomorrow.

Which would prove me right.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm done with you because you are using underhanded tactics to make yourself feel better.

Says the self-admitted weaseller. What tactics are you referring to? The incredibly underhanded tactic of asking you perfectly reasonable questions that you refuse to answer?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You never answered me as to why you are still hanging out in this decrepit thread...

Another lie for the list. Get help, Peacegirl. Seriously.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can you project this Spacemonkey? I thought you were into science. I could die tomorrow. Your statistics and predictions are truly fabricated. I know you won't listen. I'm done with you because you are using underhanded tactics to make yourself convinced that you are right and Lessans had to be wrong. You are threatened. Compatibilism is a joke. It is an effort to blame and punish and keep compatibilism intact. It's a sleight of hand way to feel good about this philosophy so you can punish everyone who doesn't fit the mold because blaming will set them straight. This whole thing is sick as sick can be. You never answered me as to why you are still hanging out in this decrepit thread if not for lulz? Is that what you believe it is? Don't answer me because it will not be pretty. You will never admit to being unsure, yet you condemn me to no end. I can't deal with you anymore Spacemonkey.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What ashame that you have had to stoop this low out of insecurity. As funny as the spoof is does not address the issue. At the very least, you could have contained your skepticism without attacking me personally, but you were unable. Oh well. This is your problem, not mine Spacemonkey.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What ashame that you have had to stoop this low out of insecurity. As funny as the spoof is does not address the issue. At the very least, you could have contained your skepticism without attacking me personally, but you were unable. Oh well. This is your problem, not mine Spacemonkey.

I didn't attack you personally. I was pointing out that you were engaged in another hysterical hissy fit. You are the one refusing to address the issues, as you know perfectly well. For instance: Where did the photons at the retina/film come from?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Optics works in the same way it always has.

Which, in the case of cameras, means light photons must be in direct physical contact with the film or digital sensor. How do those photons get there?

it is not a requirement in order to use the light coming from an object in order to see it, if it is bright enough.

It is a requirement to have light in physical contact with camera film or digital sensor in order to photograph the object.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep talking about light getting there when I'm talking about what the eyes see in real time. There is no time involved in efferent vision, so getting there is not part of the equation.

This is fine unless and until you state that light photons are in direct physical contact with either camera film or a sensor, or in direct physical contact with our retinas...in other words when you decide that light is located somewhere. You have made that claim many times, that light is "at" the retina. That is a physical location.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is there when the object is within optical range

Light is where, exactly? Pinpoint its location, then explain how it got "there".

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is fine unless and until you state that light photons are in direct physical contact with either camera film or a sensor, or in direct physical contact with our retinas...in other words when you decide that light is located somewhere. You have made that claim many times, that light is "at" the retina. That is a physical location.

It seems that Peacegirl is disagreeing with the statement that photons need to travel from an object or light source to be at the retina or film. This disagreement is a clear indication that Peacegirl doesn't understand the problem, and also indicated that she has not read the posts in question. What it comes down to is that Peacegirl has not read the posts, and does not understand that there is a problem with the photons being in a location without some means of getting there. All this is clearly indicated by her disagreement with the several posters who have tried to explain the problem and have questioned Peacegirl for an explanation. Basic Lessanology, disagreement = lack of understanding = not having read the material. No other conclusion is possible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which, in the case of cameras, means light photons must be in direct physical contact with the film or digital sensor. How do those photons get there?

It is a requirement to have light in physical contact with camera film or digital sensor in order to photograph the object.

If the eyes are efferent, that means cameras work in the same way but instead of a retina there is a sensor. The light IS in contact with the digital sensor for the same exact reason the light is in contact with the retina. I know it's hard for you to imagine but that's how opposite afferent vision is from efferent.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep talking about light getting there when I'm talking about what the eyes see in real time. There is no time involved in efferent vision, so getting there is not part of the equation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is fine unless and until you state that light photons are in direct physical contact with either camera film or a sensor, or in direct physical contact with our retinas...in other words when you decide that light is located somewhere. You have made that claim many times, that light is "at" the retina. That is a physical location.

