Sorry Dan, but unnecessarily complicated...
Simple question ( hard to answer ):
If the light data is inside our eyes only , how do we see the source of that data (out there, over there)?
Last edited:
The light is in our eyes...
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Simple question ( hard to answer ):
If the light data is inside our eyes only , how do we see the source of that data (out there, over there)?
Just a question QQ - did you take up the suggested action way back in #2 and actually study that Wiki article? Because me thinks if so, it's unlikely that same question would keep repeating page after page.
I skimmed it, admittedly.... what part do you think I should focus on? (I didn't see anything that would satisfy the question and still don't after skimming again...)
By the shape of the sourse of the data .
a mental extrapolation?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
dupe
Last edited:
No
Because the shape of the object is verified , from three dimensional experience .
A tree is a tree not from mental extrapolation but from the physical experience of the tree . In depth .
Hahaha - 'focus on' - I guess an unintended pun. Anyway, vision involves an integrated lens, receptors, 'wiring', and data processing system. All aspects have been covered this thread, but maybe read that article through beginning to end - skipping anything too boringly technical or deemed irrelevant. Painstakingly accumulated knowledge and wisdom is conveniently ours for the taking thanks to the internet. Up to us to avail of that.
So one aspect, distance, is a mental or imaginary construct?
Our entire outer visual world is an illusion created by our brain?
This was suggested years ago and is a foundation to the philosophical question of subjective vs objective reality.
That our visual observations of the universe are purely subjective. That visual truth is unavailable.
The problem with this argument is discovered when you consider that many billions of people and other life forms manage to independently construct a world view with surprising consistency.
Last edited:
fair enough... take that up with Einstein, Maxwell etc....
(I am not stating whether I agree or disagree. I am wishing to determine the conventional mainstream science position so that I CAN form an opinion.)
nah I knew it would come across as a pun, thought to add "no pun intended" but then thought it was too obvious and so dithered a bit and just let it go as being too contrived... ( chuckle)
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
Because electrons, other than individual forces acting on them whereever they may be, are identical on a quantum level. The electrons surrounding atoms that are part of rods and cone respond in identically the same way in your retina as the photons which originally produced them. If there are patches of dark in the background (no photons within the field of view, no image is produced on the retina), that may also be decoded in various ways in the retina itself or in the visual cortex, both of which have some local image processing ability.
Depth perception as well as visual integration with saccades provide the illusion of space to the retina.
Activity or movement against a dark background area is most likely to be processed by both as a possible iminent threat. Pitch dark, like being sealed inside a highly attenuated soundproof booth, is a sensation most people find unnerving. Some amount of comfort noise, as well as visual stimuli, are preferable to none.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I'm not sure if you're making this more complicated than it needs to be.
The light from some distant point enters the eye and encounters the retina. The retina acts as a 2-dimensional "screen" for the brain to determine where, in its field of view a light path originated from. Based on where it hits the retina, we interpret that to be a point out at a distance.
If a photon were able to enter the eye at an oblique angle - and not be subject to the lense's refracting, it could hit the retina in a spot that belies its true source.
This happens with cosmic rays. They can penetrate the eye without deflection. If it hits the retina in, say, the upper left corner of the brain's "screen", the brain will interpret a flash of light in the appropriate distance - regardless of the actual path/angle of the incoming photon.
Space has depth , Naturally then has distance .
How though ? All things being equal , how though , if the Brain were totally blank , no outer world input , of any kind , would the Brain grow ?
To your last statment , exactly
Now you are starting, IMO to get to the rub...maybe inadvertently and including out of context info.. but still...
A question for my notes:
Is it the ability to observe vacant space, space that emits no light that allows us the ability to see depth?
In other words is it what we don't see that allows us to comprehend/discern what we see? ( referred to in the arts as as white space)
With out depth of field ( made possible by observing non light emitting space) we would not be able to make sense of what we see...
No
In the Forest , Jungle , Plains , Deserts . You are surrounded by light emitting life and objects . Which creates depth of field .
Last edited:
You might want to read up on Fraunhofer diffraction. That is the basis by which we see things. We don't see by reflection (just look in a mirror -- you don't see the mirror, you see the object being reflected) -- well sort of -- it is the combined refraction of many sources of light hitting the object. They enter the eye and the lens forms a diffraction pattern on the retina. The image is not the actual object, but a fictitious one of the diffraction pattern formed. That is transmitted to the brain and the brain reconstructs the object.
The above is a synopsis of what I have read from Mark P Silverman's book, Waves & Grains, on pages 100-103. He is some big professor at a university.
The above is a synopsis of what I have read from Mark P Silverman's book, Waves & Grains, on pages 100-103. He is some big professor at a university.
Hmmm....I see both the mirror and the object .
You are probably seeing the FRAME of the mirror. The surface of the mirror -- the actual mirror -- is another matter. You do not see that, unless it is a crappy mirror with pits and the like in it. In that case, it works just like any other uneven surface.
No , I'm looking at the center of the mirror .