swansont Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Furyan5 said: Vision occurs in the visual cortex. Not in the eye. It's a neuropsychological fact. And irrelevant to the discussion. Quote The eyes see nothing. Depends on what you mean by "see", hence my comment about semantics. Quote They merely detect light and convert them into electrochemical impulses. Detecting light is what one might mean by "seeing". See above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furyan5 Posted January 25, 2018 Author Share Posted January 25, 2018 22 minutes ago, Strange said: I haven't come across the term "indirect realism" before. Is the difference between this and idealism (which says that the mental construct is all that exists) that in indirect realism, you acknowledge the external reality exists and, to some extent, matches our mental model? It sounds similar to what I have heard described as "naive realism" (the view that what we see, even though it is entirely a construct of the brain, maps pretty closely on to the external reality). So, to take your analogy a step further, idealism would say that the dots on the radar are all that exists. The thing they represent may not exist or could just be a simulation. Almost. Your last sentence is divided into solipsism (does not exist) and the simulation hypothesis (could just be a simulation). But yes, what you call naive realism is actually indirect realism, as put forward by Emmanuel Kant in 1781. This theory has since been confirmed by neuropsychological evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 6 minutes ago, Furyan5 said: Almost. Your last sentence is divided into solipsism (does not exist) and the simulation hypothesis (could just be a simulation). In your view, then, is idealism agnostic on the nature of reality? In other words, it just says we can't know anything about it, beyond our mental models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furyan5 Posted January 25, 2018 Author Share Posted January 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, swansont said: And irrelevant to the discussion. Depends on what you mean by "see", hence my comment about semantics. Detecting light is what one might mean by "seeing". See above. I detect light, I see a dog. Seems pretty simple to me. Look, I understand that for some people its difficult to alter a belief, even when faced with overwhelming evidence. For years you've been taught that visible light is visible and red light is red. What you need to understand is that physics adopts a reductionist approach. They want to keep the subjective human experience seperate from physics as it can be accurately quantified. Obviously we can't go around talking about "the light which makes objects visible subjectively", so they simplify it to "visible light". Red light should be called "The light which results in the subjective sensation of red". As you can imaging, using the full description would clog up documents with irrelevant clutter. Irrelevant to physics but not irrelevant to vision. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 1 minute ago, Furyan5 said: I detect light, I see a dog. Seems pretty simple to me. Look, I understand that for some people its difficult to alter a belief, even when faced with overwhelming evidence. For years you've been taught that visible light is visible and red light is red. What you need to understand is that physics adopts a reductionist approach. They want to keep the subjective human experience seperate from physics as it can be accurately quantified. Obviously we can't go around talking about "the light which makes objects visible subjectively", so they simplify it to "visible light". Red light should be called "The light which results in the subjective sensation of red". As you can imaging, using the full description would clog up documents with irrelevant clutter. Irrelevant to physics but not irrelevant to vision. "Irrelevant" refers to the specific topic under discussion. You seem to want to expand this to a broader discussion, which is fine as long as you open up a new thread to do so. Not here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furyan5 Posted January 25, 2018 Author Share Posted January 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, Strange said: In your view, then, is idealism agnostic on the nature of reality? In other words, it just says we can't know anything about it, beyond our mental models. Oh no. We can draw many conclusions based on our subjective observations. Each day we see the sun rise and set, yet we can conceive the earth rotating on its axis. Imagine you're watching a beautiful sunset and it suddenly strikes you that the light from the sun takes 8 minutes to reach you. The sun is not where you see it. The actual sun, set 8 minutes ago. Objective reality is conceived while indirect reality is perceived. 3 minutes ago, swansont said: "Irrelevant" refers to the specific topic under discussion. You seem to want to expand this to a broader discussion, which is fine as long as you open up a new thread to do so. Not here. The topic is "Light, visible or invisible?" Can you really expect to exclude vision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 11 minutes ago, Furyan5 said: Oh no. We can draw many conclusions based on our subjective observations. Each day we see the sun rise and set, yet we can conceive the earth rotating on its axis. But surely, what we know about the Earth and its rotation on its axis is purely a mental model based on the vision (and sound and touch) experiences that our brains create? We have no way of knowing what the relationship of this brain-created models is to the outside world. Your jet pilots don't know if the dots on the screen are other aeroplanes, birds, alien space craft or just a malfunction of the hardware. Your statements about the nature of vision seem to imply that the only conclusion we can draw is that our mental models appear to represent the Sun rising and setting due to the rotation of the Earth. We have no objective way of confirming that. Anything we do to test it results in experiences created by the brain. We don't even know that there is a thing called light that our eyes detect. That is just what our brains tell us is happening. 