You are missing the point that the object, not the light, is what the eyes are seeing. In the efferent account light alone would not give us an image without the presence of the object. I have never denied that light travels and is constantly being replaced by new photons, but when we look out at the world we are seeing real substance in real time, not delayed images that have traveled through space/time, which is the difference between night and day.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is there when the object is within optical range

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light is where, exactly? Pinpoint its location, then explain how it got "there".

Light is not static. There isn't a location where one can say "it is located there". Yes, light is constantly traveling but what it reveals depends on the observer and his location in relation to the object seen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't attack you personally.

Yes you did.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I was pointing out that you were engaged in another hysterical hissy fit. You are the one refusing to address the issues, as you know perfectly well. For instance: Where did the photons at the retina/film come from?

I am not engaging in any hissy fits. This is not about whether or not I refuse to address the issue. It is about being falsely accused of many things, and I won't tolerate it as I did in the past. I do not need help and I am not delusional. So stop saying these things!!!!!!!!!!! Just because I may not continue talking about photons does not mean I need help or I'm lying to myself. I don't believe the efferent account will ever make sense to you but that doesn't mean it's a false claim.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Inductively.

Science allows induction.

Which would prove me right.

Says the self-admitted weaseller. What tactics are you referring to? The incredibly underhanded tactic of asking you perfectly reasonable questions that you refuse to answer?

Another lie for the list. Get help, Peacegirl. Seriously.

I'm hanging out in this decrepit thread because I'm a little bored at the moment since my marketing strategy is still not crystallized. I really don't know how I'm going to market this book to tell you the truth. I am having the same uphill battle my father had. After 50 years, it's no different. I can't even get in touch with any professors (those who believe in determinism) let alone get them interested in a dead man's work. No one believes there can be anything worthwhile or new from someone who lived in the 20th century. As far as marketing, I don't like facebook or twitter for this type of work and I have very little money to advertise, so I'm stuck for the moment. I may have to put the book on hold and if I can't think of what else I can do, I may have to pass the book on to my kids. Maybe this is not the right timing, for when it is it will be much easier to spread. BTW, I will not be hanging out in this decrepit thread for long. If people continue to act as they did before, there will be no one left to talk to because I won't let myself be in an underdog position again. It's ashame there are no newcomers. It isn't a surprise considering how I've been thrown under the bus continually. That's what people see and they are left with a bad taste in their mouth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you're not really a liar because God - who as I recall you don't actually believe in - wouldn't call someone a liar even when they are in fact a liar?

Everyone is a liar then, including you Spacemonkey. If you have ever fibbed or white lied about anything, this makes you a liar too. I believe in a supreme intelligence, but it feels good to make God more personal, so I will continue to do so. And according to this knowledge, we are all forgiven due to the fact that man's will is not free.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes are efferent, that means cameras work in the same way but instead of a retina there is a sensor. The light IS in contact with the digital sensor for the same exact reason the light is in contact with the retina. I know it's hard for you to imagine but that's how opposite afferent vision is from efferent.

Saying two things work in the same way doesn't help when you can't explain either of them. You are saying there will be light at the retina or film. Where did that light come from? Did it come into existence at the film/retina? Did it come from the Sun? If it came from the Sun then when was it at the Sun? How did it get from the Sun to the film/retina without traveling or teleporting?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are missing the point that the object, not the light, is what the eyes are seeing. In the efferent account light alone would not give us an image without the presence of the object. I have never denied that light travels and is constantly being replaced by new photons, but when we look out at the world we are seeing real substance in real time, not delayed images that have traveled through space/time, which is the difference between night and day.

The problem you are evading has nothing to do with whether we see the object or the light. Your account of how we see objects require light at the retina, yet you can't explain where that light came from or how it got there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is not static. There isn't a location where one can say "it is located there". Yes, light is constantly traveling but what it reveals depends on the observer and his location in relation to the object seen.

No-one is saying light is static. Of course light is always moving, but moving things still have locations at any given point in time. You have said that there will be light at the film or retina at the moment something is seen. If that light was constantly traveling, then where did it just come from and how did it get there?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not engaging in any hissy fits.

Sure you are. Post #36074 was one big hysterical hissy fit.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not about whether or not I refuse to address the issue.

Sure it is. You are refusing to address the issue of how light comes to be where you need it in your efferent account of vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is about being falsely accused of many things, and I won't tolerate it as I did in the past.

