Visual reality: a new insight. [Archive]

lifegazer

26th January 2004, 11:41 AM

The materialists amongst you argue that photons enter the eye and that the eye sends info to the brain about these photons. The brain then transforms this data into abstract experience upon awareness, thus representing external reality.

Here's the question: How does the eye and/or brain know what distance any specific photon has traversed through space?
You can argue that a photon has a frequency and wavelength, but neither will tell you the length that photon has travelled. There may even be a large ensemble of such photons, from a single object. Yet what info is inherent within any of them that will inform the eye or brain the distance they have traversed? Given that all photons traverse space at the same speed, the answer appears to be that there is no info.

Let's conduct a thought experiment to get my point across: Imagine that you are blind. Now imagine that everyone around you has a water-pistol and is shooting water at you. Your skin might be able to tell you from what direction the water has come, but if we imagine that all incoming water has the same velocity (thus mirroring the same impact of the photons), then it appears impossible for the skin and/or brain to know what distance that water has traversed.
Hence, it would be impossible for the brain to create a 4-dimensional abstract representation of its external reality.

... Similarly, the same case applies for incoming photons. There is no way an incoming photon can impart the distance it has traversed to the eye/brain.
I suggest that this is evidence to prove that abstract awareness is not dependent upon an external reality.

Andonyx

26th January 2004, 11:51 AM

What You're correct, there is no direct information imparted by a photon as to what distance it has traveled.

So?

What does that have to do with anything? This impacts our sense of sight in no way whatsoever.

lifegazer

26th January 2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Andonyx
What You're correct, there is no direct information imparted by a photon as to what distance it has traveled.

So?

What does that have to do with anything? This impacts our sense of sight in no way whatsoever.
It's like I said: There's a host of incoming photons going into the eyes (presumably). None of these photons are telling the eye/brain how far they have come.
So please explain to this forum how the brain constructs a 4-dimensional abstract of reality, with the awareness of the distance traversed by those photons built into that construct.

RussDill

26th January 2004, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
The materialists amongst you argue that photons enter the eye and that the eye sends info to the brain about these photons. The brain then transforms this data into abstract experience upon awareness, thus representing external reality.

Yes, its true, you wouldn't believe the other levels of depravity we sink to.

Here's the question: How does the eye and/or brain know what distance any specific photon has traversed through space?

answer, it doesn't nor does it care.

You can argue that a photon has a frequency and wavelength, but neither will tell you the length that photon has travelled. There may even be a large ensemble of such photons, from a single object. Yet what info is inherent within any of them that will inform the eye or brain the distance they have traversed? Given that all photons traverse space at the same speed, the answer appears to be that there is no info.

That is right, there is no way to know what distance a photon has traveled. Even if you know its source and destination, it could have collided with a particle (or virtual particle) half way through and re-emmited.

Let's conduct a thought experiment to get my point across: Imagine that you are blind. Now imagine that everyone around you has a water-pistol and is shooting water at you. Your skin might be able to tell you from what direction the water has come, but if we imagine that all incoming water has the same velocity (thus mirroring the same impact of the photons), then it appears impossible for the skin and/or brain to know what distance that water has traversed.

Such is the case.

Hence, it would be impossible for the brain to create a 4-dimensional abstract representation of its external reality.

... Similarly, the same case applies for incoming photons. There is no way an incoming photon can impart the distance it has traversed to the eye/brain.

whoa whoa whoa...back up a bit. You are assuming here that depth perception has *anything* to do with individual photons, which it doesn't. Determining how far away something is is based off a number of visual cues, all of which can be fooled.

First and formost, is stereoscopic vision. Most mammilian preditors have two eyes in the front of their face to facilitate stereoscopic vision. With stereoscopic vision, you can determine how far away something is. Simply aim both eyes at the object, and when the two images line up, you can take the angle the eyes are at, and the distance the eyes are apart, and calculate the distance. You can also calculate the distance of things that don't line up based on how far off they are from lining up. You don't have to pull out the trig book though, as a baby, your brain learned how to do all this stuff on its own.

Next would be related to stereoscopic vision, and that would be how far something moves in relation to other things when we move. This method is better when there are a great number of objects, when the objects are far away, or when you only have one eye.

After that, would be blur. If something is blurry while you are staring at things far away, it is probably up close, and vice versa.

