The light is in our eyes...

[Quantum Quack]

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.

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..

Thanks for your post....I am glad you have found improvement.

Do you think stereo-scopic vision can effect ultra long distances like a star-scape etc?

 

[Quantum Quack]

But what I can say, I think, with out impinging on fora rules, is that ultimately all this discussion about observing vacant space leads to a potential solution for a bigger issue and that is a better understanding and therefore explanation, of what exactly Consciousness is.

The How? is another thread and another day...

 

[Seattle]

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?


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....


my opinion stated in this fora would be inappropriate.


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...

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.

You say can't post your opinions due to the nature of this forum so why post in this forum?

You say that it's not necessary to have something to replace existing theory and that it's enough to disprove existing theory. Fair enough, so disprove existing theory.

You end by mentioning that you are just here to learn about whether certain aspects of this subject can be adequately explained and you've decided that it hasn't been adequately explained.

The subject matter that you are interested in seems fairly limited in scope. The questions that you started this thread to ask seem to be of the type that would have been asked many times over the last 11 years.

Isn't this a very slow way of approaching this issue?

 

[Michael 345]

Proving a theory wrong, as Einstein stated, only has to happen once.

So you can prove a theory wrong

just by proposing the theory is wrong

Until a problem is realized the theories will not evolve

Funny that no-one has realised any problem existed until now

Now I know about the problem

• I can no longer see the real world only a representation
• My brain cannot process the information coming from my eyes fast enough
• As a result of the two points above I am blind and brain frozen

Thanks for that

Can anyone press my reset button for me please?

Don't worry about about the notice saying are you sure as you will loose all of your information

Just Press and hold for 5 seconds

 

[Write4U]

Thanks for your post....I am glad you have found improvement.

Do you think stereo-scopic vision can effect ultra long distances like a star-scape etc?

Yes, our vision can cram that entire area "within our vision range" and process it. Just not in great detail.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So you can prove a theory wrong

do you seriously think that it is that easy to prove a theory wrong?

A few posts in a sciforum like this one and bingo a theory is proven wrong?
is that what you think?

Proving a logical error is easy, proving a theory wrong takes years, and more than one peer review...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yes, our vision can cram that entire area "within our vision range" and process it. Just not in great detail.

so you are happy with current thinking in this regard?

 

[Michael 345]

No one is really interested in what I think about the way the brain works

We all WERE interested in the early post in the thread

Then you fell off the thread

As we tried to help you back you put up a mighty fight to keep off track

A true master debater

 

[Write4U]

Perhaps its not so much a matter of consciousness, but of pure mathematical and chemical translations of input data by the organism. All extant life is specifically adapted to process the sensory input of its environment for its survival. That's part of evolution.

There are many animals that have much greater sensory awareness of their environment than humans.
A Bloodhound can smell and identify a few cells shed by the prey. It exceeds our ability in that sensory awareness by a 1000%
Is a Bloodhound more conscious than we are? Yes, in that area of consciousness.
A Lemur can count (identify quantity) as fast as humans. More or less conscious?
Koko, the Gorilla named her pet Manx kitten "All Ball". That's a highly developed mirror function, enabling abstract thought. Getting close to humans in many respects of consciousness.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You say can't post your opinions due to the nature of this forum so why post in this forum?

You say that it's not necessary to have something to replace existing theory and that it's enough to disprove existing theory. Fair enough, so disprove existing theory.

You end by mentioning that you are just here to learn about whether certain aspects of this subject can be adequately explained and you've decided that it hasn't been adequately explained.

The subject matter that you are interested in seems fairly limited in scope. The questions that you started this thread to ask seem to be of the type that would have been asked many times over the last 11 years.

Isn't this a very slow way of approaching this issue?

it is not about me... it's about the question..

Why do you think it is about me? ( "playing the ball instead of the man" would be more productive don't you think?)

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)

 

[Michael 345]

easy to prove a theory wrong

It's extremely difficult almost impossible to prove a theory wrong

It is a lot easier to improve on theories

I guess improvements on theories

can be considered as proving the theory

BEFORE the improvement

as being wrong

All theories are, in any case, continuing works in progress

OMG everything is wrong

How did we fall into this rabbit hole

Oh that's right

• I can no longer see the real world only a representation
• My brain cannot process the information coming from my eyes fast enough
• As a result of the two points above I am blind and brain frozen

 

[Quantum Quack]

It's extremely difficult almost impossible to prove a theory wrong

It is a lot easier to improve on theories

I guess improvements on theories

can be considered as proving the theory

BEFORE the improvement

as being wrong

All theories are, in any case, continuing works in progress

OMG everything is wrong

How did we fall into this rabbit hole

Oh that's right

• I can no longer see the real world only a representation
• My brain cannot process the information coming from my eyes fast enough
• As a result of the two points above I am blind and brain frozen

post reported.
"deliberately truncating a quote to misrepresent my position."

do it again and I will report you again... ok?
18 pages and many if not all of your posts nonsense.