No-one has falsely accused you of anything.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not need help and I am not delusional. So stop saying these things!!!!!!!!!!!

I sincerely disagree. Your continued peddling of efferent vision as plausible, despite not being able to answer even the simplest of questions about it or explain away any of the compelling evidence against it shows you to be delusional. You've been stuck on the very same problem with photons for half a decade, refusing to even try to resolve it, yet you continue to claim it is other people who don't understand how it works. That is delusional. You have also proven yourself unable to leave the thread and discussion, despite actively trying to do so on several occasions. That shows you need help. Professional help.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because I may not continue talking about photons does not mean I need help or I'm lying to myself.

You are lying to yourself every time you claim efferent vision is plausible despite not being able to explain how light can get to be where your account needs it to be.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe the efferent account will ever make sense to you but that doesn't mean it's a false claim.

The efferent account will never make sense to you either. It is literally nonsensical. You simply choose to ignore the massive problems with it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everyone is a liar then, including you Spacemonkey. If you have ever fibbed or white lied about anything, this makes you a liar too.

We're not accusing you of the occasional white lie. You've been blatantly dishonest throughout the entire thread.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe in a supreme intelligence, but it feels good to make God more personal, so I will continue to do so.

Believing whatever makes you feel good is the very opposite of rational thinking. That is what has got you in this whole mess to begin with.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes are efferent, that means cameras work in the same way but instead of a retina there is a sensor. The light IS in contact with the digital sensor for the same exact reason the light is in contact with the retina. I know it's hard for you to imagine but that's how opposite afferent vision is from efferent.

It can't be imagined in the Sun turned on at noon scenario. It is not possible at all. Even Lessans himself said that the photons aren't on Earth yet, so they can't be on the film or on the retina either. It's not possible, and Lessans never even thought about it himself.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are missing the point that the object, not the light, is what the eyes are seeing. In the efferent account light alone would not give us an image without the presence of the object. I have never denied that light travels and is constantly being replaced by new photons, but when we look out at the world we are seeing real substance in real time, not delayed images that have traveled through space/time, which is the difference between night and day.

None of that has a thing to do with the physical properties of light and how light can come to be located at specific places.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is not static. There isn't a location where one can say "it is located there".

If it is being absorbed by a retina or sensor or camera film or plant leaf you can absolutely say that light photons are located on those surfaces. If it is traveling through space you can say it is in transit in space between points A and B (like between the Sun and Earth in Lessans scenario).

You were the one who said "light is there" so what did you mean? Clarify the word "there"...light is where?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If people continue to act as they did before, there will be no one left to talk to because I won't let myself be in an underdog position again. It's ashame there are no newcomers. It isn't a surprise considering how I've been thrown under the bus continually. That's what people see and they are left with a bad taste in their mouth.

I think this thread is too big for newcomers to easily join in. They look at the size and contemplate all the catching up they would have to do and they just move on.

Your blind persistence has been your own undoing. You add to the confusion with your own unsuccessful attempts to clarify both your dad's work and your own comments. And you do this over and over and over again and make absolutely no progress at all. And then, as if your brain has reset, you behave as if none of this has happened and are shocked that it might happen again.

Get help peacegirl.

[davidm]

Here, again, is why everyone calls you a liar, peacegirl. You can't possibly believe or even understand the words that come out of your own mouth. It's all demonstrable gibberish, but what is worse for you is that you are contradicting Lessans. He made a bone-headed claim, and you are making a bone-headed claim, but the claims are different, not just from actual reality, but from each other!

If the eyes are efferent, that means cameras work in the same way but instead of a retina there is a sensor.

Wrong. Lessans never thought about cameras, because he wasn't too bright, but what he said (and what you said earlier) is that this nonsensical "efferent" vision of yours means that "the brain is looking out through the eyes." This is meaningless word salad of course, but the key point is that cameras, like you and Lessans, don't have brains. You write:

The light IS in contact with the digital sensor for the same exact reason the light is in contact with the retina.

