The light is in our eyes...

Actually Dave you have helped clarify .

Science holds that the universe that we observe, is a metaphysical reconstruction or interpretation based on info delivered to the senses.
But has yet to provide empirical evidence to support such nonsense.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Actually Dave you have helped clarify .

Science holds that the universe is metaphysical reconstruction or interpretation based on info delivered to the senses.
But has yet to provide empirical evidence to support such nonsense.
Click to expand...
Observing is empirical evidence.

No really. That's what empirical evidence is. There's no theory or modeling involved.


But now you have entered into metaphysics.
This thread is bound for Free Thoughts, methinks.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Let the record show that the opponent is not discussing in good faith.
Click to expand...
attempting to force a banning won't work Dave and even if it did there are other more important issues in the world than your incapacity to discuss properly. And since when was I your opponent? ( in your head maybe)
 
Quantum Quack said:
See, you can't escape the logic loop that science forces you into.
Click to expand...
Let the record show that the opponent is pulling lines straight out of the Crackpot Index.

I'm not saying you're a crackpot; I'm saying if you don't want to be branded as a crackpot, don't quote from the Crackpot Index.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

I have been attempting to have a serious, considered conversation with you, as an opponent in a debate. Your hostility toward such a discussion is indicative of someone who would rather not have to actually answer thoughtful, pointed questions about their ideas.
 
Let's see...
You have stated that everything observed is a recreation via interpretation and is empirically valid.
Do you not realize the problem with that position?
 
And you haven't answered.
Why the hate?
Why do you feel I am your opponent Dave?
 
Last edited:
How is testing information before accepting it (the scientific method) less valid (in your opinion) than simply making something up (the other alternative)? The underlying premise seems to be you don't like the method behind science but I haven't heard you mention what you would replace it with.

What is your ultimate contention regarding sight and the way the brain functions? That nothing is being recreated (takes too long) and therefore it's not recreated? Then what? What we "see" in the brain is as accurate as a camera? OK. Then what?

What aspect of current research into how the brain works are you in disagreement with and what do you base that disagreement on? A dream? Data? What?

What is the grand 11 year point of interest that you would like to see discussed more? You seem to find distinctions without great import in every post someone makes. Why be so obtuse in revealing whatever is the real point you would like to make?

How do our brains work according to you and how does that difference make a meaningful change over current thinking?
 
Quantum Quack said:
If it is as proposed by conventional theory that the light information has traveled from source and is actually in side our eyes then why do objects appear to be at a distance?

The main purpose of this thread apart from general discussion is to discover what the terminology is used to describe the phenomena of a light source "appearing" at it's location when all we have is light info inside our eyes to deduce this from. (for the purposes of future research)
Click to expand...
haven't had time to read the entire thread, so let me attempt to grasp the OP question.

Are you asking how it is we know the distance a photon has travelled when it reaches our retina, which is actually inside our eye, yet we can experience it as a 3D image of an external object?
If I understand this correctly, I'd like to try and explore this phenomenon, which I have never considered from that perspective.

Some thoughts come to mind immediately;
a) We have two eyes which provides stereo vision, i.e. 2 perspectives of the same object.
b) The photon wave collapses as it strikes our retina, allowing us to experience the inherent energy of the
wave lengths, which our brain translates as color and motion (if any).
c) The brain's mirror neural system (MNS) mirrors the perceived image and calculates the angles of the 2
perspectives, which is then converted (triangulation?) into a 3D holographic representation in our mind.
Perhaps similar to the apparent 3D image in an actual 2D surface of a glass mirror.
d) Our brain is limited in processing all the information, but can form images by association with
previously observed objects. This is how we can fool the MNS with a host of optical illusions.

th


It's amazing really. I just had an eye operation and my depth perception has incredibly improved.
This is why IMO, the question is not so much about the properties of photons, but about stereo vision and the brain's ability to make instant complex mathematical calculations..
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
So Uhm... observing an interpretation is observing empirical evidence?
Come on man, you can do better than that.
Click to expand...

ob·serve
\əb-ˈzərv\
  • : to watch and sometimes also listen to (someone or something) carefully

in·ter·pre·ta·tion
\in-ˌtər-prə-ˈtā-shən, -pə-\
noun
  • : the act or result of explaining or interpreting something : the way something is explained or understood
Mirriam-Webster

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method

Google

observing an interpretation is observing empirical evidence?

In other words

I am observing something

which my brain makes an

interpretation of that something as being

empirical evidence

The observation is NOT made twice

:)
 
Seattle said:
How is testing information before accepting it (the scientific method) less valid (in your opinion) than simply making something up (the other alternative)? The underlying premise seems to be you don't like the method behind science but I haven't heard you mention what you would replace it with.
Click to expand...
Are you attempting to encourage me to start posting about alternatives to mainstream thinking, in the Physics and Math forum?
You know the fora rules probably better than I do...so why the encouragement?

What is your ultimate contention regarding sight and the way the brain functions? That nothing is being recreated (takes too long) and therefore it's not recreated? Then what? What we "see" in the brain is as accurate as a camera? OK. Then what?
Click to expand...
Does exposing a problem with current theory immediately require an alternative. Surely it is enough to suggest that a problem needs to be addressed and get that accepted first before theorizing alternative positions.

Proving a theory wrong, as Einstein stated, only has to happen once. As to what eventually replaces it is up to the future of scientific thought. Until a problem is realized the theories will not evolve....

What aspect of current research into how the brain works are you in disagreement with and what do you base that disagreement on? A dream? Data? What?
Click to expand...
my opinion stated in this fora would be inappropriate.

What is the grand 11 year point of interest that you would like to see discussed more? You seem to find distinctions without great import in every post someone makes. Why be so obtuse in revealing whatever is the real point you would like to make?
Click to expand...
Small but very important distinctions when discussing at this level. Showing, or demonstrating a major flaw in a theory is never easy.. you know that...
How do our brains work according to you and how does that difference make a meaningful change over current thinking?
Click to expand...
No one is really interested in what I think about the way the brain works, that is obvious by the content of most posts made. There is no value being placed upon my opinion.. so why would I bother.

I wanted to find out if science had an adequate explanation for the depth of field phenomena and the ability to observe vacant space. Having researched it and read members posts I can only conclude that science apparently doesn't.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top