Things That Are Not There

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by davidelkins, Sep 14, 2016.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,462
    Simply insisting something is so is not a valid stance.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,116

    What dave do you think seeing is then ?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,462
    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,116
    No he is not .
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,462
    Jeez, uh... Start at post #39.
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,462
    Simply insisting that something is not so is not a valid argument.
     
  10. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,116
    Disagree then .

    What we see is what the object reflects in the spectrum of light ; the rest the object absorbs .
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,462
    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.
     
  12. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,116
    Such as ?
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,462
    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.
     
  14. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,091
    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.
     
  15. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,116
    What has this got to do with SEEING . ?

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

    How so ? explain further

    Not sure your angle here .
     
  16. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,091
    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."
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,326
    To be exact the physical processes of producing light waves are called *emission* and *refraction* .

    "Seeing" has several definitions.
    1. Webster.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2016
  18. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,116
    Write4U

    Lets not be a sophist here .

    You know what Michael means .
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,326
    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.
     
  20. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,116
    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 .
     
  21. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,091

    Humpty Dumpty approach.

    I pick:-

    1. 1a
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,326
    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.
     
  23. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,116
    Ah the minds eye or the third eye .
     

Share This Page