Oh, really? Is that what Lessans claimed? Well, if the light is in contact with the sensor, and if it's in contact with the retina, then why -- according to Lessans! -- is it NOT in contact with the neighbor standing next to you, until eight and a half minutes after God turns on the goddamned sun? That is what Lessans wrote. He wrote that although we would see the sun instantly from earth if God turned it on at noon, we would not see our neighbor for eight and a half minutes, until the photons arrived from the sun!

Think, peacegirl, THINK, as they used to say at IBM! If, as you claim, the photons from the sun are instantly in contact with the sensor and the retina, how can they not also be instantly in contact with the flesh of the person aiming the camera? But that is what Lessans wrote: that it would take eight and a half minutes for the photons to reach the flesh and make the neighbor visible!

The problem you have is that Lessans did not say that the photons were in contact with the retina when God turned on the sun; he said they were still at the sun! This is the naked absurdity of his claim -- that we would see the photons while they were still at the sun and not at our eyes, from our standpoint on earth. But he admitted that the photons would still take eight and a half minutes to reach the earth. He said that we would not be able to see our neighbor until the photons arrived -- and if the photons aren't striking the neighbor, they sure as shit aren't striking the camera that the neighbor is holding! This is just plain logic.

Here is another instance of you contradicting Lessans: he did NOT say (as you do!) that we see the object itself; or, if he did say that somewhere, then he was also contradicting himself, which would not be too surprising given how dumb he was. In the case of the sun being turned on at noon, he said that we were seeing photons and NOT the sun (object itself); and, again, he was NOT saying that the photons were at the retina; he said they were at the sun, period!

In desperately trying to explain Lessan's BS, you are contradicting him -- but you know that you must, because you know perfectly well that what he wrote was incoherent rubbish. But in trying to explain him, you are offering a story different from what he wrote -- a story that is also rubbish, but different rubbish.

Here is the interesting implication of this: you know, deep down, that Daddy was full of shit! You understand, as he did not, that the light must be at the sensor, or the retina, for a camera to produce an image, or for a person to see. Lessans did not understand that. But because you can't admit your father was a raving lunatic and a great big horse's ass, you try to explicate his nonsense, but in so doing you are contradicting what he actually wrote!

The fact that you have to contradict Lessans in a vain attempt to explain what he wrote is proof that you know perfectly well that what he wrote makes no sense at all.

Suppose someone told you that the roof is beginning to leak, but the first drop has not yet fallen from the ceiling. Suppose this person tells you that he has put a pan on the floor to catch the first drop. Suppose this person tells you that the drop will fall at a finite rate of speed, and will take time to reach the pan, BUT, even before the drop has left the ceiling and fallen for a finite time, the pan is already wet from the drop at the ceiling.

What would even you say about such obvious idiocy?

Now look in the mirror, because that idiot is you.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I think this thread is too big for newcomers to easily join in.

With over 36 thousand posts, it may seem a daunting task, but it is not nearly as difficult to join in as it may appear at first sight. After reading just a couple of dozen pages or thereabouts, newcomers with even just a modest ability to analyse what is being said will recognise that the same arguments and misconceptions keep being repeated for lap after lap. It is safe to skip the vast majority of posts without fear of having missed out on something relevant to the discussion.

Most of the lack of any kind of progress is due to Peacegirl's inability to see the difference between observation and rumination, her mistaking disagreement for lack of understanding and her utter rejection of empirical science as the prime source of knowledge. Her persistence with these errors makes any attempt to advance the discussion pretty much futile.

Another factor contributing to the thread's repetitive nature is the subject of personal insult. Peacegirl injected that element less than two hours after she created this thread when she accused someone of being a bitter person instead of attempting to show how that person's assertion was incorrect. It was only the fifth post out of Peacegirl's almost 12,000 so far, but a great too many of them were also along the same lines. Skim-reading is in order, and wholesale employment of the scrollwheel just about unavoidable, not to say recommended, even for those newbies to the thread who are intent on reading all of it.

All in all, I wish I could stop rubbernecking at this accident site, but I keep getting drawn back to reading bits of it out of curiosity in regard to how members respond to Peacegirl's defence of her dad's incoherent and frequently utterly nonsensical castle in the sky.

In the end, though, let me summarise what I've been trying to say: You don't have to read 36,000 posts in order to feel confident of having something relevant to say about any one of them. There just isn't the depth of discussion in this thread to make it a requirement.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Saying two things work in the same way doesn't help when you can't explain either of them.

