studiot

No I'm sorry I didn't make myself properly clear. Nature confines an electron within an atom by creating the atomic proton/electron/neutron structure. IBM created an entirely different confine using electrical forces.

Let me dispute that claim. When I look at a bowl of fruit, the model created in my brain is indeed a picture of a bowl of fuit. But When I read a book the model in my brain is not of letters printed on a piece of paper. If that page of the book is about a bowl of fruit then the model is again a bowl of fruit. But if the book is about abstract mathematics, what do you think the model is about ie what sort of 'picture' do you think it creates?

Earlier today I responded to a thread about differential equations in homework. But it seems to have disappeared. Can anyone say what happened to it please?

A few years ago the IBM research centre reported what journalists called 'designer atoms'. What they had managed to achieve was a potential well 'corral' for electrons by ultramicro printing techniqueson a silicon chip. I seem to remember this was using a force-ion microscope. Sorry I can't remember a better citation

I'm sorry I don't know enough about the detail for the mechanism of colour blindness or people with mixed up senses to comment. Is seeing something of zero-size logical? I'm sorry I fail to the the connection to anything I have said. What has zero size and is it visible or invisible?

I said it was not a subfield. You have not yet established that it is or even offered anysupporting evidence, as I did for my counterclaim. One of many answers to that question is "the determination of the exact ratio of charge to mass for the electron" Why did you not give Science as well as Philosophy a capital letter? Do you have a down on Science? Why did you not also ask what areas of Philosophy are not addressed by Science? I might respond "The reason why I don't like mayonnaise on my chips but you perhaps do".

Up to about 400 years ago I would have agreed with that statement, but since that time there has been a divergence between the two. The point is for something to be some sort of subdivision of another implies that it is wholly contained within the other. But there are aspects of Philosophy not addressed by Science and There are aspects of Science not addressed in Pholosophy I seem to remember posting a Venn diagram to a similar question about Logic, Maths and Philosophy a while back. Can anyone remember this thread?

But you don't seem to be saying anything ? I'm sorry to hear of your water shortage in Cape Town, is that the reason for your lack of loquacity? But since someone likes my model, I will press on to address the actual OP about visibility v invisibility. My first post here, but now residing in the spin off thread, I indicated that the situation is more complicated that at first meets the eye (pun intended). This complexity extends to the question of visible v invisible and occurs, regardless of where we conside the seat of vision to lie. Consider this One of the standard tests for colour blindness consists of a series of pictures made from dots of two colours, with a field of dots of one colour containting an embedded symbol of dots in the other colour. In the series the colours approach each other until the symbol is 'invisible' to all humans. In the more contrasting earlier pictures the symbols are visible to some humnans but not others. Yet all humans receive all the light reflected off all the dots.

I'm listening ?

Great stuff MigL, straight to the point. At what stage can we call 'imaging', seeing ? There are other processes for creating an image, including ones that cannot be observed by visible light, such as electron microscopy and seismology. So we need separate terms for imaging and seeing. As to visible and invisible. I am happy to pair these with seeing and define invisible as that which can't bee seen and visible as that which can. But does seeing refer to creating the image or the abstracted model? A camera can create an image. And we use general English to talk of the camera 'seeing' and (in)visible to the camera or the naked eye.

I have provided my hard physics thoughts in the original thread for comment.

I agree we need a working definition of seeing and in order to have that we need a working model of the process, since seeing is a process, not an object. So I offer up such a model for discussion and improvement. Firstly let me observe what seeing is not, since it has been suggested that seeing is synonymous with detection. I suggest that detection is a much more general process with a variety of outcomes. Many (most) parts of the body can respond to light in some fashion. Thus they can be said to detect light. For instance the action of light on the body produces chemical change resulting in vitamin D production. Other action produces the melanin tan. Yet other action synchronises the bioclock or tells us to wake or sleep. For any of these actions and more, a particular form of light is required so the activity can be said to detect or distinguish that form of light from other forms. However each interaction is separate from and unconnected to any other interaction. So one particular UV photon that kicks off a secosteroid production is independent of another such event. But in the process of seeing our eyes not only form a real (in the optical sense) image of all the light enetering but also generate information signals coding the relationship (if there is one) between all the photons. Note a modern camera sensor mimics this in a crude way. So is the process of formation of this image 'seeing' ? Or is there yet more to it? Well the answer is 'there is more to it', since each of these images is a two dimensional representation of the same thing from a slightly different viewpoint, so can be processed to yield a three dimensional model of what is in front of the viewer. In animals, including humans, this processing is done by the brain. But what is this model of? Is it of an object, as has been suggested? Well no because the eye will still produce the image and the brain the model if there is no object there. For instance in a whiteout in snow or fog we will still receive light and 'see' something. Further, otical illusions of many sorts abound, where the system is tricked into producing a false model. Or artificial stimulation of part of the chain can also produce false models or block real ones. So is seeing the successful conclusion of the chain of sub processes which make up an overall process? I look forward to comments.

