I then ask you to observe a colour chart with a spectral range between about 400 nm and 800 nm that gives rises to visual perception by object interactions with the constant, a value different than the zero clear value of the constant.
The conference hall debate!
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
Except there is a flaw with this: Those Thermal Goggles (assuming you mean Infrared Goggles) can detect the lower-frequency Infrared spectrum that our eyes cannot, and then re-transmits the image (via a screen) to our eyes in the visible light spectrum. It isn't that the thermal goggles are allowing you to "see" infrared, but rather, it is merely translating the infrared into a spectrum we CAN see.
Think of it like having someone talk to you in a language you dont' understand (say, Latin) - you could, in theory, say that you are incapable of conversing with this person. Now, add in a translator that the two of you speak through, and you are able to converse.
So it IS dark to a blind man, or when I close my eyes.
This somewhat negates your claim that dark is a state - according to your definitions here "light" and "dark" are purely individual perceptions/ phenomena.
This is wrong since you just defined light as "increased neural activity in the brains sight mechanism", i.e. light is nothing whatsoever to do with "external conditions" (as it were) OR "devices" you've reduced it to something that happens internally.
Again, no. See previous comment.
I do not see a flaw, I see that regardless of the conversion by the goggles , the goggles show us that there is still light/Em radiation in the dark and the darkness is a flaw/impairment in sight rather than a state of the absence of light.
I see the dark as a low level of Em radiation undetectable by sight that is a sort of igniter/conduit for Em radiation, a sort of low voltage turned up .
See Kitamara post. The devices transmit light into your eyes to increase your neural mechanism of sight.
You can only observe the object on the device through the device.
Okay - then here's a question for you:
1) How do you normalize this idea with the fact that humans can, under the right conditions, see infrared:
http://io9.com/under-the-right-conditions-humans-can-see-infrared-1665448040
2) What do you do to normalize this outside of the human species? For example:
Several animals, including beetles, bed bugs, vampire bats, and pit vipers can detect the infrared spectrum:
Other animals, notably birds, can detect the ultraviolet spectrum.
It seems like your argument is based more around the human perception of "light" which is visible light by connotation. There is, of course, the potential for em radiation in the dark - however, there are situations where thermal (infrared) goggles will not help, especially if they have less than top-end sensors - for example, infrared security cameras typically add a set of infrared LED's around the camera to "shine" light upon their viewing area.
One could argue, though, that there is always some kind of radiation, be it from radioactive decay to cosmic background noise.
Oh, the one where he (correctly) pointed out a flaw in your argument?
Make your mind up.
Define "light".
First you said:
Light is Em radiation ,all that can be observed by the eyes or device.
and then you changed it to:
Light is an increased neural activity in the brains sight mechanism.
One or the other (at least) is wrong.
What?
One leads to the other, Light is a specific frequency of Em radiation that gives an increased neural activity in the brains sight mechanism to be perceived as being light.
Wrong again.
Your first one says "all that can be observed by the eyes or device".
Your basic problem here (apart from your unremitting stupidity) is that "light" and "dark" (regardless of which set of definitions you choose) are mutually exclusive.
If you can see it is, by definition, light.
If you can't see it is, also by definition, dark.
This shows, conclusively, that we do not see in the dark.
But air is not totally clear. The new high intensity green and blue lasers have visible beams even in dust-free air because of Rayleigh scattering off O₂ and N₂ molecules.
Picture 2 of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering : "The beam of a 5 mW green laser pointer is visible at night partly because of Rayleigh scattering on various particles and molecules present in air."
https://www.princeton.edu/cefrc/Files/2011 Lecture Notes/Alden/Lecture-7-Rayleigh.pdf
Well this thread has already gone of the topic, people bringing man made lasers and all sorts to the lecture.
One person answered the actual opening questions.
Ok, you are now all in the dark, can any of you see me on the stage any more?
Can any of you see through the dark, is the dark of now, not obscuring your vision?
I did not ask for the whys, a simple yes we agree at the opening stage of the talk would of done.
Again I have been thrown off track in showing some simple axioms.
One person answered the actual opening questions.
Ok, you are now all in the dark, can any of you see me on the stage any more?
Can any of you see through the dark, is the dark of now, not obscuring your vision?
I did not ask for the whys, a simple yes we agree at the opening stage of the talk would of done.
Again I have been thrown off track in showing some simple axioms.
According to devices light is not a specific but rather all Em radiation and by a specific of range this how we see.
I was rushed into turning the lights on , I am sure some of you became confused in the dark.
So far you would have to agree that when the lights were turned off , you could not see me on the stage without using any other means other than your eyes.
If so understood.
I was rushed into turning the lights on ,
So far you would have to agree that when the lights were turned off , you could not see me on the stage without using any other means other than your eyes.
Are we agreed that in the dark there is less neural activity in the brains sight mechanism, we observe a darkness in our own brains?
So far you would have to agree that when the lights were turned off , you could not see me on the stage without using any other means other than your eyes.
So you are agreeing that you can not see me on the stage in the dark and can not see through the dark, is the second no a disagreement to the dark being obscure to sight?
If so understood.
I was rushed into turning the lights on ,
So far you would have to agree that when the lights were turned off , you could not see me on the stage without using any other means other than your eyes.
Are we agreed that in the dark there is less neural activity in the brains sight mechanism, we observe a darkness in our own brains?
Oh stuff it, here is the result - When we can not see but our eyes are open it is not really dark, you can see through the dark because it is transparent because it is actually light and keeps your brain coupled to matter by the dark light that you can not see, that is why you can see the laser dot but not the beam.
Then when the light in the dark increases in energy, the Neural activity in your brain increases that allows you to see at a higher intensity.
The white light then in space is not white but clear, because the brain interprets it has clear an equilibrium to the brain to make the dark light see through.
Then when the light in the dark increases in energy, the Neural activity in your brain increases that allows you to see at a higher intensity.
The white light then in space is not white but clear, because the brain interprets it has clear an equilibrium to the brain to make the dark light see through.
You asked:
I said no. That means that I think the answer to your question is no.
You still have more to say don't you?
Otherwise, you could just be wasting peoples time with this thread.
Otherwise, you could just be wasting peoples time with this thread.
Gibberish.
Um, yes it is.
YOU have already stated that light "is a specific frequency of Em radiation that gives an increased neural activity in the brains sight mechanism to be perceived as being light".
If that SPECIFIC FREQUENCY is not there then it is dark.
If it IS there then it's NOT dark.
No.
Dark is not a thing.
Dark is not transparent.
We cannot see when it's dark.
Oh wait, when it's dark it's actually light?
You have previously been told that our brains do NOT get "coupled to matter".
Dark light?
Pure crap.
(You have ALSO been told why we don't see a beam, and that under certain conditions we CAN see the beam).
If there's light then it's not dark.
Drivel.
What do you mean by "see at a higher intensity"?
- Status