Things That Are Not There

Write4U said:
A disembodied eyeball is just a complex light sensor. But it cannot process the information it receives
Click to expand...
It is not even that.

A disembodied eyeball has no more ability to "receive information" than a drop of water bending the sun's rays into a spectrum.

The point behind the disembodied eyeball is merely that M345 is erroneously reducing the incredibly complex process of seeing (which requries a nervous system) to mere optical physics.
 
DaveC426913 said:
It is not even that.

A disembodied eyeball has no more ability to "receive information" than a drop of water bending the sun's rays into a spectrum.

The point behind the disembodied eyeball is merely that M345 is erroneously reducing the incredibly complex process of seeing (which requries a nervous system) to mere optical physics.
Click to expand...

No he is not .
 
river said:
Disagree then .

What we see is what the object reflects in the spectrum of light ; the rest the object absorbs .
Click to expand...
As I have shown, there are several forms of perception that do not involve the reflection of light off objects, or the passage of light into the eye.
 
river said:
Such as ?
Click to expand...
1] Light can be generated directly from a source, requiring no reflection off any object. This is an example of light not requiring reflection off objects (violating one of M345's assertions).
2] Objects can be seen within the eye. This is an example of seeing that does not require light from objects external to the eye - entering the eye (violating a different one of M345's assertions).
3] The eye's sensors can be directly stimulated without light at all (violating a third assertion of M345's). This can poccur by pressure, but it can also occur via Cosmic Rays, as the astronauts experienced.

I could go on forever finding exceptions to M345' s erroneously specific defintion of seeing.

Finally, I've also shown that plenty of things do meet all his criteria (eg. a disembodied eye), yet are not describable as "seeing".

In other words, his definition fails coming and going.
 
DaveC426913 said:
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.


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.


Floaters was not my example.


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.
Click to expand...

Never asserted first paragraph. Have always had the below present

"......light to reflect from, be processed by the eye/brain/sensory system hence be seen."

which includes your more to it.

Floaters:- can't find any example you gave only things. Please give me what things you mean by your 3] There are ways the eyes can see things that occur within the eye.

Flashing light into the eye:- light is seen (it has a base in reality)

Bang someone on the head causing the person to see flashing lights is not seeing flashing lights.

From now I am going to adopt the Humpty Dumpty approach

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

Might loose the scornful tone. May be take it or leave it. Or like it or lump it.

Stay tuned.
 
DaveC426913 said:
1] Light can be generated directly from a source, requiring no reflection off any object. This is an example of light not requiring reflection off objects (violating one of M345's assertions).
Click to expand...

What has this got to do with SEEING . ?

2] Objects can be seen within the eye. This is an example of seeing that does not require light from objects external to the eye - entering the eye (violating a different one of M345's assertions).
Click to expand...

Where is the actual example ? or for instance ....?

3] The eye's sensors can be directly stimulated without light at all (violating a third assertion of M345's). This can poccur by pressure, but it can also occur via Cosmic Rays, as the astronauts experienced.
Click to expand...

How so ? explain further

I could go on forever finding exceptions to M345' s erroneously specific defintion of seeing.

Finally, I've also shown that plenty of things do meet all his criteria (eg. a disembodied eye), yet are not describable as "seeing".

In other words, his definition fails coming and going.
Click to expand...

Not sure your angle here .
 
river said:
Such as ?
Click to expand...

Please please please answer his/her reply.

Please I am begging you.

As I noted with my last attempt from now on I am taking the Humpty Dumpty approach:-

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
 
Michael said,
"i.e. Seeing is not the physical process of light reflection and transmission.
Click to expand...
Yes it is.
Click to expand...
To be exact the physical processes of producing light waves are called *emission* and *refraction* .

"Seeing" has several definitions.
Definition of see, transitive verb
  1. 1a : to perceive by the eyeb : to perceive or detect as if by sight
  2. 2a : to have experience of : undergo <see army service>b : to come to know : discoverc : to be the setting or time of <the last fifty years have seen a sweeping revolution in science — Barry Commoner>
  3. 3a : to form a mental picture of : visualize <can still see her as she was years ago>b : to perceive the meaning or importance of : understandc : to be aware of : recognize <sees only our faults>d : to imagine as a possibility : suppose <couldn't see him as a crook>
  4. 4a : examine, watch <want to see how she handles the problem>b (1) : read (2) : to read ofc : to attend as a spectator <see a play>
  5. 5a : to take care of : provide for <had enough money to see us through>b : to make sure <see that order is kept>
  6. 6a : to regard as : judgeb : to prefer to have <I'll see him hanged first> <I'll see you dead before I accept your terms>c : to find acceptable or attractive <can't understand what he sees in her>
  7. 7a : to call on : visitb (1) : to keep company with especially in courtship or dating <had been seeing each other for a year> (2) : to grant an interview to : receive <the president will see you now>
  8. 8 : accompany, escort <see the guests to the door>
  9. 9 : to meet (a bet) in poker or to equal the bet of (a player) : call
  10. intransitive verb
  11. 1a : to give or pay attentionb : to look about
  12. 2a : to have the power of sightb : to apprehend objects by sightc : to perceive objects as if by sight
  13. 3a : to grasp something mentallyb : to acknowledge or consider something being pointed out <see, I told you it would rain>
  14. 4 : to make investigation or inquiry , Webster.
Click to expand...
  1. Webster.
 
Last edited:
river said:
Write4U ,
Lets not be a sophist here .
You know what Michael means .
Click to expand...
In context of the OP question, I believe it is pertinent to the discussion. Let's first get the definitions straight. Then they can be discussed in their various forms.
 
Write4U said:
In context of the OP question, I believe it is pertinent to the discussion. Let's first get the definitions straight. Then they can be discussed in their various forms.
Click to expand...

Disagree

Definitions are not pertinent to this discussion because " seeing " with the eye is straight forward .

Light reflects off an object , the eye takes that light , puts it into the brain , the brain sees that object .
 
river said:
Disagree
Definitions are not pertinent to this discussion because " seeing " with the eye is straight forward .
Light reflects off an object , the eye takes that light , puts it into the brain , the brain sees that object .
Click to expand...
No disagreement here, but that does not answer the question posed by the OP.

How is it, that we CAN see light in our minds, even in total darkness. Our brains seem to be able to imagine light (recall or create an image) from past memory alone. In fact we can observe ourselves from the outside, not only with actual mirrors, but mentally imagine you watching yourself from another point of view. A way of seeing a mental hologram.
 
Write4U said:
No disagreement here, but that does not answer the question posed by the OP.

How is it, that we CAN see light in our minds, even in total darkness. Our brains seem to be able to imagine light (recall or create an image) from past memory alone. In fact we can observe ourselves from the outside, not only with actual mirrors, but mentally imagine you watching yourself from another point of view. A way of seeing a mental hologram.
Click to expand...

Ah the minds eye or the third eye .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top