Photons and light

[MigL]

5 minutes ago, John John said:

open your eyes and you just may find some meat

There is no meat, just electrical signals to the brain.

[John John]

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No the textbooks discuss actual physics which none of your posts actually do. Real physics requires the mathematics to make predictions of cause and effect. Interpretations involve how to interpret those formulas and research studies.

However one can arbitrarily ignore Any interpretation and stick to the hard complicated physics.

No interpretation I am aware of ever changes the results of any experiment.

There is no experiment needed in my post only your brain. Do you need to experiment what you see?

[Mordred]

What about MRI studies directly related to how your brain registers signals from your eyes ? 

Are you telling me that isn't an experiment directly involved ?

Edited August 18 by Mordred

[John John]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

There is no meat, just electrical signals to the brain.

You are just far too witty for me. I can't compete with such a brilliant mind like yours.

[Mordred]

Let me know when and if you wish to include any real science. You obviously choose to ignore any actual science based arguments.

[John John]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

What about MRI studies directly related to how your brain registers signals from your eyes ? 

Are you telling me that isn't an experiment directly involved ?

You are completely off the page. All experiments conform what I have stated.

It is the same brain that sees and operates the MRI that I am referring to.

You just went full circle. That means you are chasing your tail and not learning anything.

[Mordred]

Then why is everyone able to point out valid arguments against your conjecture which you promptly ignore?

Dark for example is nothing more than the absence of light. How your brain interprets light involves the receptors in your eyes which gets converted into electrochemical signals as per the neuron link included by KJW.

Plants undergo different processes as they do not visually see light. That does nothing to alter what light is.

It merely alters the stimuli responses.

It doesn't make one ounce of difference in the nature of light how something interacts with light does nothing to alter what light is itself.

Edited August 18 by Mordred

[MigL]

13 minutes ago, John John said:

You are just far too witty for me. I can't compete with such a brilliant mind like yours.

Thank you.

4 minutes ago, John John said:

you are chasing your tail and not learning anything

There is no tail; just electrical signals to the brain.

[John John]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

Thank you.

There is no tail; just electrical signals to the brain.

That's correct, only electrical signals are reaching the brain not photons. You surprised me, you have started to learn something.

So let us recap, The electrical signals are converted to what we see, and what we see are not photons.

[Mordred]

Whatever made you believe any science claimed photons reached the brain ?

Sounds to me you don't know what science actually describes 

Edited August 18 by Mordred

[John John]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Whatever made you believe any science claimed photons reached the brain ?

Sounds to me you don't know what science actually describes 

That's correct photons do not reach the brain. So my post is correct the light we see is not photons.

Thank you for validating my post in such an elegant way.

I have a feeling that some of you are beginning to understand light is not photons just a manifestation of the brain.

[Mordred]

The only person that seemed to believe science described photons reaching the brain is yourself.

No one else had that misconception. So you should congratulate yourself for finally recognizing that science never described photons reaching the brain to begin with.

You haven't taught anyone of any misconception except yourself if you believed science ever described photons reaching to brain.

Edited August 18 by Mordred

[John John]

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

The only person that seemed to believe science described photons reaching the brain is yourself.

No one else had that misconception. So you should congratulate yourself for finally recognizing that science never described photons reaching the brain to begin with.

I have at no time stated that science says photons reach the brain, so why do you state that to me, it sounds like you are trying to divert from my post and make me look like a fool.

[Mordred]

Your opening post describes something every one is aware of to begin with.      Everyone knows our senses do not define reality but only how we interpret stimuli.   If your goal is to develop a good strong argument why this is the case then it's good advise to include the science behind it as well. 

The later parts of equating that to sound in the woods however needs improvement.

One can simply state both sound and light are simply labels we apply to how we interpret stimuli. Obviously experimental apparatus allow us the ability not to rely strictly on our senses.

This is a science forum however so making corrections in regards to science should be expected. That includes encouraging the inclusion of science.

For example I could argue that particles do not exist and support that argument under QFT in doing so further argue that every method of describing reality is invariably an interpretation whether it's our senses, experimental apparatus etc.

That however boils down to how does one define reality.

Edited August 18 by Mordred

[John John]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Your opening post describes something every one is aware of to begin with.      Everyone knows our senses do not define reality but only how we interpret stimuli.   If your goal is to develop a good strong argument why this is the case then it's good advise to include the science behind it as well. 

The later parts of equating that to sound in the woods however needs improvement.

One can simply state both sound and light are simply labels we apply to how we interpret stimuli. Obviously experimental apparatus allow us the ability not to rely strictly on our senses.

This is a science forum however so making corrections in regards to science should be expected. That includes encouraging the inclusion of science.

For example I could argue that particles do not exist and support that argument under QFT in doing so further argue that every method of describing reality is invariably an interpretation whether it's our senses, experimental apparatus etc.

