The light is in our eyes...

karenmansker said:
NOT completely true . . . . . one can 'judge distances' by mental comparison of apparent observed size relative to known size. Things farther away are generally perceived as smaller.
Click to expand...
Yes. I thought someone would bring this up. I didn't feel like listing the various clues we have to judge distance.

Indeed, one can judge distance to known (or assumedly known) objects. But not so easy to do with unknown objects - such as UFOs - when the object's size is not known.
 
sweetpea said:
Because of the structural arrangement of the lens and receiving surface at the back of the eye, an inverted image forms. The brain corrects this to right way up. How does the brain know what is right way up...via experience over its millions of years of evolution dealing with its environment via its senses. The same goes for depth perception. You don't 'see' space, your brain knows how to interpret information, that is parallax.
Again, how does it know...experience over its millions of years of evolution. Seattle did mention evolution.
If your in a darken room with just a distant sphere light source, and the sphere is equally bright all over, you may have difficultly knowing it's not a flat disk also equally bright all over.
Edit to add...If you showed a baby a photo of parallel train lines meeting at a point in the distance, would the baby know that point is in the distance...brain experience of the eye.
Click to expand...

Just to add to the inverted image thing. You can construct a lens that inverts an image and put it over your eyes. Initially everything will be upside down and you will have a hard time walking around. Within a week or so the image will become right side up again.

If you wear the special lens for a month and then take them off, you will see everything upside down for another week or two.

[edit] Sorry Michael, I didn't see your post above on this subject. :)
 
Last edited:
↑by QQ
In the case of a star the actual star isn't even in the location we "see" it to be... some cases millions of years have passed since the light impacts upon our retinas and the star has moved from it's original position.
Click to expand...

Disagree .

Yeah well there is parallax and precession . Which understands the movement of stars. Over vast periods of time .
 
With regards to the use of a "camera" as comparison, I was confused because I know of lens-less cameras that have by far superior depth of field to cameras with lens.

Known since before 500BCE

Characteristics of pinhole camera photography
  • Pinhole photographs have nearly infinite depth of field, everything appears in focus.
  • As there's no lens distortion, wide angle images remain absolutely rectilinear.
  • Exposure times are usually long, resulting in motion blur around moving objects and the absence of objects that moved too fast.
Other special features can be built into pinhole cameras such as the ability to take double images by using multiple pinholes, or the ability to take pictures in cylindrical or spherical perspective by curving the film plane.

src wiki
The video I posted earlier was about moving images, where as the pin hole lens-less camera is about "still" images
So using a lens is not essential, in fact it can be detrimental to the naked or natural quality of the image.

I believe the image inversion process remains though.
 
Quantum Quack said:
With regards to the use of a "camera" as comparison, I was confused because I know of lens-less cameras that have by far superior depth of field to cameras with lens.

Known since before 500BCE

Characteristics of pinhole camera photography
  • Pinhole photographs have nearly infinite depth of field, everything appears in focus.
  • As there's no lens distortion, wide angle images remain absolutely rectilinear.
  • Exposure times are usually long, resulting in motion blur around moving objects and the absence of objects that moved too fast.
Other special features can be built into pinhole cameras such as the ability to take double images by using multiple pinholes, or the ability to take pictures in cylindrical or spherical perspective by curving the film plane.

src wiki
The video I posted earlier was about moving images, where as the pin hole lens-less camera is about "still" images
So using a lens is not essential, in fact it can be detrimental to the naked or natural quality of the image.

I believe the image inversion process remains though.
Click to expand...

Okay

Now go on .....
 
river said:
↑by QQ


Disagree .

Yeah well there is parallax and precession . Which understands the movement of stars. Over vast periods of time .
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that the light data of stars witnessed here on Earth, is real time and not historic?
 
sweetpea said:
Because of the structural arrangement of the lens and receiving surface at the back of the eye, an inverted image forms. The brain corrects this to right way up. How does the brain know what is right way up...via experience over its millions of years of evolution dealing with its environment via its senses. The same goes for depth perception. You don't 'see' space, your brain knows how to interpret information, that is parallax.
Again, how does it know...experience over its millions of years of evolution. Seattle did mention evolution.
If your in a darken room with just a distant sphere light source, and the sphere is equally bright all over, you may have difficultly knowing it's not a flat disk also equally bright all over.
Edit to add...If you showed a baby a photo of parallel train lines meeting at a point in the distance, would the baby know that point is in the distance...brain experience of the eye.
Click to expand...

Are you referring, in the main, to how we can "imagine" a 2 dimensional plane into 3 dimensions?
and to do so takes experience?.....( allowable self deception)
 
river said:
No

What I'm saying is the star moves in space , changes position in space , regardless of the light data .
Click to expand...
Do you believe the light data to be historic or real time?
Where is this visible light data experienced by the observer?
 
Are we all saying that visual depth of field ( distance) is purely a mental construct, a computation and a visual rendering/illusion constructed by our brains?
 
just to maintain the OP's quest

I'll post the example image's again.

eye01-jpg.1460


Claim:

This is all we see (experience) of the source:
eye02-jpg.1461


How do we observe the light source if all the data we have available, is in our eyes?
 
Quantum Quack said:
just to maintain the OP's quest

I'll post the example image's again.

eye01-jpg.1460


Claim:

This is all we see (experience) of the source:
eye02-jpg.1461


How do we observe the light source if all the data we have available is in our eyes?
Click to expand...

All the data is not only in our eyes but nowadays is augmented by tech .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top