14 minutes ago, Furyan5 said: Objective reality is conceived Does that mean it is something we invent? Based on what our brains tell us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furyan5 Posted January 25, 2018 Author Share Posted January 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, Strange said: But surely, what we know about the Earth and its rotation on its axis is purely a mental model based on the vision (and sound and touch) experiences that our brains create? We have no way of knowing what the relationship of this brain-created models is to the outside world. Your jet pilots don't know if the dots on the screen are other aeroplanes, birds, alien space craft or just a malfunction of the hardware. Your statements about the nature of vision seem to imply that the only conclusion we can draw is that our mental models appear to represent the Sun rising and setting due to the rotation of the Earth. We have no objective way of confirming that. Anything we do to test it results in experiences created by the brain. We don't even know that there is a thing called light that our eyes detect. That is just what our brains tell us is happening. Does that mean it is something we invent? Based on what our brains tell us? No. Reality exists. But we each perceive our own version of it, depending on our knowledge and comprehension. How close our version of reality is to actual reality is anybody's guess. We subjectively perceive only 4% of reality. But we don't know how much we don't know. Our picture could be 99% complete or 1% complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 20 minutes ago, Furyan5 said: Reality exists. How do you know that? What evidence would you use to convince me of that? (Bear in mind that solipsism, which your brought up before, cannot be falsified, by definition.) 21 minutes ago, Furyan5 said: We subjectively perceive only 4% of reality. Where does that 4% come from? And how is it consistent with your 1% to 99% range? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furyan5 Posted January 25, 2018 Author Share Posted January 25, 2018 12 minutes ago, Strange said: How do you know that? What evidence would you use to convince me of that? (Bear in mind that solipsism, which your brought up before, cannot be falsified, by definition.) Where does that 4% come from? And how is it consistent with your 1% to 99% range? You're right, solipsism can't be falsified. Neither can the simulation hypothesis. All "facts" based on perceptions are based on the assumption that an objective reality exists. The 4% is the portion of the universe which consists of visible matter. The 1% to 99% is just the possible range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 6 minutes ago, Furyan5 said: You're right, solipsism can't be falsified. Neither can the simulation hypothesis. All "facts" based on perceptions are based on the assumption that an objective reality exists. The 4% is the portion of the universe which consists of visible matter. The 1% to 99% is just the possible range. What is it you're trying to argue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furyan5 Posted January 25, 2018 Author Share Posted January 25, 2018 14 minutes ago, dimreepr said: What is it you're trying to argue? Strange is asking for proof that objective reality exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 45 minutes ago, Furyan5 said: Strange is asking for proof that objective reality exists. Is he though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furyan5 Posted January 25, 2018 Author Share Posted January 25, 2018 22 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Is he though? That's how I interpreted it. How do you interpret it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 1 minute ago, Furyan5 said: That's how I interpreted it. How do you interpret it? Sorry, I was too subtle, should have added it's a fine line between sarcasm and a fly-by... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furyan5 Posted January 25, 2018 Author Share Posted January 25, 2018 6 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Sorry, I was too subtle, should have added it's a fine line between sarcasm and a fly-by... It's cool. It's difficult to read your facial expression on a black and white screen. So what do you think of my argument for light being invisible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 Just now, Furyan5 said: So what do you think of my argument for light being invisible? They're all semantic arguments; the simple fact is, a photon enters the eye and transmits its information, that makes it visible, by (any) definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furyan5 Posted January 25, 2018 Author Share Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, dimreepr said: They're all semantic arguments; the simple fact is, a photon enters the eye and transmits its information, that makes it visible, by (any) definition. Not everyone agrees. That's why "The book of general ignorance" page 122, states that light is actually invisible. Read my full debate. Maybe you'll "see the light", metaphorically speaking of course. advertising url removed by moderator Edited January 25, 2018 by Phi for All Discussions need to take place here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 33 minutes ago, Furyan5 said: Read my full debate. ! Moderator Note Our rules state that you can support your statements with outside links, but you can't advertise your own stuff offsite. And members need to be able to participate without leaving the site as well. You're more than welcome to use parts of your "debate" in this discussion, but please don't advertise by linking to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 5 hours ago, Furyan5 said: Can you really expect to exclude vision? The details of how vision works does not matter to the discussion. We could be discussing light hitting a CCD array for all that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furyan5 Posted January 25, 2018 Author Share Posted January 25, 2018 2 hours ago, swansont said: The details of how vision works does not matter to the discussion. We could be discussing light hitting a CCD array for all that matters. CCD arrays can't see anything as far as I'm aware. Unless you have invented a sentient array. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 8 hours ago, Furyan5 said: I detect light, I see a dog. Seems pretty simple to me. Look, I understand that for some people its difficult to alter a belief, even when faced with overwhelming evidence. For years you've been taught that visible light is visible and red light is red. What you need to understand is that physics adopts a reductionist approach. It is actually you who wishes to make this a reductionist argument. Nature is far more complex than you make out. Quote I detect light, I see a dog. Seems pretty simple to me. OK, now let me ask you The dog is black and I am watching it on cinema screen. What light (from the dog) are my eyes actually interacting with? IOW How do you project black onto a screen? Further examples of complexity. In my time I have used side scan sonar and electron microscopy. Neither use photons, yet both allow me to view images of objects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furyan5 Posted January 25, 2018 Author Share Posted January 25, 2018 4 hours ago, Phi for All said: ! Moderator Note Our rules state that you can support your statements with outside links, but you can't advertise your own stuff offsite. And members need to be able to participate without leaving the site as well. You're more than welcome to use parts of your "debate" in this discussion, but please don't advertise by linking to it. Many people believe light (electromagnetic radiation) is visible. This includes physicists, neurologists, philosophers and even some theoretical physicist. Some of the smartest people on the planet. So if you believe you can see light, you're in good company. Understanding why you can't, is a matter of ignorance, not stupidity. That's why, "The book of general ignorance" pg122, includes the following statements. Incredibly, light is invisible. If light was in fact visible, we would be blinded by a thick fog. The book gives no reason or explanation why. This is because the explanation would require a book of it's own. The book would cover physics, neurology and philosophical arguments. Work done by numerous people over the course of centuries. Such a book does not exist, but if it did, this is the condensed version. I will be using words which some of you are not familiar with. I will put the definition in brackets. Some definitions won't make sense until you're finished, so please re-read the entire answer till it makes sense. The main reason people believe we see light is because of confusion as to the correct interpretation of words. See, has various meanings, and so does light. People often use the term, "I see what you mean.". This see is not literally seeing, but figuratively speaking. The meaning, to understand an idea. In this sense, one could "see the light.". Likewise, "I see the future.", could be construed as either having a psychic ability to foresee the future, or a visionary, able to predict future events. Then we have the conventional use of the word see, as used in, "I see a ball! ". The latter is the "see" I refer to in my argument. Light too has various definitions. We have "light and heavy", "light and dark" and light (electromagnetic radiation). The latter is nouminal (exists in the physical world) in nature, while the other two are phenomenal (exists as sensations in our brain) in nature. The distinction between phenomenal light and nouminal light will become apparent during the course of my answer. My argument specifically refers to nouminal light. Now that you are aware of the definitions of see and light which I'm referring to, let me begin. Vision has always been a contentious issue amongst the scientific community, since time immemorial. Do we perceive actual reality or representational (images created by our brain) reality. In 1781, Emmanuel Kant put forward the idea that there are two realities. An invisible, objective (existing independently of our perceptions) reality and a subjective (dependant on our perceptions), observable reality. This was the beginning of the philosophy referred to as indirect reality. Indirect reality implies that we do not see actual reality, but our brains representation of reality. The poem by Emily Dickenson only makes sense if you truly understand subjective reality. The brain is bigger than the sky For, put them side by side The one, the other will contain With ease, and you beside. What she's trying to say, is that the sky you see above you, is a image created by your brain. You don't see reality outside your head. You see a simulation and your brain is the simulator. This is no longer a philosophy. It's now fact. Confirmed by neuropsychological science. The information from the eye is sent to the brains visual cortex in a digital (piece by piece) format, not as a complete image. As some of you may know, light entering the eye, strikes a cone on the opposite side of the retina, from which the light originates. So light from our left, strikes a cone on the right. Light from above, strikes a cone on the bottom of our retina. This results in an upside down, left to right inverted image on our retina. For many years, people believed this image is what we perceived. That the brain somehow flips the image so we see the world, right side up. Then neurologists