John Cuthber Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 4 hours ago, Furyan5 said: 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. OK, so the cat is sometimes visible (if it happens to be where you can see it) otherwise it's invisible. And light is sometimes visible (if it happens to be where you can see it) otherwise it's invisible. So light is invisible in the same way that your cat is invisible. If you think light is invisible then you must also consider your cat to be invisible. Well, do you think you have an invisible cat? 3 hours ago, Furyan5 said: Actually I'm just having some fun. I love to see people swallow their own words when they realize they're wrong. Let us know if that happens. In the mean time you have said that this argument isn't about semantics, and yet it depends on your assistance that invisible doesn't mean not visible.
Furyan5 Posted January 27, 2018 Author Posted January 27, 2018 2 hours ago, John Cuthber said: OK, so the cat is sometimes visible (if it happens to be where you can see it) otherwise it's invisible. And light is sometimes visible (if it happens to be where you can see it) otherwise it's invisible. So light is invisible in the same way that your cat is invisible. If you think light is invisible then you must also consider your cat to be invisible. Well, do you think you have an invisible cat? Let us know if that happens. In the mean time you have said that this argument isn't about semantics, and yet it depends on your assistance that invisible doesn't mean not visible. In this case I'm using "never visible" and referring to all types of electromagnetic radiation (light). 4 hours ago, Strange said: So what? Why should we take this book as an authoritative source (especially when we know that the authors have been wrong in the past)? Is it deemed to be "factually accurate" because they agree with The Truth According to Furyan? Or do they actually provide some logical argument? I don't have a preferred book on the subject. Or any book on the subject. (I suppose I could use the crackpot claim that I prefer to "think for myself" but I think the irony would be lost.) True. It's obvious that thinking isn't your forte. You can only repeat dictionary definitions.
John Cuthber Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, Furyan5 said: In this case I'm using "never visible" and referring to all types of electromagnetic radiation (light). And yet I see the light from this screen. The light from it is certainly visible
Furyan5 Posted January 27, 2018 Author Posted January 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: And yet I see the light from this screen. The light from it is certainly visible 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.
John Cuthber Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 The SCREEN doesn't need to be in all caps. Also the screen is 3 feet way from me. I can't sense it directly. I can only sense what arrives at my eye. The thing that gets to my eye is light and sensing it is called seeing. So I see light from the screen. That light is, therefore, visible. Why are you trying to pretend that everyone else in the world is wrong?
Furyan5 Posted January 27, 2018 Author Posted January 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: The SCREEN doesn't need to be in all caps. Also the screen is 3 feet way from me. I can't sense it directly. I can only sense what arrives at my eye. The thing that gets to my eye is light and sensing it is called seeing. So I see light from the screen. That light is, therefore, visible. Why are you trying to pretend that everyone else in the world is wrong? Correct, your eyes detect light, and your brain creates an image, OF THE SCREEN.
beecee Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 9 hours ago, Furyan5 said: 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. It also makes no difference to me what you wrongly claim. What I'll do is cling to the empirical evidenced based science of light and photons. In the meantime once again, let me inform you that you do not get to rewrite science or your own definitions from the comfort of your chair in front of a computer screen. Your unsupported philosophically based claims here will in time be lost in cyber space and the scientific methodology will continue via the proper path.
studiot Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 26 minutes ago, Furyan5 said: Correct, your eyes detect light, and your brain creates an image, OF THE SCREEN. 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?
John Cuthber Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 2 hours ago, Furyan5 said: Correct, your eyes detect light, and your brain creates an image, OF THE SCREEN. Yes, I see light from the screen with my eyes and I form a model of the screen in my brain. The screen doesn't get to my eyes. Only light does that, and the eyes are the organs we see with. You seem to be muddling seeing (done by eyes) with perceiving (done by the brain). 1
studiot Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 Here is another example. Ask a musician what she sees when she is sat at a piano, playing the music on a piece of paper in front of her.
Furyan5 Posted January 27, 2018 Author Posted January 27, 2018 3 hours ago, beecee said: It also makes no difference to me what you wrongly claim. What I'll do is cling to the empirical evidenced based science of light and photons. In the meantime once again, let me inform you that you do not get to rewrite science or your own definitions from the comfort of your chair in front of a computer screen. Your unsupported philosophically based claims here will in time be lost in cyber space and the scientific methodology will continue via the proper path. 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. 1 hour ago, John Cuthber said: Yes, I see light from the screen with my eyes and I form a model of the screen in my brain. The screen doesn't get to my eyes. Only light does that, and the eyes are the organs we see with. You seem to be muddling seeing (done by eyes) with perceiving (done by the brain). 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. 1 hour ago, studiot said: Here is another example. Ask a musician what she sees when she is sat at a piano, playing the music on a piece of paper in front of her. Let me guess, she sees light? Lol 3 hours ago, studiot said: 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. Please get this through your thick skull... The bowl of fruit you look at, is the one in your head. Your eyes don't see anything. 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? -1
studiot Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 14 minutes ago, Furyan5 said: Please get this through your thick skull... I have now had enough of these insults, despite a properly curteous discussion between other members demonstrating that how this can be done. So I am reporting it.
Recommended Posts