Sunday, June 29, 2008

The Mind (continued)

The objects in our existence have distinct shapes. Some are one dimensional, posters and walls, others are three dimensional, chairs and tables. All may have other shapes attached to them, the posters, words or pictures, the walls, decorations, the three-dimensional objects decorations of one type or another. If they occupy a windowless room, and we turn off the light, however, they all have one thing in common. They disappear from our vision. We can no longer see them. I realize this is obvious, but it is worth saying because it points out that we see what we see because of light. There is nothing inherent about objects in reality (with the few exceptions of objects which themselves produce light) that has anything to do with how we see what we see. If we want to find out how we see what we see, we have to look at light to understand, and the question, what is happening between the objects in reality and our eyes that allows us to obtain a picture of reality, can be refined by asking, what is it about light that allows us to see the dimensions of the objects in our reality.
Light is a very measurable quantity. If we hang a lone light bulb in the middle of a room ten feet wide by ten feet deep by ten feet high, we can make a specific statement about the light coming from the light bulb. Except where it is being prevented from expanding by the cord it's hanging from, the light is expanding away from the light bulb in all directions. This is what I call an expanding sphere of light, and it continually amazes me the difficulty people have, and when I say people, I refer to scientists, engineers and liberal arts diploma devotees, in understanding this. It is not a concept, it is a fact. Light expands away from its source in all directions. At any instant, a new sphere of light is being emitted by the light bulb.
This, we’ll see, when we look closely at the structure of light, is the building block of gravity. It’s an unimportant principle so long as science denies the physical existence of light, but that’s just one more display of scientific ignorance.
Expanding light results in a continuous series of expanding spheres our mechanical detectors are designed to represent as waves, but which are in actuality frequencies, with the hotter the light, the shorter the frequencies.
We can measure precisely how these expanding spheres act simply by knowing the formula for the area of a sphere. The area of a sphere is 4pr2, where the r2 is the square of the sphere's radius. Thus, with the other terms static for all of the expanding spheres, the square of the sphere's radius from its source determines the area of the surface of the expanding sphere and most important, the amount of light at any one point. This is why light expands inversely with the square of its distance from its source.
We now know the exact amount of light that exists at any point in our theoretical room because all we have to do is measure the distance of that point from the surface of the light bulb. If we hold an object five feet away from the bulb, the strength of the expanding sphere will be different than if we hold an object six feet away from the light. Because the expanding spheres are being emitted at any one instant, the light bouncing off the object is not the same light, but it is the same amount of light. When we move out to the six foot point, at each instance its different light, but the same amount of light at six feet, less than at five feet. How much less? Light diminishes uniformly over the expanding spheres, so it's easily determined how much less the light is. This is all mathematically computable if we know the amount of light being emitted from the bulb and the distance the object is from the bulb.
The sun is continually emitting expanding spheres of light, but we can only approximate the distance and we definitely can't compute the amount of light with any degree of accuracy, but that is not important in determining how we see what we see. In our experimental room, we can determine this, and we are only doing so to understand how light carries information.
What information?
(To be continued)

Friday, June 13, 2008

The Mind (continued)

Let me emphasize this fact: the reality we live in is made up of physical points that are its dimensions. If we’re looking at a ruler, each point is marked, but there are billions, an uncountable number of points. These are the dimensions of reality and they exist outside the mind,
Before we can construct a picture of reality, those points, the dimensions of reality have to move from outside our minds (objective) to inside our minds (subjective). External reality is objective and real, and we are somehow constructed so that we can reproduce that external reality within our skulls. This fact leads to three questions empirical science has never bothered to address. The first question is, what is happening in physical reality between the objects that make up that reality and our eyes that allow our eyes to obtain the dimensions of physical reality? The second question is, how is that information transported up the optic nerve?
The third question is, how do we reconstruct the information in our skulls so that we have an accurate representation of objective external reality?
(To be continued)

Monday, June 9, 2008

The Mind

Clearly, the purpose of evolution is the creation and development of life, but what’s the purpose of life?
The development and perfection of the mind. The mind is the tool we use to produce the technological advancements that in turn ensure the survivability of life. We take a picture of reality and hold it in mind, we then alter that picture until we have a picture of something we think will work in reality and then we attempt to create the new reality. Edison pictured reality without the light bulb, then he pictured the light bulb and then he tinkered with reality until the light bulb became a reality.
All this picturing and re-picturing meant one thing: a picture of reality was going from outside the skull to inside the skull. This is a marvelous fact, one that should have been explored with proposed answers for thousands of years. Science not only fails to explain obvious and incredible fact, how do the images that exist in external reality become the images that we can form in our minds, it fails to recognize it,
Anyone spending anytime in an eye doctor's examining room is familiar with the pictures of the eyeballs on the walls, and even the large plastic eyeballs that can be taken apart to show the various parts of the eye. But this is medical and has nothing to do with how we see what we see. Digging deeper, we find that the eye has millions of what are called photoreceptive neurons. Photon has a definition dealing with the eye, a unit of retinal illumination equal to the amount of light that reaches the retina through one square millimeter of pupil area from a surface having a brightness of one candela per square meter. More words. I don't know where the coined word photon, used to provide an explanation for Einstein's photoelectric effect. came from, but the photograph came first.
These photoreceptive neurons are found in the retina, an inside layer of the eyeball, and come in two flavors, rods and cones. Rods discern light and dark, shape and movement, and contain only one light sensitive pigment. Cones require more light than rods and also come in three flavors, with ones that contain pigments that respond to the different wavelengths or frequencies, red, green or blue. This is a deduction from the white light is made up of all colors fiction Newton created which makes all of nature conform to the human eye. (Frequencies increase until they get to the frequency involved with our vision. Then, by chance, the frequencies we see are all bundled together into a single frequency that then has to be broken down into color. This leads to the absurd notion that material absorbs all colors but the one we see and therefore the cones have to have pigments "sensitive" to the basic colors so they can be separated out and then recombined to form all colors. Seriously, does anyone think nature, which opts for the simplest solution, would create a system that required the eye to see a rainbow first by having each drop of water filter out all but one of the possible colors requiring our eye to then recombine them? Well, yes, everyone.
Knowing nothing about how we see what we see, science returns to the medical, which has the rods and cones sending light to a lens at the back of the eye with the lens connected to the optic nerve. What travels up the optic nerve? How does the mind convert whatever is traveling up the optic nerve into a picture of what is in reality, these questions are simply not valid scientific questions. Empirical science can only speculate on what carries outside pictures into the brain, but it does know what happens when whatever it is that gets to the brain, works: it lights up neurons in specific patterns that become linked for life and those lit up neurons become the picture of reality that we see in reality. So for empirical science, reality is out there, and it's in our heads, but there's no in-between. Our eyes are just one of our senses, and senses, by definition are s senses, so we don't need to make sense out of the obvious.
But the reality is, in the face of science's refusal to admit it as a result of its laziness and resulting ignorance, the dimensions of external reality are somehow transported through our optic nerves so that we can internally reconstruct those dimensions and produce a picture of reality.
(To be continued)