studiot Posted March 12, 2018 Posted March 12, 2018 8 hours ago, koti said: This thread is not about color perception. Strictly speaking that is true since the original question was Is light visible or invisible ? When this question is applied to anything whatsoever it means Is that thing capable of being seen or not capable of being seen? Now although these two qualities are mutually exclusive and complementary they also possess a fundamental difference. If something is capable of being seen it does not matter whether or not it is actually seen. That is it does not matter if there is something or someone there to perform the seeing activity. Nor does it matter if the physical agency by which the seeing activity is performed is present or not. All that matter is that if both those conditions are met then seeing could happen. So, for instance, to see an object that is in the dark all we need to do may be to switch on the light. But we may also need to satisfy further conditions. In those circumstances, what colour we see is irrelevant we either see or we don't. On the other hand if something has the quality that it is incapable of being seen then there is nothing we can do to the conditions or the object to see it. That is the definition of the word incapable (or invisible). Having said that, the OP is long gone and many have a clear desire to widen the discussion, something the mods permit in such circumstances. So the question then arises, can we put together a coherent and rational model compatible with all the expressed conflicting views? My answer is yes such a model is possible, although it might suprise some.
Furyan5 Posted March 12, 2018 Posted March 12, 2018 8 hours ago, Rob McEachern said: That is not true. Color is entirely constructed, within your brain, from measurements of intensities. In other words, it is constructed from counting the number of photons received in three different frequency bands (in normal humans). And these photon counts are modified (such as via white balance in a digital camera) to make the color of every perceived object, depend not just on the properties of the object in question, but on all the surrounding objects as well (in an attempt to account for the spectrum of the illuminators). This last point was the reason for my first post above ; if you prevent the visual system from "seeing" the surrounding scene, it may dramatically change the color the brain assigns to an object within the scene. You're almost there. You understand that colors only exist in the mind. Now you only have to realize that the 'perceived objects' are also constructs of the mind. The reality you perceive is not outside you. You see the construct. Your whole life you only perceive the construct. This is beyond the others, but I believe it's within your grasp, even if you disagree at first. 4 minutes ago, studiot said: Strictly speaking that is true since the original question was Is light visible or invisible ? When this question is applied to anything whatsoever it means Is that thing capable of being seen or not capable of being seen? Now although these two qualities are mutually exclusive and complementary they also possess a fundamental difference. If something is capable of being seen it does not matter whether or not it is actually seen. That is it does not matter if there is something or someone there to perform the seeing activity. Nor does it matter if the physical agency by which the seeing activity is performed is present or not. All that matter is that if both those conditions are met then seeing could happen. So, for instance, to see an object that is in the dark all we need to do may be to switch on the light. But we may also need to satisfy further conditions. In those circumstances, what colour we see is irrelevant we either see or we don't. On the other hand if something has the quality that it is incapable of being seen then there is nothing we can do to the conditions or the object to see it. That is the definition of the word incapable (or invisible). Having said that, the OP is long gone and many have a clear desire to widen the discussion, something the mods permit in such circumstances. So the question then arises, can we put together a coherent and rational model compatible with all the expressed conflicting views? My answer is yes such a model is possible, although it might suprise some. Perfect, so let's do that. What properties make things visible? 1: they must reflect or emit light. Does light do either? No! 2: they must be big enough to be seen. How big is a photon? No size. 3: they must be slow enough to be seen. How fast is light? It's the fastest thing in the universe. Any one of these is enough to make an object invisible. Yet some people adamantly cling to the belief that we can see light. Logical? I think not.
studiot Posted March 12, 2018 Posted March 12, 2018 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Furyan5 said: You understand that colors only exist in the mind. But that view is seriously inadequate as it only describes part of the situation. Hence the impasse. Edited March 12, 2018 by studiot
Furyan5 Posted March 12, 2018 Posted March 12, 2018 1 hour ago, studiot said: But that view is seriously inadequate as it only describes part of the situation. Hence the impasse. 'Cough' Did you miss the rest of it? Or are you ignoring it because the facts don't match up with your current beliefs? This is the power of preconception. You have no answer, so your mind blocks it out. I'll repeat it. Perfect, so let's do that. What properties make things visible? 1: they must reflect or emit light. Does light do either? No! 2: they must be big enough to be seen. How big is a photon? No size. 3: they must be slow enough to be seen. How fast is light? It's the fastest thing in the universe. Any one of these is enough to make an object invisible. Yet some people adamantly cling to the belief that we can see light.
koti Posted March 12, 2018 Posted March 12, 2018 1 hour ago, studiot said: Hence the impasse. Anyone who has basic knowledge of the relevant subjects at hand (physics, human physiology, color perception) has decided long ago that this disussion is null. Not being able to reconcile useless semantics with physics is not an impasse.
