Things That Are Not There

[river]

So it comes down to the Brain .

Which is made of elements found on this Earth . Water , Fats , vitamins , minerals etc.

My point being , that the Brain is made of things that are not fiction , meaning that the Brain sees the world as it is because it is made of the same things as our world is .

 

[Michael 345]

That might be your definition, but others are not necessarily using the same. To some, what we see is what the brain is telling us we are observing, not what is emitting photons into our eyes. Hence we can see things that aren't there.
So it seems any disagreement here would be due to semantics.

I'm sure that blind persons would not be interested in being given a seeing eye dog who not only sees the world by light entering the eye, being processed by the eye/brain/sensory system hence being seen.

But also acts on any other signal acting on the eye/brain/sensory system seeing things that are not there.

 

[Michael 345]

Definitely true.

M345 has a specific idea of what constitutes the process of seeing. I'd hazard it is not the most common idea.

This is a common philosophy issue, goes along with:
if a tree falls in a forest...
where does colour happen?
what is the sound of a single waveform cycle (like a shockwave)?

These types of questions all pick at the loose threads of the process of sensing - how much is the physical exterior actions and how much of it is in the processing.

It's generally agreed that a very large fraction of our experience of the world is interpreted.

I'm sure that blind persons would not be interested in being given a seeing eye dog who not only sees the world by light entering the eye, being processed by the eye/brain/sensory system hence being seen.

But also acts on any other signal acting on the eye/brain/sensory system seeing things that are not there.

 

[Michael 345]

So it comes down to the Brain .

Which is made of elements found on this Earth . Water , Fats , vitamins , minerals etc.

My point being , that the Brain is made of things that are not fiction , meaning that the Brain sees the world as it is because it is made of the same things as our world is .

Repeat

Nobody can see things which are not there.

They are not there, hence there is nothing for light to reflect from, be processed by the eye/brain/sensory system hence be seen.

Interpretation of what is being seen relies on experience.

Other signals acting on the eye/brain/sensory system can be interpreted from experience cobbling together an explanation (with no basis in reality).

One form of this mis information is called hallucination.

Again, hallucinations are not 'vision' << held to be what we 'see'.

 

[river]

I'm sure that blind persons would not be interested in being given a seeing eye dog who not only sees the world by light entering the eye, being processed by the eye/brain/sensory system hence being seen.

But also acts on any other signal acting on the eye/brain/sensory system seeing things that are not there.

What do mean here , last sentence ?

 

[river]

Repeat

Nobody can see things which are not there.

They are not there, hence there is nothing for light to reflect from, be processed by the eye/brain/sensory system hence be seen.

Interpretation of what is being seen relies on experience.

Other signals acting on the eye/brain/sensory system can be interpreted from experience cobbling together an explanation (with no basis in reality).

One form of this mis information is called hallucination.

Again, hallucinations are not 'vision' << held to be what we 'see'.

Agreed

But to your third idea above ( high lighted ), explain a bit more , I sort of get it .

 

[Michael 345]

What do mean here , last sentence ?

The seeing eye dog acting on the eye/brain/sensory system seeing things that are not there.

In other words a seeing eye dog having hallucinations.

 

[river]

The seeing eye dog acting on the eye/brain/sensory system seeing things that are not there.

In other words a seeing eye dog having hallucinations.

Ahh

 

[Sarkus]

I'm sure that blind persons would not be interested in being given a seeing eye dog who not only sees the world by light entering the eye, being processed by the eye/brain/sensory system hence being seen.

But also acts on any other signal acting on the eye/brain/sensory system seeing things that are not there.

Nor would I be interested in having hallucinations. I'm not aware of many people that are. And fortunately it's quite rare - including for dogs - can make things awkward. But that doesn't change things - arguments of definition are not influenced by emotional appeals.
Look - you have your definition/understanding, restricting "seeing" to the interpretation of photons entering through the eye. Others have different definitions / understandings. Coming up with rather irrelevant examples isn't going to do anything to progress the discussion.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm sure that blind persons would not be interested in being given a seeing eye dog who not only sees the world by light entering the eye, being processed by the eye/brain/sensory system hence being seen.

But also acts on any other signal acting on the eye/brain/sensory system seeing things that are not there.

This is a silly red herring.

 

[DaveC426913]

1] Disembodied eyeballs do not see anything, despite light passing through their lenses.
2] There are ways of transmitting light into the eye that do no involve the light bouncing off any real object.
3] There are ways the eyes can see things that occur within the eye.

i.e. Seeing is not the physical process of light reflection and transmission.

Seeing is a complex process that requires a central processing system to process the image.

 

[river]

1] Disembodied eyeballs do not see anything, despite light passing through their lenses.
2] There are ways of transmitting light into the eye that do no involve the light bouncing off any real object.
3] There are ways the eyes can see things that occur within the eye.

i.e. Seeing is not the physical process of light reflection and transmission.

Seeing is a complex process that requires a central processing system to process the image.

So now explain all three , in detail .

