Furyan5

All hail the mighty dictionary, which is never wrong. It's ok to doubt my beliefs. But to reject them without listening to them is foolish. Not listening to my arguments and still insisting I'm wrong is an interesting approach.

There are no consequences to remaining ignorant. Some of my best friends are ignorant.

Unfortunately, you've been misinformed. Now you can either cling to your current, flawed belief, or choose to know the truth. It makes no difference to me what you decide. What I do hate, is wasting my time. So choose. A: learn the truth about the nature of light, colors and reality, or B: cling to your current, flawed beliefs.

Except for your last sentence, you're right. We see the OBJECT that reflects the photons. Seeing objects provides us with an evolutionary advantage. Our eyes DETECT photons. And seeing something of zero-size is logical?

That's why it makes sense to me. A concept which does not contradict itself is logical. Claiming that something smaller than an electron and faster than a bullet is visible, is illogical.

Does logical have a different meaning?

No, it's someone who makes logical and relevant comments on a topic. I actually disagree on some points.

Finally, someone intelligent to chat to.

Seriously? Air is invisible. My dog in the other room is not invisible. The China coast is not invisible. You people are being ridiculous. Up your game please. Drop the juvenile antics.

When I'm on the beach in China, I can. When I'm not, I can't. There's a difference between something being invisible and something being not visible. Is this really of any relevance? Light is invisible. Always.

You buy that hogwash? Before "i" was born, I never contemplated my existence. That alone satisfies me that "i" , whatever "i" is, needs to exist. For a thought to exist, a thinker is required. I'm aware of a thought, ergo, a thinker exists.

Visible is that which can be seen. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Correct. We see cars, dogs and people because of the information contained in light. We don't see sounds. Your example is illogical. I'm saying we don't see air because it doesn't reflect much light. The reason the sky looks blue during the day is that air does in fact reflect a small amount of 400nm wavelength light which our brain interprets as the sensation blue.

Cars, dogs and people are visible. We can see them. Light is not visible. We can't see it. Detecting light is part of the visual process which allows us to see cars, dogs and people. I don't know how to simplify that any further.

Yeah, I understand. I just don't have any desire to stay here. Compared to other sites, the level of intellect is below par. Plus being unable to post links is a royal pain. Nothing personal, I know you're just doing your job. Do what you must. F5 out!

Lol I plan to. It's exhausting trying to explain concepts to people who are unwilling or unable to comprehend them. I'll be back in the morning.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Scientific definitions are not the same as nueroscientific definitions. Vision is a neurological process. Black is a visual sensation, the same as any other color. The absence of color is colorless. Black is the color we perceive in the absence of light.

Google "the brain" by David Eagleman. See for yourself if what I say is true.

The definition is wrong. Black is perceived. It's not a lack of perception. Like I said, it's a neuropsychological fact. Sadly, beyond your comprehension. I don't mean to insult you, I'm just stating the obvious.

You're not getting it. The screen you see, the protectionist, the red disk, etc, all exist in your head. They are all representations. You can't see objective reality. Only the subjective representation of it.

I said no such thing. What I said is that "visible light" is the light which makes objects visible. I never said it's the only way we can see something. Have you heard of a silhouette? We can perceive a shape through contrast with it's surroundings. Yes, I used emit instead of reflect. That was wrong.

The topic is whether light is visible. Vision is subjective. One can hardly answer a question regarding vision and not include subjective processes. Indirect realism. You do not perceive actual reality. You perceive a representation of reality, created by your brain. The world you see is a simulation, with a simulation of you in it, and your brain is the simulator. Colors exist in the simulation but not in actual reality. This is not a theory. It's a neuropsychological fact. Wrong. In the dark, it's black. Air and water have no color. Light has no color.

You clearly do not understand indirect realism. Get back to me once you do.