Furyan5 Posted March 12, 2018 Posted March 12, 2018 Just now, koti said: Anyone who has basic knowledge of the relevant subjects at hand (physics, human physiology, color perception) has decided long ago that this disussion is null. Not being able to reconcile useless semantics with physics is not an impasse. No. Ignoring cold hard facts in favour of conventional beliefs is an impasse. None so blind as those who do not want to see. What scares you? Being wrong? Even Einstein was wrong on occasion. The world won't end if you admit that detection is not sight. "Why Mr Anderson, why? Why do you persist with this delusion? The 'visible light spectrum' is the range of light 'by which humans see'. Not the range of light we see. It's called visible light because 'it makes objects visible'. Accept it. You we're wrong. We can't see light. -1
studiot Posted March 12, 2018 Posted March 12, 2018 27 minutes ago, Furyan5 said: 'Cough' Did you miss the rest of it? Or are you ignoring it because the facts don't match up with your current beliefs? This is the power of preconception. You have no answer, so your mind blocks it out. Do you always respond with a barrage of personally directed invective?
Furyan5 Posted March 12, 2018 Posted March 12, 2018 Just now, studiot said: Do you always respond with a barrage of personally directed invective? Do you always avoid answering questions? 2 hours ago, studiot said: Strictly speaking that is true since the original question was Is light visible or invisible ? When this question is applied to anything whatsoever it means Is that thing capable of being seen or not capable of being seen? Now although these two qualities are mutually exclusive and complementary they also possess a fundamental difference. If something is capable of being seen it does not matter whether or not it is actually seen. That is it does not matter if there is something or someone there to perform the seeing activity. Nor does it matter if the physical agency by which the seeing activity is performed is present or not. All that matter is that if both those conditions are met then seeing could happen. So, for instance, to see an object that is in the dark all we need to do may be to switch on the light. But we may also need to satisfy further conditions. In those circumstances, what colour we see is irrelevant we either see or we don't. On the other hand if something has the quality that it is incapable of being seen then there is nothing we can do to the conditions or the object to see it. That is the definition of the word incapable (or invisible). Having said that, the OP is long gone and many have a clear desire to widen the discussion, something the mods permit in such circumstances. So the question then arises, can we put together a coherent and rational model compatible with all the expressed conflicting views? My answer is yes such a model is possible, although it might suprise some. Studiot suggested this. I think it's a brilliant idea. I responded with this. ( Perfect, so let's do that. What properties make things visible? 1: they must reflect or emit light. Does light do either? No! 2: they must be big enough to be seen. How big is a photon? No size. 3: they must be slow enough to be seen. How fast is light? It's the fastest thing in the universe. Any one of these is enough to make an object invisible. Yet some people adamantly cling to the belief that we can see light.) Can someone respond please! If I'm wrong somehow, show me. If you can't, don't bother responding. This myth is busted! -1
koti Posted March 12, 2018 Posted March 12, 2018 9 minutes ago, Furyan5 said: No. Ignoring cold hard facts in favour of conventional beliefs is an impasse. None so blind as those who do not want to see. What scares you? Being wrong? Even Einstein was wrong on occasion. The world won't end if you admit that detection is not sight. I never claimed that detection is sight. This what you are doing here is a classic strawman argument - please stop doing that. What scares me is your asinine and infantile statements which lead to confusion like this one here: 29 minutes ago, Furyan5 said: What properties make things visible? 1: they must reflect or emit light. Does light do either? No! Light does not need to emit or reflect light in order for objects to emit or reflect light. Please read that as many times as you need untill it sinks in.