That wasn't my aim here. I was just pointing out the fact that cameras, showing the same image as the eyes, do not rule out real time seeing since the photons that would show up on the retina would also show up on film using the same principle.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are saying there will be light at the retina or film. Where did that light come from? Did it come into existence at the film/retina? Did it come from the Sun? If it came from the Sun then when was it at the Sun? How did it get from the Sun to the film/retina without traveling or teleporting?

You keep saying the same thing Spacemonkey. No, there is no teleporting of photons in this model. You are still assuming that light must travel to Earth in order for it to strike the retina, so if no time is involved then how did the photons get there? According to you, they had to teleport. I am talking about a completely different concept that does not violate physics because there is no time involved in the efferent model. The light that is at the retina or film in this model allows us to see the object instantly because we are already in the object's field of view if the object can be seen due to the brightness of the light and the size of the object. You will never be happy with my explanation but it should give you some other way of looking at sight rather than attacking me personally, which you continue to do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I think this thread is too big for newcomers to easily join in. They look at the size and contemplate all the catching up they would have to do and they just move on.

Your blind persistence has been your own undoing. You add to the confusion with your own unsuccessful attempts to clarify both your dad's work and your own comments. And you do this over and over and over again and make absolutely no progress at all. And then, as if your brain has reset, you behave as if none of this has happened and are shocked that it might happen again.

Get help peacegirl.

Um, I have a website that gives the first chapter away for free. People can start there if they are interested. They don't have to rummage through this useless thread because they will never be able to makes sense out of it, but if they really want to understand the importance of this knowledge, all they have to do is go to my website and read the first chapter or listen to Lessans read and elaborate on the first chapter of his 6th book. The reason they may not go there is because of how people in here have portrayed me, starting with you. It's the biggest lie of all that I need help and am delusional.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I think this thread is too big for newcomers to easily join in.

Originally Posted by Hermit

With over 36 thousand posts, it may seem a daunting task, but it is not nearly as difficult to join in as it may appear at first sight. After reading just a couple of dozen pages or thereabouts, newcomers with even just a modest ability to analyse what is being said will recognise that the same arguments and misconceptions keep being repeated for lap after lap. It is safe to skip the vast majority of posts without fear of having missed out on something relevant to the discussion. Most of the lack of any kind of progress is due to Peacegirl's inability to see the difference between observation and rumination, her mistaking disagreement for lack of understanding and her utter rejection of empirical science as the prime source of knowledge. Her persistence with these errors makes any attempt to advance the discussion pretty much futile.

It is not an error to give credence to astute observation. I have said many times that the proof of the pudding is if these principles would work in real life. Just because it is difficult to empirically prove his case does not mean that he was wrong or that it cannot be proven in time. This knowledge came out of years of reading other people's works. He gave credit to everyone who was indirectly involved since his discovery came out of an accumulation of knowledge.

Originally Posted by Hermit

Another factor contributing to the thread's repetitive nature is the subject of personal insult. Peacegirl injected that element less than two hours after she created this thread when she accused someone of being a bitter person instead of attempting to show how that person's assertion was incorrect. It was only the fifth post out of Peacegirl's almost 12,000 so far, but a great too many of them were also along the same lines. Skim-reading is in order, and wholesale employment of the scrollwheel just about unavoidable, not to say recommended, even for those newbies to the thread who are intent on reading all of it.

The reason this thread got off to a bad start is because I felt threatened. The fact that he was being charged with only making an assertion made me feel very defensive because his observations are not just an assertion. I was being grilled as to how it could be tested empirically which made me feel that this group would not give me half a chance. I have had my guard up ever since. I weaseled at times because I was being given questions that I needed time to figure out. I just didn't want people to lose interest

Originally Posted by Hermit

All in all, I wish I could stop rubbernecking at this accident site, but I keep getting drawn back to reading bits of it out of curiosity in regard to how members respond to Peacegirl's defence of her dad's incoherent and frequently utterly nonsensical castle in the sky.

Hermit, did you read the first chapter? If you did, I would think that you have realized this work is not a joke. It is filled with meat. My gosh, it's only 58 pages and would give you a much better picture of what this book is about and it might create an interest for you to read further. Then I could have a coherent conversation. Why don't you give it a try?

