Thanks for your post....I am glad you have found improvement. Do you think stereo-scopic vision can effect ultra long distances like a star-scape etc? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But what I can say, I think, with out impinging on fora rules, is that ultimately all this discussion about observing vacant space leads to a potential solution for a bigger issue and that is a better understanding and therefore explanation, of what exactly Consciousness is. The How? is another thread and another day...
You say can't post your opinions due to the nature of this forum so why post in this forum? You say that it's not necessary to have something to replace existing theory and that it's enough to disprove existing theory. Fair enough, so disprove existing theory. You end by mentioning that you are just here to learn about whether certain aspects of this subject can be adequately explained and you've decided that it hasn't been adequately explained. The subject matter that you are interested in seems fairly limited in scope. The questions that you started this thread to ask seem to be of the type that would have been asked many times over the last 11 years. Isn't this a very slow way of approaching this issue?
So you can prove a theory wrong just by proposing the theory is wrong Funny that no-one has realised any problem existed until now Now I know about the problem I can no longer see the real world only a representation My brain cannot process the information coming from my eyes fast enough As a result of the two points above I am blind and brain frozen Thanks for that Can anyone press my reset button for me please? Don't worry about about the notice saying are you sure as you will loose all of your information Just Press and hold for 5 seconds Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, our vision can cram that entire area "within our vision range" and process it. Just not in great detail.
do you seriously think that it is that easy to prove a theory wrong? A few posts in a sciforum like this one and bingo a theory is proven wrong? is that what you think? Proving a logical error is easy, proving a theory wrong takes years, and more than one peer review...
We all WERE interested in the early post in the thread Then you fell off the thread As we tried to help you back you put up a mighty fight to keep off track A true master debater Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Perhaps its not so much a matter of consciousness, but of pure mathematical and chemical translations of input data by the organism. All extant life is specifically adapted to process the sensory input of its environment for its survival. That's part of evolution. There are many animals that have much greater sensory awareness of their environment than humans. A Bloodhound can smell and identify a few cells shed by the prey. It exceeds our ability in that sensory awareness by a 1000% Is a Bloodhound more conscious than we are? Yes, in that area of consciousness. A Lemur can count (identify quantity) as fast as humans. More or less conscious? Koko, the Gorilla named her pet Manx kitten "All Ball". That's a highly developed mirror function, enabling abstract thought. Getting close to humans in many respects of consciousness.
it is not about me... it's about the question.. Why do you think it is about me? ( "playing the ball instead of the man" would be more productive don't you think?)
It's extremely difficult almost impossible to prove a theory wrong It is a lot easier to improve on theories I guess improvements on theories can be considered as proving the theory BEFORE the improvement as being wrong All theories are, in any case, continuing works in progress OMG everything is wrong How did we fall into this rabbit hole Oh that's right I can no longer see the real world only a representation My brain cannot process the information coming from my eyes fast enough As a result of the two points above I am blind and brain frozen Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
post reported. "deliberately truncating a quote to misrepresent my position." do it again and I will report you again... ok? 18 pages and many if not all of your posts nonsense. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If it is as proposed by conventional theory that the light information has traveled from source and is actually in side our eyes then why do objects appear to be at a distance? SOME, not ALL, information is on the light wave Colour and brightness are two aspects carried by the light wave Distance is CALCULATED from the stereoscopic view Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This can't be about being productive. Asking the same question for 11 years isn't especially productive is it? If no one here can "get" what you are asking. Maybe it's too deep for us? Then why stay here for 11 years asking the same question? It has to be more about you than the question because there doesn't seem to be a real question that anyone can answer. This is post #352 after all and we are no further along than after post #2. Is it your contention that the brain "sees" everything as accurately as a camera? You already know that's not the case. Eye witnesses at any event report differing things. You also already know that with time our memories change. You know that some animals have eye sight better than ours. Some animals have greater hearing. We are not perfect in any sense of the word. You already know all this. Why have you come up with this thought that it takes too much time for our brain to "see" in the way that we do? No evidence supports your viewpoint? If you are here to learn about how the brain works you're not really at the right place are you? This isn't a library. It is for discussion but what exactly are we discussing? It would be much more interesting if we were actually discussing something rather than parsing our words don't you think? You don't also post under the user name of Jan Ardena do you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
lets spend a few pages nutting out your objections... What problem do you have with the OP's questions and preamble? Do you understand the questions asked and if not what is it you can't fathom? I'll quote the OP just for your ease... what is it you don't understand?
I don't understand why you would come to this thread for your future "research" as opposed to just going to more definitive sources? Light is either reflected or absorbed. We "see" in our brains and not "inside" our eyes. What "conventional theory" specifically have you read and are you referring to? "Why" questions are rarely questions "science" can answer. I already threw out evolution as the best answer to "why". It's more constructive to discuss what does happen and a good theory is one that can accurately predict rather than answer "why". You aren't really doing "research" as this isn't a place of "research". Are you asking us to do your "homework" for you rather than doing it yourself? I think someone posted relevant links early in this thread if that was all you were really after. I think you want the conversation to head in the direction of ...delta t=0 therefore distance = 0 and we are all connected telepathically speaking, no?
relevance? the delta t=o then d=0 is not relevant to this thread.. Why do you bring it up? Is it that famous?