Furyan5 Posted March 12, 2018 Posted March 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, koti said: I never claimed that detection is sight. This what you are doing here is a classic strawman argument - please stop doing that. What scares me is your asinine and infantile statements which lead to confusion like this one here: Light does not need to emit or reflect light in order for objects to emit or reflect light. Please read that as many times as you need untill it sinks in. So how can light be visible? Please read that as many times as you need until it sinks in... -2
koti Posted March 12, 2018 Posted March 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, Furyan5 said: So how can light be visible? Please read that as many times as you need until it sinks in... Theres really no way of leading a coherent discussion with someone who yet again is incapable of using the quoting system on this site. Light is visible because it is required for the process of sight to take place.
Strange Posted March 12, 2018 Posted March 12, 2018 11 minutes ago, Furyan5 said: So how can light be visible? By falling on the retina. I can't believe that this discussion over the semantics of "visible", "seeing", etc has lasted for 17 pages. Bizarre. 1
Furyan5 Posted March 12, 2018 Posted March 12, 2018 9 minutes ago, koti said: Theres really no way of leading a coherent discussion with someone who yet again is incapable of using the quoting system on this site. Light is visible because it is required for the process of sight to take place. Required to make objects visible. We need light to see objects. It's the objects which are visible, not the light. Please read that... 4 minutes ago, Strange said: By falling on the retina. I can't believe that this discussion over the semantics of "visible", "seeing", etc has lasted for 17 pages. Bizarre. True. 17 pages and people still can't tell the difference between detection (when light falls on the retina) and seeing (when we perceive the minds model of an object). Detecting something that (falls on you) is called feeling, not seeing. I know some people are "slow", but this is bordering on ridiculous.
koti Posted March 12, 2018 Posted March 12, 2018 12 minutes ago, Furyan5 said: Required to make objects visible. We need light to see objects. It's the objects which are visible, not the light. Please read that... True. 17 pages and people still can't tell the difference between detection (when light falls on the retina) and seeing (when we perceive the minds model of an object). Detecting something that (falls on you) is called feeling, not seeing. I know some people are "slow", but this is bordering on ridiculous. It’s the light that is visible, not the objects. I know some people are slow but this is borderline ridiculous.
Strange Posted March 12, 2018 Posted March 12, 2018 12 minutes ago, Furyan5 said: True. 17 pages and people still can't tell the difference between detection (when light falls on the retina) and seeing (when we perceive the minds model of an object). Detecting something that (falls on you) is called feeling, not seeing. It is not that others can't see the difference you are specifying, they just don't agree that your definitions of words like "detect", "see" and "visible" etc are the only ones. Quote I know some people are "slow", but this is bordering on ridiculous. By insisting that your chosen definitions are the only correct ones, you are just as much the problem as anyone else (given your hostile attitude, probably more so). 2
studiot Posted March 12, 2018 Posted March 12, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Furyan5 said: Do you always avoid answering questions? Studiot suggested this. I think it's a brilliant idea. I responded with this. ( Perfect, so let's do that. What properties make things visible? 1: they must reflect or emit light. Does light do either? No! 2: they must be big enough to be seen. How big is a photon? No size. 3: they must be slow enough to be seen. How fast is light? It's the fastest thing in the universe. Any one of these is enough to make an object invisible. Yet some people adamantly cling to the belief that we can see light.) Can someone respond please! If I'm wrong somehow, show me. If you can't, don't bother responding. This myth is busted! So you show utter contempt for others and their views. I did indeed make the post you quoted whereby having explained my suggestion I asked just one question. Was that contemptuous spiel a response to my question, or are you avoiding it? Strange I agree, +1 Edited March 12, 2018 by studiot
Phi for All Posted March 12, 2018 Posted March 12, 2018 23 minutes ago, Furyan5 said: I know some people are "slow", but this is bordering on ridiculous. ! Moderator Note Irony meter overload, thread closed. Furyan5, you're extremely hidebound on certain definitions, and you're unwilling to look at the reasonable alternatives, which makes you a preacher. You've made your point, and if we see it being spammed elsewhere, you'll be booted for soapboxing. 4
Recommended Posts