Yes I think every viewer (pun intended) of this thread agrees that. But many viewers have told you they use a different definition of 'see' from you. In my experience, theirs is overwhelmingly the most common one. That does not mean to say you are not correct about what goes on in the mind in the formation of a mental model of the image. But that is irrelevant, and until you are prepared to discuss that, no progress can be made.

One very important way to get others to take your thoughts seriously is to offer them the same courtesy. Endless repetition of contentious statements does not folllow that well advised path. Such as here. You do not need to simplify. You need to flesh out your argumentt with more deductive detail. And in this next example you simply need to read properly what the other poster has written. No we don't see sounds. But then dimreepr didn't suggest that we do. In fact I find his example completely logical as, I suspect, do many others so +1 to him. In fact IMHO your posts contain a mixture of generally validated statements and some outrageous ones. It is the deductive connections to the outrageous ones we are all querying.

Unfortunately explaining is the one thing you refused point blank to do, despite being asked to do so. Would you like a list of where you mocked instead?

David Eagleman (whoever he is) is not a respondent in this thread. You have already been warned about forum rules. You are a respondent, and I have already noted that the onus of supporting claims you makes lies squarely on your shoulders. You are simply making claims and alleging that they are true. You are not providing any form of scientific verification for them or making any attempt to show that they are self consistent. I have already shown several instances where they are not.

Another flatout contradiction. When it suits your case you speak as though your interpretation is fact. In fact you state it as a fact. (pun intended) This gives the 'head' you are talking about more credence than the cinema and everything else in the world around us. There is an old saying "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" Finally please lay off the personally directed statements such as "You're not getting it."

Like the fairies at the bottom of the garden? You have just trashed the entire scientific method. And that's the third time now you have been personally insulting about my reasoning powers.

Yes indeed we can perceive a shape through contrast and that is how we can 'see' a black dog on a white screen. But what if the dog was a real black dog running across the podium, in front of the screen? We would still see a black dog running across the screen. Anyway let us move on. Let us examine your claim that the image colour we see is independent of light and only a function of the processes within our heads. Let us do that in a proper scientific manner in accorance with the rules of evidence. So let us consider a blank cinema screen and a projectionist with light projector equipped with a range of coloured filters. Let us watch as the projectionisd projects a circle of light onto the screen. We observe a red disk, then a green one, then a blue one and so on. Your claim fails at this point because the only change that has been made is by the projectionist. We see a red disk and can identify this later with the red filter being in place and can do this repeatedly. We never see a blue disk with that red filter in place, and similarly with the blue and green filters. So there must be something about the light from the red filter that is different from the light from the blue filter, that cuases our internal imaging system to note a red or blue disk. By definition this light is defined as red light and the blue filter light as blue light and so on. That is scientific deduction in action as opposed to someone wildly asserting vague nonsense.

You claimed that the only way for us to see an image, regardless of where it resides or the mechanism of generating that image, is using light. Yet you then tell me that I can see a black dog, because there is no light. This is a flat out contradiction and no amount of hand waving and burying it in obscure language will alter that. You told me that a cinema screen emits light. That was flat out wrong.

No, so enlighten me. (pun intended) In particular, what does that have to do with a Physics question in a forum entitled Modern and Theoretical Physics?

Why subjectively? Science is objective. This is a Science website. Please discuss Science, not your personal misinterpretation of both the general English language and Scientific English. I have clearly demonstrated where you declared black to be a colour. I have also clearly demonstrated where you have contradicted this. If I can't comprehend your answers it is because they are lacking rigour and self contradictory. You are the one making the claims, so it falls to you to supply the evidence, deductive or otherwise.

So this earlier post was incorrect then? If colour is created why does it 'not exist'? You appear to have contradicted yourself, since you have already agreed that black is a colour.

I didn't ask where the colour exists. I asked what colour is the screen? Please don't dodge the question.