yeah! embarrassing isn't it?
The light is in our eyes...
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
I seriously am not sure what your point is or even what you are talking about.
Photons from the outside world enters our eyes and hit our retinas that sends electro-chemical signal to our brains. Our brains process those signals to create a picture of our world. It is not just people that do this; Ardvarks to Zebras do the same thing.
It seems like you think that is not possible, or something?
Perhaps you could reread the OP as a way of finding out the answer to your question?
and if you still have a problem let me know...ok?
I think I have worked out the answer
However I am busy with another project at the moment
When I nut out the wording I will post my thoughts
Don't move the goal post while I am away
Reread the OP and I still have a problem. First of all your question was answered in the first reply and yet we are on page 11. Now you seem to have wandered a bit from that OP.
So I will ask again:
I seriously am not sure what your point is or even what you are talking about.
Photons from the outside world enters our eyes and hit our retinas that sends electro-chemical signal to our brains. Our brains process those signals to create a picture of our world. It is not just people that do this; Ardvarks to Zebras do the same thing.
It seems like you think that is not possible, or something?
Try post #115 or many other posts.. I am not going to explain it again.. I would only be pasting what i have already written.
But I will post a repeat suggestion
Why do you think this is bizarre? I suppose I do not particularly like your term reconstruct - I would use the term interpret. Seems straight forward to me and not the slightest bit bizarre or odd. Photons of a blue wavelength from the sky hit the bottom half of your retina, the photons from the green bushes to the left hit your retina on the right side and the photons from the brown ground hit the upper part of your retina. All these impulses go to your visual cortex and your brain interprets these impulses into a 'picture'.
I went back and read some of the earlier posts of members trying to help you understand sight and then I read your replies.
I see that this is hopeless.You have every right to believe that seeing is magic or whatever, but I am afraid you won't have a lot of luck convincing anyone.
It always amazes me what is permitted to kept in the science section. I guess since your confusion and pseudoscience elicit actual science based replies it is allowed to stay.
Whatever...
Last edited:
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
There have been TED talks on artificial retinas for dogs, and attempts to fabricate artificial ones even for folks who were blind from birth, with fair to middling success.
Vision, it turns out, is many orders of magnitude more complex than just sending the right signals from the retina down the optic nerve to the visual cortex.
Fine motor function has to be integrated into the visual schema or else you have little more than a very dumb input device with no application of whatever level of visual acuity it is capable of achieving.
If you were looking for some other discussion about the topic after 11 pages, or some of the excellent discussions appearing in Oliver Sach's books, you should probably consider starting another thread with an appropriate course correction and topic refinement.
Vision, it turns out, is many orders of magnitude more complex than just sending the right signals from the retina down the optic nerve to the visual cortex.
Fine motor function has to be integrated into the visual schema or else you have little more than a very dumb input device with no application of whatever level of visual acuity it is capable of achieving.
If you were looking for some other discussion about the topic after 11 pages, or some of the excellent discussions appearing in Oliver Sach's books, you should probably consider starting another thread with an appropriate course correction and topic refinement.
So YOU are asking US
to perform some stupid experiment
OK blindfolds off
Start the timer
Reconstruct what you see
I see a village in the distance
A road just at foot of this hill with a red car
I see you with your pen and notebook taking down everything I say
OK experiment over let's go for coffee
What! You dragged us all the way up here for that?
Bloody stupid Scientist
So since YOU claim the
claim that we somehow reconstruct our world view all the time
is bizarre you must have some alternative explanation
So what is YOUR explanation of sight?
Please don't tell me it's a version of Terry Pratchett's imp in the camera
I await with baited eyesight
Why do you think this is bizarre? I suppose I do not particularly like your term reconstruct - I would use the term interpret. Seems straight forward to me and not the slightest bit bizarre or odd. Photons of a blue wavelength from the sky hit the bottom half of your retina, the photons from the green bushes to the left hit your retina on the right side and the photons from the brown ground hit the upper part of your retina. All these impulses go to your visual cortex and your brain interprets these impulses into a 'picture'.
I went back and read some of the earlier posts of members trying to help you understand sight and then I read your replies.
You have every right to believe that seeing is magic or whatever, but I am afraid you won't have a lot of luck convincing anyone.
It always amazes me what is permitted to kept in the science section. I guess since your confusion and pseudoscience elicit actual science based replies it is allowed to stay.
Whatever...
The reason why the use of the words reconstruction or recreation is because of the presence of vacant space in our field of view that is not emitting light. As such the human brain is then called upon to reconstruct the scene by estimating space ( depth of field) This takes time and would produce a time lag with every movement witnessed.
There is nothing "magical" about how we actually see unless you subscribe to what is currently held by mainstream science. Which is that the brain has this magical capacity to perform such a huge amount of processing virtually instantaneously all the time we are conscious.
Contrary to your assessment I am actually attempting to remove the magical thinking that you are quite accepting of with regards to yourself.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
What is it about the rigors of the scientific method that you feel produces "magic" and what is it about your approach that you feel produces more valid results?
I don't think you deserve to know. So far no one has demonstrated a capacity to understand the question posed. Some of the responsibility for this is mine due to being unable to articulate in a way that avoids soliciting all these conditioned responses.
Until there is agreement that there is actually a problem that has to be addressed then it is pretty futile suggesting a solution would you agree?
So far no one has agreed that a problem exists....
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Concur.
I genuinely want to address the issues brought up here, but you are jumping from topic to topic too fast for any one of them to be properly addressed. So none of them do.
You seem to state some things as fact, when they appear to be merely a guess. They never get addressed before you launch into your next "yeahbut".
It has been a hundred posts or so since there has been any discussion about the actual topic of the OP. I have reported the thread in an attempt to bring some much-needed clarity. Don't know if they'll lock it, or break it up or leave it as-is.
I have little choice but to step back and await some clarity as to what, exactly, you are trying to ask.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
QQ has been trying to years to step back and achieve a little clarity. His therapy is this forum I believe.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Is it possible this is why he jumps from one argument to the next like lilypads in a pond? Because he knows, if he stops for a moment, he'll sink?
Science has effectively locked us all in a magical, purely subjective virtual reality construct, that somehow magically 8 billion or so people can all individually experience with amazing uniformity.
Yet science has not applied the scientific method to testing the veracity of this amazing outcome of the Photon or light effect model.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This seem to be an unfounded assertion.
I'd ask you to defend it.
funnily enough you are closer to the truth with this than what is currently held by science. IMO
I and persons who have posted to this thread already have ... go read...