That however boils down to how does one define reality.

Well, you have now just stated that my post was correct to begin with.

So why was I corrected and told I was wrong?

My post pointed out that light is illumination and that is a product of the brain.

That means light is not photons. Thank you for validating my post as being correct.

 

When we turn the light on it is not to illuminate the room but illuminate our brain that is light.

What we call a light bulb is really a photon transmitter that our brain converts to light.

[Mordred]

 Could be I was hoping for something more profound or a stronger argument. However that's your choice of course. There's nothing new to  relying on how we interpret our senses.

 

Edited August 18 by Mordred

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, John John said:

Well, you have now just stated that my post was correct to begin with.

So why was I corrected and told I was wrong?

My post pointed out that light is illumination and that is a product of the brain.

That means light is not photons. Thank you for validating my post as being correct.

 

When we turn the light on it is not to illuminate the room but illuminate our brain that is light.

What we call a light bulb is really a photon transmitter that our brain converts to light.

Britannica disagrees:https://www.britannica.com/science/light

As I said earlier in the thread, the term light is not used only to denote a perceived sensation but also  to refer to the radiation itself.

[John John]

21 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Britannica disagrees:https://www.britannica.com/science/light

As I said earlier in the thread, the term light is not used only to denote a perceived sensation but also  to refer to the radiation itself.

But that doesn't mean I was wrong. My post is quite persific in relating to the brain and not other fundamental aspects of photons or radiation in any respect.

I was told over and over that I was wrong, To cover all the ground I would be making a post about some other aspect of radiation and particle physics.

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

 Could be I was hoping for something more profound or a stronger argument. However that's your choice of course. There's nothing new to  relying on how we interpret our senses.

 

Well, I think I have made a point that can help some people understand the difference between the real world and the perception we have of it.

You may have all the knowledge and understanding of all things but not everyone does.

If I remain in this forum you will find that I describe many things in simple fashon so simple people can relate.

[Sensei]

I don't see any added value in your OP. The photon is absorbed by the eye and converted into electrical impulses. I think that's obvious. The same is true for any other electrical device that responds to photons of any frequency, whether it is visible light, infrared light, ultraviolet light, radio wave.. The CPU then takes care of the rest and interprets it accordingly..

Edited August 18 by Sensei

[John John]

36 minutes ago, Sensei said:

I don't see any added value in your OP. The photon is absorbed by the eye and converted into electrical impulses. I think that's obvious. The same is true for any other electrical device that responds to photons of any frequency, whether it is visible light, infrared light, ultraviolet light, radio wave.. The CPU then takes care of the rest and interprets it accordingly..

You are overlooking my post, making up silly stories. My post explains how we live in a dark universe and all that we see is reproduced and eliminated by the brain.

Why do you and others bring no value to my point by rubbishing it with outside experiments and other fundamentals regarding radiation?

You are just throwing rubbish bon fragments into my good meat.

I have just made another post regarding the Moon, see if you can rip that apart.

58 minutes ago, Sensei said:

I don't see any added value in your OP. The photon is absorbed by the eye and converted into electrical impulses. I think that's obvious. The same is true for any other electrical device that responds to photons of any frequency, whether it is visible light, infrared light, ultraviolet light, radio wave.. The CPU then takes care of the rest and interprets it accordingly..

I hope my lack of value hasn't hurt your feelings Jesus.

[MigL]

Lets assume you are correct; we live in a dark universe where there are no photons but only electrical signals reaching the brain.
Whatdoes a camera 'see' when it takes a picture ???

[Sensei]

Absorption of photons by atoms and molecules increases internal energy. You don't have to see the light to feel it, i.e., the increased temperature.

 

MW, IR were detected centuries ago by the first scientists, who learned that the light split by the prism had an invisible (to the human eye) range that increased the temperature of the water.

Edited August 18 by Sensei

[John John]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

Lets assume you are correct; we live in a dark universe where there are no photons but only electrical signals reaching the brain.
Whatdoes a camera 'see' when it takes a picture ???

A camera sees nothing it produces photons from its screen and we see it from there.

If we assume I am correct there are photons I never said that photons don't exist.

You're not very smart Mr Clint.

2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Absorption of photons by atoms and molecules increases internal energy. You don't have to see the light to feel it, i.e., the increased temperature.

 

You need a brain to feel the photons hitting your skin just like you need a brain to see the light that photons stimulate in our eyes.

[MigL]

From this response ( and your immature attitude ) I assume you're 14 years old, and have never seen a film camera, where the light ( photons ) interact with chemicals on the film to produce an image.

Ahhh, youth.
Spouting all sorts of nonsense, and thinking you're always right.

[iNow]

Surely a sock puppet of a previously banned account anyway