 

[Michael 345]

1] Disembodied eyeballs do not see anything, despite light passing through their lenses.
2] There are ways of transmitting light into the eye that do no involve the light bouncing off any real object.
3] There are ways the eyes can see things that occur within the eye.

i.e. Seeing is not the physical process of light reflection and transmission.

Seeing is a complex process that requires a central processing system to process the image.

1/ Disembodied eyeballs do not have the remainder of the pathway to convert light going through their lenses. Dah.

2/ ...transmitting light into the eye.. means light will be seen. Dah dah.

3/ Things which are seen within the eye (mostly called floaters) are the remnants of dead cells. And guess what! Floaters are seen by light bouncing off them. Da da.

ie Yes it is.

Except you left out 'interpretation' by
'...a central processing system...'

Back briefly to:-

3/. Pressure within the eyeball causes perceived light flashes (which have no basis in reality having no light as their origin).

The pressure signals are also sent around the brain where they are perceived as pain.

 

[Write4U]

1] Disembodied eyeballs do not see anything, despite light passing through their lenses.

A disembodied eyeball is just a complex light sensor. But it cannot process the information it receives, except to forward it to the mirror neural system of the brain, where it is reprocessed into mental images. If either the eye or the reprocessing function of the mirror system has a flaw, a person may be color blind, i.e misinterpret the information which is received. Optical illusions are a perfect example.

2] There are ways of transmitting light into the eye that do no involve the light bouncing off any real object.

Irrelevant.

3 There are ways the eyes can see things that occur within the eye.

Not true, the brain can see (create an image) of the mathematical coding which is transmitted from the eye to the brain.

i.e. Seeing is not the physical process of light reflection and transmission.
Seeing is a complex process that requires a central processing system to process the image.

That's correct, The eye is the sensor which collects information (visible light), which is then transmitted to the neural system in the brain, which translates that information into mental images.

 

[Michael 345]

A disembodied eyeball is just a complex light sensor. But it cannot process the information it receives, except to forward it to the mirror neural system of the brain, where it is reprocessed into mental images. If either the eye or the reprocessing function of the mirror system has a flaw, a person may be color blind, i.e misinterpret the information which is received. Optical illusions are a perfect example.
Irrelevant.
Not true, the brain can see (create an image) of the mathematical coding which is transmitted from the eye to the brain.

That's correct, The eye is the sensor which collects information (visible light), which is then transmitted to the neural system in the brain, which translates that information into mental images.

Extract

i.e. Seeing is not the physical process of light reflection and transmission.

Yes it is.

Except you left out 'interpretation' by
'...a central processing system...'

Seeing is a complex process that requires a central processing system to process the image.

Yes it is.

Except you left out 'light entering the eye' leading into >> 'interpretation' by onto >>
'...a central processing system...'

 

[river]

Extract

i.e. Seeing is not the physical process of light reflection and transmission.

Yes it is.

Except you left out 'interpretation' by
'...a central processing system...'

Seeing is a complex process that requires a central processing system to process the image.

Yes it is.

Except you left out 'light entering the eye' leading into >> 'interpretation' by onto >>
'...a central processing system...'

And the central processing system has evolved based on the enviroment and the fundamental consituents of the system , which is based on the materials found in the enviroment.

 

[Michael 345]

And the central processing system has evolved based on the enviroment and the fundamental consituents of the system , which is based on the materials found in the enviroment.

So what? Can't see your point.

Can hardly expect anything to evolve based on substances not found.

 

[river]

So what? Can't see your point.

Can hardly expect anything to evolve based on substances not found.

My point is the Brain is based on the minerals and bio-chemical structure , meaning that what the Brain is made of , is of this Universe .

Meaning that the Brain is not made of some material that is not found in the Universe .

Therefore all things that the Brain senses , in the material world is ccompatable, with the Brains building block constituents .

 

[Michael 345]

My point is the Brain is based on the minerals and bio-chemical structure , meaning that what the Brain is made of , is of this Universe .

Meaning that the Brain is not made of some material that is not found in the Universe .

Therefore all things that the Brain senses , in the material world is ccompatable, with the Brains building block constituents .

Again.

So what? Still can't see any point let alone your point.

It is impossible for anything to made of some material that is not found in the Universe.

Not sure how to comment on last paragraph without giving wriggle room for a nonsense reply to return.

Except the above paragraph way.

 

[DaveC426913]

1/ Disembodied eyeballs do not have the remainder of the pathway to convert light going through their lenses.

Correct. Your assertion that the action of seeing is that of light bouncing off objects and entering the eye is not true. There is more to it.

2/ ...transmitting light into the eye.. means light will be seen.

Correct. Your assertion that the action of seeing is that of light bouncing off objects and entering the eye is false. There is more to it.

3/ Things which are seen within the eye (mostly called floaters) are the remnants of dead cells.

Floaters was not my example.

3/. Pressure within the eyeball causes perceived light flashes (which have no basis in reality having no light as their origin).

You admit that it is perceived. The flash is seen.

You are attempting to define seeing circularly. "Seeing is the operation of light bouncing off an object, and entering the eye". Since that is your (unproven) assertion, you can't also claim as the criterion for proving the assertion.