Philosophy of Light Visibility (from Light: visible or invisible?)

[Furyan5]

11 minutes ago, studiot said:

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'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. 

[studiot]

1 minute ago, Furyan5 said:

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. 

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.

Edited January 26, 2018 by studiot

[Furyan5]

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

It is you that is wrong. Black by definition is the absence of colour. Water in general is transparent and light is visible by definition and we call that the visible spectrum. Put our Orange that we normally see as Orange, under a pure say green part of the visible spectrum, and the Orange wlil not be Orange but purple from memory. 

The definition is wrong. Black is perceived. It's not a lack of perception. 

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

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.

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. 

[studiot]

12 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

You're not getting it. The screen you see, the protectionist, the red disk, etc, all exist in your head.

6 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

 

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. 

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."

 

[Furyan5]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

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."

 

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

[beecee]

17 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

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. 

State whatever you like matey, but you really don't get to change definitions nor apply new physics on a science forum and in the mainstream section. Black is simply the absence of colour.

[Furyan5]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

State whatever you like matey, but you really don't get to change definitions nor apply new physics on a science forum and in the mainstream section. Black is simply the absence of colour.

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. 

[beecee]

Let's put that another way...Colour is simply the terminology describing various EMR frequencies within the visible part of the spectrum. Any object that absorbs all the frequencies within the visible spectrum, is seen as black...or with no colour, which can be termed the absence of colour.

 

 

[studiot]

8 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

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

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.

Edited January 26, 2018 by studiot

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

Take a Disprin and have a good lie down.

4 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

 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. 

Again, no. Black is not any colour...it is the absence of colour and yes it is colourless, or black....and it is what we see when the object concerned absorbs all fequencies within the visible part of the spectrum. 

Edited January 26, 2018 by beecee

[Furyan5]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

David Eagleman (whoever he is) is not a respondent in this thread. You have already been warned about forum rules

You are, and I have already noted that the onus of supporting claims you makes like 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.

 

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Take a Disprin and have a good lie down.

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. 

[studiot]

1 minute ago, Furyan5 said:

It's exhausting trying to explain concepts to people who are unwilling or unable to comprehend them.

 

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?

[Phi for All]

35 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

Sadly, beyond your comprehension. 

I don't mean to insult you, I'm just stating the obvious. 

!

Moderator Note

If you can't be civil, you can't stay here. Do you understand? It's our #1 rule.

 

[Furyan5]

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

If you can't be civil, you can't stay here. Do you understand? It's our #1 rule.

 

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!

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Furyan5 said:

CCD arrays can't see anything as far as I'm aware. Unless you have invented a sentient array. 

Depends on what you mean by "see"

2 hours ago, Furyan5 said:

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

What does this have to do with whether photons are visible or invisible?

[John Cuthber]

9 hours ago, Furyan5 said:

You're using circular reasoning. Claiming light is visible, because it's called visible light. Light is most definitely not visible. This doesn't match people's understanding, so obviously they will have a problem. The point is, can they back up their beliefs?

The statement is credible, I've shown the proof. 

Wrong on both counts.

"Visible" is called "visible", because that's what light is.
You have offered no proof of anything.

A five year old might be impressed by the argument like this; we are not.

The coast of China is invisible.

I can't see it, and nor can you- so it's invisible.

 

[Strange]

19 hours 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. 

OK. I just wanted to confirm your "reality exists" statement is a matter of faith, rather than fact. Thanks.

Quote

The 1% to 99% is just the possible range. 

So you have no rational basis for that. it could be 0% to 100%.

Quote

The 4% is the portion of the universe which consists of visible matter. 

We can perceive more than the 4%. Otherwise we wouldn't know it was 4%, would we.

 

[Furyan5]

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Wrong on both counts.

"Visible" is called "visible", because that's what light is.
You have offered no proof of anything.

A five year old might be impressed by the argument like this; we are not.

That's because a 5 year old isn't bogged down by preconceptions. I'm not arguing the interpretation of "visible". I'm arguing that the term "visible light" is a misnomer. 

The coast of China is invisible.

I can't see it, and nor can you- so it's invisible.

 

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.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Furyan5
Explained in detail

[dimreepr]

27 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

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.

We see them because of the information contained in the light, what you're saying is akin to saying sounds are not audible because we can't see the air move. 

[Furyan5]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

OK. I just wanted to confirm your "reality exists" statement is a matter of faith, rather than fact. Thanks.

I concur

So you have no rational basis for that. it could be 0% to 100%.

It can't be 0%. I know for certain that I exist, because if I did not, I couldn't question my existence.

We can perceive more than the 4%. Otherwise we wouldn't know it was 4%, would we.

I'm referring specifically to the visible universe. We're aware of the invisible portion, but can't see it. 

 

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We see them because of the information contained in the light, what you're saying is akin to saying sounds are not audible because we can't see the air move. 

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. 

[Strange]

38 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

I know for certain that I exist, because if I did not, I couldn't question my existence.

Gosh. Cogito ergo sum? That argument was torn to shreds a long time ago. (And don't forget that it was really about producing a proof of god.)

39 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

I'm referring specifically to the visible universe. We're aware of the invisible portion, but can't see it. 

If the 4% refers to the "non-dark" sector then we can't see much of that, either. And if you include the universe beyond the observable, then there may be an infinite amount of visible matter that we can't see. And we are aware of the "invisible" parts (I assume this means dark matter and dark energy) because we can see their effects. 

You really need to tighten up your definitions of "see" and "visible". So it does come down to semantics after all.

[studiot]

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.

2 hours ago, Furyan5 said:

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.

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.

1 hour ago, Furyan5 said:

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. 

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.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

what you're saying is akin to saying sounds are not audible because we can't see the air move. 

 

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.

Edited January 26, 2018 by studiot

[Furyan5]

58 minutes ago, Strange said:

Gosh. Cogito ergo sum? That argument was torn to shreds a long time ago. (And don't forget that it was really about producing a proof of god.)

I'm not using the argument to prove God exists. I'm using it to prove to myself that I exist. Nothing more, nothing less. The logic is undeniable. For me to question my existence, I must exist. Therefore I know more than 0%.

If the 4% refers to the "non-dark" sector then we can't see much of that, either. And if you include the universe beyond the observable, then there may be an infinite amount of visible matter that we can't see. And we are aware of the "invisible" parts (I assume this means dark matter and dark energy) because we can see their effects. 

You really need to tighten up your definitions of "see" and "visible". So it does come down to semantics after all.

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

[studiot]

42 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

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

 

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.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Furyan5 said:

I'm not using the argument to prove God exists. I'm using it to prove to myself that I exist. Nothing more, nothing less. The logic is undeniable. For me to question my existence, I must exist. Therefore I know more than 0%.

I didn't say you were using it to prove god exists (that was Descartes' purpose). However, the logic is seriously flawed and cannot be used to prove you exist. (The Wikipedia page has a reasonable summary of some of the main problems with Descartes' argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#Critique)

1 hour ago, Furyan5 said:

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

Then I guess you haven't thought about it very much.