The light is in our eyes...

You may or may not believe it, but you can read this to see why you don't actually see a mirror:

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=17199

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Didn't explain your point at all .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So can we agree that mainstream scientific thought is that the visual universe is essentially a mental construction based on data entering our eyes. That the perception of "out there" is an illusion premised on that data and constructed subjectively from that data by our brain?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't know is that what mainstream science thinks ?

 

That's how.

 

I wouldn't agree it is an illusion unless your (my) senses are in collusion with each other. Look at an object, and then go feel that object. Does what you see of the object conform to what you felt of it?

 

well... hopefully if you hang around long enough you might find out...

 

It's not that a pinhole camera is better. It's that a pin hole is a small aperture, which results in great depth of field and the focal length is wide which also makes it easy to get infinite dept of field.

Use a standard camera with a wide angle lens and a small aperture and you will get essentially infinite dept of field as well.

 

I tend to agree but this is unimportant.What does mainstream conventional science have to say?
Based on what has been found to date science is pretty clear that our visual universe is incredibly subjective and that all 8 billion or so individuals have an inexplicable shared and consistent subjective world view.

 

but would agree that the lens is not entirely essential to the taking of still imagery? Yet is for any moving imagery ( as in animated)

Refraction through a lens is not needed to invert the image?

 

Are you sure you're wanting answers? You tend to ignore them or gloss over them. Also, you say things like the above, but have not left any kind of links to back it up.

 

Why are we speaking of "mainstream scientific thought". Do you have an issue with this info?

Of course we don't see if we don't have eyes. The tree is still out there but without eyes you don't see it.

Are you just learning that we "see" via our eyes and brain?

 

what does science have to say about it?

 

Your "arguments" tend to wander all over the place don't they? A pinhole functions as a lens. This is a "point" without a distinction.

 

From what I have come to understand there is no clear explanation other than to come to the conclusion that:
There are no links that can be used to explain how it is that the visual universe appears to be out side our eyes.
Therefore accordingly:
One can conclude that the visual universe ( out there) is a subjective mental construct.

 

evolution?

 

true but there is no refraction involved...
You fail to see the need for precision in your assessments...

A lens offers refraction
A pin hole doesn't.

therefore the lens and focus issue is superfluous to the issue at hand.

 

Hmmm....what of consistancy ? Of billions of people ?

 

Sight is a mental construct. What else would it be? That has no bearing on the existence of what is out there however. The tree is there whether you see it or not.

 

true but this is ancillary to the question. The reality or not of the actual tree is not in question.
Sight is a mental construct according to currently held light theory ...note emphasis on the word "theory".