The light is in our eyes...

So can we agree that mainstream scientific thought is that the visual universe is essentially a mental construction based on data entering our eyes. That the perception of "out there" is an illusion premised on that data and constructed subjectively from that data by our brain?
 
Quantum Quack said:
So can we agree that mainstream scientific thought is that the visual universe is essentially a mental construction based on data entering our eyes. That the perception of "out there" is an illusion premised on that data and constructed subjectively from that data by our brain?
Click to expand...

I don't know is that what mainstream science thinks ?
 
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...
That's how.
 
Quantum Quack said:
So can we agree that mainstream scientific thought is that the visual universe is essentially a mental construction based on data entering our eyes. That the perception of "out there" is an illusion premised on that data and constructed subjectively from that data by our brain?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't agree it is an illusion unless your (my) senses are in collusion with each other. Look at an object, and then go feel that object. Does what you see of the object conform to what you felt of it?
 
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...
It's not that a pinhole camera is better. It's that a pin hole is a small aperture, which results in great depth of field and the focal length is wide which also makes it easy to get infinite dept of field.

Use a standard camera with a wide angle lens and a small aperture and you will get essentially infinite dept of field as well.
 
Nacho said:
I wouldn't agree it is an illusion unless your (my) senses are in collusion with each other. Look at an object, and then go feel that object. Does what you see of the object conform to what you felt of it?
Click to expand...
I tend to agree but this is unimportant.What does mainstream conventional science have to say?
Based on what has been found to date science is pretty clear that our visual universe is incredibly subjective and that all 8 billion or so individuals have an inexplicable shared and consistent subjective world view.
 
Seattle said:
It's not that a pinhole camera is better. It's that a pin hole is a small aperture, which results in great depth of field and the focal length is wide which also makes it easy to get infinite dept of field.

Use a standard camera with a wide angle lens and a small aperture and you will get essentially infinite dept of field as well.
Click to expand...
but would agree that the lens is not entirely essential to the taking of still imagery? Yet is for any moving imagery ( as in animated)

Refraction through a lens is not needed to invert the image?
 
Quantum Quack said:
I tend to agree but this is unimportant.What does mainstream conventional science have to say?
Based on what has been found to date science is pretty clear that our visual universe is incredibly subjective and that all 8 billion or so individuals have an inexplicable shared and consistent subjective world view.
Click to expand...
Are you sure you're wanting answers? You tend to ignore them or gloss over them. Also, you say things like the above, but have not left any kind of links to back it up.
 
Quantum Quack said:
So can we agree that mainstream scientific thought is that the visual universe is essentially a mental construction based on data entering our eyes. That the perception of "out there" is an illusion premised on that data and constructed subjectively from that data by our brain?
Click to expand...
Why are we speaking of "mainstream scientific thought". Do you have an issue with this info?

Of course we don't see if we don't have eyes. The tree is still out there but without eyes you don't see it.

Are you just learning that we "see" via our eyes and brain?
 
Quantum Quack said:
but would agree that the lens is not entirely essential to the taking of still imagery? Yet is for any moving imagery ( as in animated)

Refraction through a lens is not needed to invert the image?
Click to expand...

Your "arguments" tend to wander all over the place don't they? A pinhole functions as a lens. This is a "point" without a distinction.
 
From what I have come to understand there is no clear explanation other than to come to the conclusion that:
There are no links that can be used to explain how it is that the visual universe appears to be out side our eyes.
Therefore accordingly:
One can conclude that the visual universe ( out there) is a subjective mental construct.
 
Seattle said:
A pinhole functions as a lens.
Click to expand...
true but there is no refraction involved...
You fail to see the need for precision in your assessments...

A lens offers refraction
A pin hole doesn't.

therefore the lens and focus issue is superfluous to the issue at hand.
 
Quantum Quack said:
From what I have come to understand there is no clear explanation other than to come to the conclusion that:
There are no links that can be used to explain how it is that the visual universe appears to be out side our eyes.
Therefore accordingly:
One can conclude that the visual universe ( out there) is a subjective mental construct.
Click to expand...

Hmmm....what of consistancy ? Of billions of people ?
 
Quantum Quack said:
From what I have come to understand there is no clear explanation other than to come to the conclusion that:
There are no links that can be used to explain how it is that the visual universe appears to be out side our eyes.
Therefore accordingly:
One can conclude that the visual universe ( out there) is a subjective mental construct.
Click to expand...
Sight is a mental construct. What else would it be? That has no bearing on the existence of what is out there however. The tree is there whether you see it or not.
 
Seattle said:
Sight is a mental construct. What else would it be? That has no bearing on the existence of what is out there however. The tree is there whether you see it or not.
Click to expand...
true but this is ancillary to the question. The reality or not of the actual tree is not in question.
Sight is a mental construct according to currently held light theory ...note emphasis on the word "theory".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top