Originally Posted by Hermit

In the end, though, let me summarise what I've been trying to say: You don't have to read 36,000 posts in order to feel confident of having something relevant to say about any one of them. There just isn't the depth of discussion in this thread to make it a requirement.

That is true, but you do have to read the actual book. This book has been so misconstrued and taken out of context that no one would ever be able to make heads or tails out of this thread alone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Here, again, is why everyone calls you a liar, peacegirl. You can't possibly believe or even understand the words that come out of your own mouth. It's all demonstrable gibberish, but what is worse for you is that you are contradicting Lessans. He made a bone-headed claim, and you are making a bone-headed claim, but the claims are different, not just from actual reality, but from each other!

Wrong. Lessans never thought about cameras, because he wasn't too bright, but what he said (and what you said earlier) is that this nonsensical "efferent" vision of yours means that "the brain is looking out through the eyes." This is meaningless word salad of course, but the key point is that cameras, like you and Lessans, don't have brains. You write:

Oh, really? Is that what Lessans claimed? Well, if the light is in contact with the sensor, and if it's in contact with the retina, then why -- according to Lessans! -- is it NOT in contact with the neighbor standing next to you, until eight and a half minutes after God turns on the goddamned sun? That is what Lessans wrote. He wrote that although we would see the sun instantly from earth if God turned it on at noon, we would not see our neighbor for eight and a half minutes, until the photons arrived from the sun!

Think, peacegirl, THINK, as they used to say at IBM! If, as you claim, the photons from the sun are instantly in contact with the sensor and the retina, how can they not also be instantly in contact with the flesh of the person aiming the camera? But that is what Lessans wrote: that it would take eight and a half minutes for the photons to reach the flesh and make the neighbor visible!

The problem you have is that Lessans did not say that the photons were in contact with the retina when God turned on the sun; he said they were still at the sun! This is the naked absurdity of his claim -- that we would see the photons while they were still at the sun and not at our eyes, from our standpoint on earth. But he admitted that the photons would still take eight and a half minutes to reach the earth. He said that we would not be able to see our neighbor until the photons arrived -- and if the photons aren't striking the neighbor, they sure as shit aren't striking the camera that the neighbor is holding! This is just plain logic.

Here is another instance of you contradicting Lessans: he did NOT say (as you do!) that we see the object itself; or, if he did say that somewhere, then he was also contradicting himself, which would not be too surprising given how dumb he was. In the case of the sun being turned on at noon, he said that we were seeing photons and NOT the sun (object itself); and, again, he was NOT saying that the photons were at the retina; he said they were at the sun, period!

In desperately trying to explain Lessan's BS, you are contradicting him -- but you know that you must, because you know perfectly well that what he wrote was incoherent rubbish. But in trying to explain him, you are offering a story different from what he wrote -- a story that is also rubbish, but different rubbish.

Here is the interesting implication of this: you know, deep down, that Daddy was full of shit! You understand, as he did not, that the light must be at the sensor, or the retina, for a camera to produce an image, or for a person to see. Lessans did not understand that. But because you can't admit your father was a raving lunatic and a great big horse's ass, you try to explicate his nonsense, but in so doing you are contradicting what he actually wrote!

The fact that you have to contradict Lessans in a vain attempt to explain what he wrote is proof that you know perfectly well that what he wrote makes no sense at all.

Suppose someone told you that the roof is beginning to leak, but the first drop has not yet fallen from the ceiling. Suppose this person tells you that he has put a pan on the floor to catch the first drop. Suppose this person tells you that the drop will fall at a finite rate of speed, and will take time to reach the pan, BUT, even before the drop has left the ceiling and fallen for a finite time, the pan is already wet from the drop at the ceiling.

What would even you say about such obvious idiocy?

Now look in the mirror, because that idiot is you.

It is YOU who is lost. YOU have no conception of what he is even talking about. YOU are so threatened because everything you believe in would have to be rethought. You are also confused regarding determinism being a modal fallacy. You don't even know what he meant when he said, "they were compelled, of their own free will".... which he used throughout the book. You need to rethink everything you have been taught.