made an interesting discovery. Each cone has it's own, individual nerve leading to the visual cortex. Not only that, but a cone on the bottom of the retina is linked to a spot on the top of our visual cortex. A cone on the right of the retina is linked to a spot on the left of the visual cortex. The image isn't flipped by the brain. There is no image in the eye. The image is actually created in the visual cortex, right side up, through a mechanical process. The reality we see is not outside our heads, seen by the eyes. It's a creation of our subconscious which our conscious mind perceives. I like using the fighter jet analogy. Imagine, a squadron of fighter jets, flying in thick fog. The pilots can't see each other directly. Neither can they speak to each other directly. They need instruments to do so. Their radar tells them where they are in relation to one another. The information is displayed as dots on a screen. A dot, "represents" another plane. They communicate over radios. It's not the other pilots actual voice but a representation of the other pilots voice. It's important to note here, that the radar detects signals, but only the pilot perceives the dots. Equipment can't perceive anything. Perception is a function of consciousness. Our brain is enclosed within our skull. It has no access to the outside world except through our 5 senses. These 5 senses are our equipment as we navigate objective reality "the fog". The only difference is, we can't look out the window. We only ever see the radar screen. Luckily our screen is the best on the planet. Better than any television on the planet. The image is so realistic, we think it's real. But it has flaws. Imagine, if you will, that you're watching a beautiful sunset and it strikes you that light from the sun takes 8 minutes to reach your eyes. This means you're not seeing the actual sunset. The actual sun, set 8 minutes ago. Your beautiful sunset isn't real. There are further delays due to the speed of processing visual perceptions in the brain. What it boils down to is that our representation of reality is delayed. And the further away an object is, the more delayed the image. We see stars which might have gone super nova, millions of years ago. We see things which do not exist. So how real is our reality? To borrow a line from one of my favourite movies, "What is real? If real is what you can see, what you can touch, smell, taste and feel, then real is the interpretation of electrochemical impulses, inside our brain.". To me, reality can not be perceived. It can only be comprehended. So how does this visual process actually work? How do I see a ball? Scientists will say that we can't see the ball. We never physically make contact with the ball. All our senses rely on physical contact of some nature. Our ears detect vibrations in the air, our tongue and nostrils detect different chemicals and our eyes detect photons. We can't detect photons which don't physically strike our eyes. So we don't see the ball, we see the light. Right? Wrong! When our visual cortex creates visual representations, it creates visual representations of objects, not visual representation of light. Light coming from a ball, causes us to see, a ball. We may not see the actual nouminal ball, but neither do we see nouminal light. We see the phenomenal, representation of the ball. Even when you see a beam of light shining through the clouds, you're not seeing light. It's the dust and other particles in the atmosphere which have become visible. When you shine a torch in someone's eyes, they are seeing the element in the globe, glowing brightly. This is the sensation of brightness. It's phenomenal. Brightness is our brains interpretation of the amount of electromagnetic radiation our eyes are detecting. What you see is light "as in light and dark" and not actual light "electromagnetic radiation". We can not see nouminal phenomena. I'm running out of space, so I'll rest here and allow you to comprehend everything I've said so far. F5 Report this Argument Pro My argument is that light is in fact the only thing we see. The mechanisms of vision are only useful because light bounces off an objective. In the same way a bat uses sonar. The bat doesn't hear stationary objects but rather the sound echoing off of a stationary object. You mentioned the sun and how it takes the lights eight minutes to reach us meaning that we are seeing an image from eight minutes in the past because we are seeing the light not the sun. The same goes for objects millions of miles away. Now I'm not going to pretend you don't have a good grasp on the processes involved or that I didn't learn anything, I didn't know for example that the bottom cone connects to the uppermost part of the visual cortex, and I'm grateful but to say that the process of human vision, no matter how it works or why, isn't a process of interpreting visible light, and only visible light I remind you, as a process of detecting the invisible that is disingenuous. Now if you're arguing the brain in a jar "how do we know anything exists at all" hypothesis I'd be happy to, but visible isn't visible like hard isn't hard is a farcical statemen and I really hoped to cover something more substantial than the need to correct the dictionary which seems to be your real goal here. One last thing, for someone who doesn't trust definitions you certainly use a lot of them in your arguments. Report this Argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 In case you missed my post whilst you were concocting all that, I look forward to your replies to my post, sandwiched between two of yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elias_marquez_zoho Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 Light can be a wave or a particle, depending on the experiment you make. Wise thinkers have been debating this since Ancient times. Democritus, Aristotle, Newton, Maxwell, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts