Furyan5

If the fact we agree on is 'that we can't see light' (visually perceive photons), then yes.

The cones in the fovia send information in a digitized format. Neurological fact. It confirms the philosophical hypothesis. Image processing (and visual perception) occurs in the visual cortex. There's your proof. Proving indirect realism is the simple part. Getting people to comprehend indirect realism is the difficult part. It's not that our eyes see a shape, and our brain tells us its a tree. Our brain creates the shape you see. No perception at all occurs in the eyes. I'm not shouting. I'm highlighting the important bits. http://www.cycleback.com/eyephysiology.html

No it's not. There are people who's eyes can detect light but they see nothing. We see the vapour, not light. Yes. Everything you perceive visually is the construct. We only perceive the construct. As I have repeatedly said, it's crucial that you 'get this'. Many people 'say they get this' then turn around and say 'the eye sees' or 'the image formed in the eye'. Statements like these show that 'you don't get it'. THE EYE SEES NOTHING, IT ONLY DETECTS LIGHT! From any angle a photon is size-less. From any angle a photon is invisible. We DETECT photons which PHYSICALLY strike our retina. We FEEL them. This is a PART of the visual system, whereby we 'see' OBJECTS. Please read and absorb what I'm saying. I completely understand that someone you highly respect once told you that we can see light. Even Einstein was wrong about some things. As a scientist it's your duty to view evidence objectively, not cling to a belief despite obvious evidence to the contrary. My opening statement in my debate is that the belief that light is visible IS NOT a sign of stupidity. It's a sign of ignorance. Many great (in my opinon) minds, believe that visible light is visible. Are you familiar with the poem by Emily Dickinson, The brain is bigger than the sky, For put them side by side, The one, the other will contain, (The sky fits inside the brain) With ease and you beside. (The representation of reality includes a representation of you, in it.) Emily Dickinson understood indirect realism. The eye is nothing but an antenna. Detecting EM waves and converting them to electrical impulses. Two radar dishes, set to detect 700nm to 400nm wavelengths of light.

No image is formed on the retina. Each cone on the fovia is connected to a single ganglion which connects to an individual optic nerve. The information from the retina is digitized, not sent as a complete image. Image processing occurs only in the visual cortex. Your eyes see nothing. NOTHING! I see what you mean is a metaphor. We use it to say that we understand or comprehend. Metaphorically speaking, we can 'see the light', but that's not what this question is about. We're specifically asking, 'Can we visually perceive photons?'. And the answer is NO! WE CAN'T! The sky only exists as a virtual construct of the brain. We 'see' blue, because our eyes detect 400nm light coming from that direction. Obviously not.

No it's not. The object reflecting the light is visible. Light is detectable. Big difference. Some eyes detect light while the person sees nothing. Check mate Because? Photons are not visible? Yes, we know. Do you get it now? The fruit bowl you see is 'the image created inside your brain'. When you look up at the sky, you see, 'the representation created by your brain'. When you hold your hand up in front of your face, you see, 'the representation of your hand, created by your brain'. You never see the 'outside' world. You only ever see the 'representation'. You don't see direct reality, you see indirect reality. Subjectively.

It's not just me anymore. There are now 2 enlightened people who know light is invisible. Keep fooling yourself. In the end it's you who will look foolish. No, you seem to be muddling detecting 'done by the eyes' which is a part of "vision". The purpose of "vision" is to see objects, which occurs in brain. Perceiving is seeing. Detecting is a mechanical process which even non living things can do. Let me guess, she sees light? Lol

Exactly what I've been saying all along. Pity it isn't as obvious to everyone. You really don't get it, do you? You see cars, because your eyes detect light. The color of the car depends on the type of light your eyes detect. You can't see light, because light doesn't emit light. If something doesn't emit light, it can't be seen.

Correct, your eyes detect light, and your brain creates an image, OF THE SCREEN.

Wrong again. The SCREEN is visible. The SCREEN appears bright. The SCREEN is a virtual image created by your brain. Wake up and smell the hummus you're shovelling.

In this case I'm using "never visible" and referring to all types of electromagnetic radiation (light). True. It's obvious that thinking isn't your forte. You can only repeat dictionary definitions.

You should be fussy about it being logical. If we can't see electrons with the naked eye, how can we see light?

I must admit, I've never watched the show, so I wouldn't know. The book, however, is neither humorous, nor factually inaccurate. Pg 122 states that light is invisible. I realized this, before reading about it. It's actually pretty obvious to anyone who actually thinks about it, but most adopt a dogmatic approach. I'm curious though, what exactly does your preferred book have to say on the matter? Does it say we can see light? Or that our eyes detect light?

Not exactly. Like you, it's a bit thicker.

Do you know what a book is? Have no fear. I've been called a lot worse by people who's opinions actually matter. I quite enjoy a bit of intellectual bantering, provided I'm not faced with an unarmed opponent.

Comedy show? I said book. Can you read?

https://books.google.com/books/about/QI_The_Book_of_General_Ignorance_The_Not.html?id=uCgRY6llQpYC Actually I'm just having some fun. I love to see people swallow their own words when they realize they're wrong.

dimreepr, he's talking to you. Don't ignore him.

Lol, nice one. I must admit I wasn't impressed by your previous attempts, but you've outdone yourself.

In the land of the blind, a person who sees, is often seen as a lunatic and mocked by fools. They have nothing to teach, but much to learn.

To some people it's not that obvious "My good doctor"!

No. There are different interpretation of invisible, just as there are different interpretation of the word light. Light and heavy, light and dark and electromagnetic radiation "light". Invisible could mean "never visible" or "not currently visible". They need to be used in context.

Don't be sorry for asking a question. In this case it's actually very relevant. Usually our eyes detect light and send electrochemical impulses to our brains visual cortex. Here our brain creates a representation/simulation of the outside world, based on those impulses. The world you see is actually this internal representation. It even has a representation of you in it. Have you ever used 3D goggles while playing a game? If you hold your hand up in front of you, during the game, you see a virtual hand in front of you. The only difference between that virtual reality and our internal reality, is that we can't take our goggles off. Our whole life we only see this simulation. Now, when we dream, our brain is creating images, not from impulses from the eyes, but impulses from our imagination. It looks and sounds the same, because it occurs in the same part of the brain. Is seeing something of zero-size logical?

I repeat. I can't see my cat. Do I have an invisible cat?