 

[Michael 345]

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?

SOME, not ALL, information is on the light wave

Colour and brightness are two aspects carried by the light wave

Distance is CALCULATED from the stereoscopic view

 

[Seattle]

it is not about me... it's about the question..

Why do you think it is about me? ( "playing the ball instead of the man" would be more productive don't you think?)

This can't be about being productive. Asking the same question for 11 years isn't especially productive is it? If no one here can "get" what you are asking. Maybe it's too deep for us? Then why stay here for 11 years asking the same question?

It has to be more about you than the question because there doesn't seem to be a real question that anyone can answer. This is post #352 after all and we are no further along than after post #2.

Is it your contention that the brain "sees" everything as accurately as a camera?

You already know that's not the case. Eye witnesses at any event report differing things.

You also already know that with time our memories change. You know that some animals have eye sight better than ours. Some animals have greater hearing. We are not perfect in any sense of the word.

You already know all this. Why have you come up with this thought that it takes too much time for our brain to "see" in the way that we do? No evidence supports your viewpoint? If you are here to learn about how the brain works you're not really at the right place are you?

This isn't a library. It is for discussion but what exactly are we discussing?

It would be much more interesting if we were actually discussing something rather than parsing our words don't you think? You don't also post under the user name of Jan Ardena do you?

 

[Quantum Quack]

This can't be about being productive. Asking the same question for 11 years isn't especially productive is it? If no one here can "get" what you are asking. Maybe it's too deep for us? Then why stay here for 11 years asking the same question?

It has to be more about you than the question because there doesn't seem to be a real question that anyone can answer. This is post #352 after all and we are no further along than after post #2.

Is it your contention that the brain "sees" everything as accurately as a camera?

You already know that's not the case. Eye witnesses at any event report differing things.

You also already know that with time our memories change. You know that some animals have eye sight better than ours. Some animals have greater hearing. We are not perfect in any sense of the word.

You already know all this. Why have you come up with this thought that it takes too much time for our brain to "see" in the way that we do? No evidence supports your viewpoint? If you are here to learn about how the brain works you're not really at the right place are you?

This isn't a library. It is for discussion but what exactly are we discussing?

It would be much more interesting if we were actually discussing something rather than parsing our words don't you think? You don't also post under the user name of Jan Ardena do you?

lets spend a few pages nutting out your objections...
What problem do you have with the OP's questions and preamble?
Do you understand the questions asked and if not what is it you can't fathom?
I'll quote the OP just for your ease...

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)

what is it you don't understand?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

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.

So what do you think is happening rather than what you claim is nonsense?

<>

 

[Seattle]

lets spend a few pages nutting out your objections...
What problem do you have with the OP's questions and preamble?
Do you understand the questions asked and if not what is it you can't fathom?
I'll quote the OP just for your ease...


what is it you don't understand?

I don't understand why you would come to this thread for your future "research" as opposed to just going to more definitive sources?

Light is either reflected or absorbed. We "see" in our brains and not "inside" our eyes.

What "conventional theory" specifically have you read and are you referring to?

"Why" questions are rarely questions "science" can answer. I already threw out evolution as the best answer to "why". It's more constructive to discuss what does happen and a good theory is one that can accurately predict rather than answer "why".

You aren't really doing "research" as this isn't a place of "research". Are you asking us to do your "homework" for you rather than doing it yourself?

I think someone posted relevant links early in this thread if that was all you were really after.

I think you want the conversation to head in the direction of ...delta t=0 therefore distance = 0 and we are all connected telepathically speaking, no?

 

[Quantum Quack]

I think you want the conversation to head in the direction of ...delta t=0 therefore distance = 0 and we are all connected telepathically speaking, no?

relevance?
the delta t=o then d=0 is not relevant to this thread.. Why do you bring it up? Is it that famous?

 

[Quantum Quack]

So what do you think is happening rather than what you claim is nonsense?

<>

another thread another day

 

[Quantum Quack]

"Why" questions are rarely questions "science" can answer. I already threw out evolution as the best answer to "why". It's more constructive to discuss what does happen and a good theory is one that can accurately predict rather than answer "why"

fair enough replace "why" with how"... feel better?

If it is as proposed by conventional theory that the light information has traveled from source and is actually in side our eyes then how do objects appear to be at a distance?