The light is in our eyes...

Seattle said:
I don't speak for "science" and it's kind of hard to respond to a statement that starts with "according to science" or "everything" or "illusion". What we see isn't as accurate as a photographic image yet it is based on light entering our eyes (as opposed to ears?).

As usual, you haven't said what your basis for your belief is other than it makes you happy and you haven't really detailed what your belief is or specifically what it is that you disagree with that is generally accepted.
Click to expand...
Provide an adequate solution to the OP question and the problem goes away...
What is it about the OP you don't understand?

I get the impression from your post that you think our visual ability is objectively real, as I do, so we have much in common...or do we?
 
Last edited:
Seattle said:
What we see isn't as accurate as a photographic image yet it is based on light entering our eyes (as opposed to ears?).
Click to expand...
according to who... if not science...
Why do you contradict yourself?
Seattle said:
I don't speak for "science"
Click to expand...
then post
Seattle said:
What we see isn't as accurate as a photographic image yet it is based on light entering our eyes (as opposed to ears?).
Click to expand...

is that your own opinion or is it based on science?
 
Quantum Quack said:
according to who... if not science...
Why do you contradict yourself?

then post


is that your own opinion or is it based on science?
Click to expand...

It's unnecessary. It's like repeating (as far as we know) after every statement. Or "that's the way it is based on current knowledge". What else would it be based on?

The moon is roughly 250,000 miles away. Is it necessary to say "based on mainstream science"? This conversation is as silly as someone claiming that the moon is only 2,000 miles away because it makes me happy that way or because it seems to me that is about right.
 
Seattle said:
It's unnecessary. It's like repeating (as far as we know) after every statement. Or "that's the way it is based on current knowledge". What else would it be based on?

The moon is roughly 250,000 miles away. Is it necessary to say "based on mainstream science"? This conversation is as silly as someone claiming that the moon is only 2,000 miles away because it makes me happy that way or because it seems to me that is about right.
Click to expand...
If I was to question the distance you quote, then I would be stating that "according to you" blah blah blah....
what is wrong with that and what is wrong with you?
I am questioning the science that supports the notion that all we observe visually is an illusion.
so of course I would state "according to science" ....blah blah blah...
 
OK lets see how your mirror neural system works.

main-qimg-fcf4792d00c34e1a21d59597a4d11fc4.webp


Who can solve this problem? The relevance will be become clear later.
Please post your answer in *white* so it is invisible.
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
If I was to question the distance you quote, then I would be stating that "according to you" blah blah blah....
what is wrong with that and what is wrong with you?
I am questioning the science that supports the notion that all we observe visually is an illusion.
so of course I would state "according to science" ....blah blah blah...
Click to expand...

What we process and translate into a visual experience is NOT an illusion, it is a mental
approximation of available data. There are limits to this ability.

And QQ, you should have qualified your OP question with a distinction between "optical illusion" and a "cognitive illusion". These are different functions of "perception" and "perspective".
 
No, the source of the image is a mathematical computer coding of values and functions..

And the mathematical answer to the question is a value (number). Did you solve it?

It isn't that hard to just press a number on your computer, then edit that number to white.
 
Seattle said:
It's unnecessary. It's like repeating (as far as we know) after every statement. Or "that's the way it is based on current knowledge". What else would it be based on?

The moon is roughly 250,000 miles away. Is it necessary to say "based on mainstream science"? This conversation is as silly as someone claiming that the moon is only 2,000 miles away because it makes me happy that way or because it seems to me that is about right.
Click to expand...
Quite.

This is one of the most idiotic threads I have seen in the hard science sections of the forum. Reminds me of Motor Daddy and the boat.:rolleyes:
 
The image is not displaying...
and can be proved as not displaying with the print screen image posted...#505

What can't you understand about that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top