The light is in our eyes...

danshawen said:
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.
Click to expand...
The main problem they are facing is the inability of devices to "see" vacant space. IMO only organic life forms can do that.. (hint) which links the ability to be conscious of vacant space and life, directly...
Which leads on to a significant leap in understanding of what "consciousness" is and the key difference between machine and living organisms. ( another thread another time)
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
yeah and you can see air yes? duh!
Click to expand...

YES you do in FACT see air

It is very thin and whispy and does not register as strongly as other objects within your field of view

It's transparent to a high degree but you do see it

Quantum Quack said:
Claim:
The sheer volume of processing and time/energy it would take renders this idea absurd
Click to expand...

Considering it works and

you have not provided any alternative unabsurd idea

as to why people see

I would consider that the processing power

as well as time and energy IS available

Stay tuned I have more posts later

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
YES you do in FACT see air

It is very thin and whispy and does not register as strongly as other objects within your field of view

It's transparent to a high degree but you do see it



Considering it works and

you have not provided any alternative unabsurd idea

as to why people see

I would consider that the processing power

as well as time and energy IS available

Stay tuned I have more posts later

:)
Click to expand...
what scientific study demonstrates this allegedly amazing feat of the human brain?
at least you agree though that the human brain has to "render" 2 dimensional info into 3 d. all the time we are conscious.

Now ...support that with the scientific method. Provide empirical data that demonstrates this processing and reconstruction after all big claims require big evidence... yes?
 
DaveC426913 said:
It is odd that you accuse someone of this. I am actually trying to address the topic, but you are blowing me off:


I'm asking a legit question.
Air is transparent, so the space is not actually vacant.
So, why do you assert we need to see vacant space? I don't know what that means.
Click to expand...
If you wish to play context games go for it... but at least accept that they are transparent... (chuckle)

Example:
The space between you and your computer monitor (in this context) is visually vacant...
The space between a space walking astronaut and a space station is visibly vacant....

We are discussing visual info are we not?
 
Quantum Quack said:
According to well understood theory, we do not actually see the source we only see the light that the source emits. ( on our retina)
Click to expand...
What do you mean theory? It's simply optical physics and photo-chemistry.
Quantum Quack said:
How are we able to say we are seeing the source?
Click to expand...
Who says this?

Quantum Quack said:
How do our light effect models allow for us to see the source (at location, "over there") even if historical ( ie. astronomy).
Click to expand...
It doesn't. Our vision is an image of the light impinging on it from distant sources.

Only under ideal circumstances can the image be an accurate rendition of what's out there. It can altered by almost anything interfering with the path of the light.
A simple mirror will give the illusion that there is a DaveC426913 standing 6 feet in front of me when there isn't.
 
Quantum Quack said:
If you wish to play context games go for it... but at least accept that they are transparent... (chuckle)

Example:
The space between you and your computer monitor (in this context) is visually vacant...
The space between a space walking astronaut and a space station is visibly vacant....

We are discussing visual info are we not?
Click to expand...
I'm not playing games. Vacant space is your term. OK, so you mean visually vacant. That's clarification.

So, why do we need to see that?

I'm guessing that you're wondering how we interpret what is, in actuality, a 2-dimensional image as if it were 3-dimensional. i.e. we "see" a car that is "20 feet away". Is that what you're getting at?
 
DaveC426913 said:
What do you mean theory? It's simply optical physics and photo-chemistry.

Who says this?


It doesn't. Our vision is an image of the light impinging on it from distant sources.

Only under ideal circumstances can the image be an accurate rendition of what's out there. It can altered by almost anything interfering with the path of the light.
A simple mirror will give the illusion that there is a DaveC426913 standing 6 feet in front of me when there isn't.
Click to expand...
how do you know it is 6 foot.... does the 2 dimensional info on your retina somehow tell you that?
 
DaveC426913 said:
No. That is an interpretation by our brain.
Click to expand...
ok so we agree that the brain has to somehow interpret the 2 dimensional info and somehow extrapolate it out "there" for us to gain the illusion that we see the source in 3 dimensions allowing for constant change ( time)
 
Quantum Quack said:
no, according to theory not fact....

well .... what word would you use instead...
Click to expand...
The theory is based on fact, data, whatever you want to call it. What you are suggesting has no factual data to support it. It's just science fiction. It's not physics or math.

If we are all wired up together tell me what I was looking at while I was just out in my backyard. Better yet, "render" it and post a copy in this thread. I'll wait as I know there is some time required for the rendering.
 
Seattle said:
The theory is based on fact, data, whatever you want to call it. What you are suggesting has no factual data to support it. It's just science fiction. It's not physics or math.

If we are all wired up together tell me what I was looking at while I was just out in my backyard. Better yet, "render" it and post a copy in this thread. I'll wait as I know there is some time required for the rendering.
Click to expand...
what a naive and childish post?

bait and switch etc ... blah blah blah.... I will ask the mods to move this to pseudo science or what ever if you wish because as far as I am concerned this thread has already achieved what I wanted it to achieve and leave you to your "dark ages" ( excuse the pun) belief system.

It is science that is saying that 8 billion unconnected individuals can share an enormous amount of uniformity in their "rendering" of 4 dimensional space not me... I am only attempting to work with the outcomes of such an amazing claim....and why it isn't supported using the scientific method.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top