Next would be atmospheric effects. Because our sky isn't excactly clear (more so on some days or another). You can determine by examining hue, tint, etc, how far away something is. This one really fools people when looking at pictures of the moon, because a mountain can be hundreds of miles away, and yet, because there is no atmospheric effect, we assume it is much closer.

Also, there is relative size. If we except something to be a particular size, we can use that size to determine how far away something is based on how small it apears.

Don't forget the simple effect of things being further away being partially obscured by things that are closer.

Also, we may go off other sensory cues, such as sound.

I'm sure I'm missing a few, but this should get you started.

I suggest that this is evidence to prove that abstract awareness is not dependent upon an external reality.

Umm..right, really, as far as attempting to show things that have very simple explainations, are unexplained and require your philosophy, you have gone off the deep end.

RussDill

26th January 2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

It's like I said: There's a host of incoming photons going into the eyes (presumably). None of these photons are telling the eye/brain how far they have come.
So please explain to this forum how the brain constructs a 4-dimensional abstract of reality, with the awareness of the distance traversed by those photons built into that construct.

This is easily disproven because someone can be easily fooled into thinking something is closer or farther away than it really is. If your philosophy were true, such a trick would not be possible.

I'll_buy_that

26th January 2004, 12:25 PM

troll!

Crossbow

26th January 2004, 12:27 PM

Just ot echo the fine comments made by RussDill,

True, there is no distance data embedded within the photons;
However, we have two eyes that have a bit of horizontal separation between them and by simultaneously combing the pictures from the left and right along with our high power brains we can judge distances to various objects through the process termed depth perception.

Materialism really does not have anything to do with it.

Andonyx

26th January 2004, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

This is easily disproven because someone can be easily fooled into thinking something is closer or farther away than it really is. If your philosophy were true, such a trick would not be possible.

And you forgot that his philosophy would dictate that depth-perception as a sense would be identical with one eye or two eyes.

We know of course that someone with one eye has far less reliable and specific depth perception than someone with two.

(They still have some due to parallax and perspective, but it's not nearly as good as binocular vision in unfamiliar circumstances.)

Mercutio

26th January 2004, 12:41 PM

Lifegazer...a simple question for you. I have on my bookshelf a book which would answer for you every aspect of this current puzzlement. It is a book on Visual Perception (this one happens to be by Sekular & Blake, but there are a dozen or more others which are every bit as current and as thorough), and it covers in detail what "materialists" know about visual perception.

I'm sure you can find an equivalent book in any local college or university library.

Would you read such a book? You evidently have interest...and this book directly addresses your question, in much more detail than most folk would guess--we really do know quite a bit about vision. But, really, would you read this book?

Please do, and give us a report on what you have learned. It should be very enlightening for us as well as for you.

******

Oh...to add to the wonderful mentions of parallax, stereopsis, linear perspective, haze, interposition, texture gradient, accomodation and convergence, one final aspect of depth perception must be mentioned:

It is learned. For us to have a functional grasp of how far away something is, we must have experience with that distance, not just with our visual picture of it. Walk or run to something you have seen, throw a rock and see how far it goes...our perception of depth only gains meaning when we can combine our visual sense with feedback from the real world.

Skeptical Greg

26th January 2004, 12:53 PM

How does a photon know how far it has traveled?

OH MY!!! Such penetrating questions!!! And one that no one has ever thought of before!! OH MY!!

Read the book...

A point awarded for posting this in R&P instead of Science...

Acrimonious

26th January 2004, 01:00 PM

He wouldn't read it, just as surely as he didn't bother doing the simplest google search on vision or depth perception before posting this garbage.

This thread follows the typical Lifegazer M.O.

Since it goes against his philosophy, he arbitrarily dismisses it as incorrect and not worth reading or considering.

We could have the world's greatest authorities on stereoscopic vision and the brain's occipital lobe in this forum, detailing exactly how the eyes work and how vision is processed and interpreted for all to see. Lifegazer would ignore them, throw insults at them, and post more horribly inaccurate garbage based only on his "philosophy."

Dancing David

26th January 2004, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Let's conduct a thought experiment to get my point across: Imagine that you are blind. Now imagine that everyone around you has a water-pistol and is shooting water at you. Your skin might be able to tell you from what direction the water has come, but if we imagine that all incoming water has the same velocity (thus mirroring the same impact of the photons), then it appears impossible for the skin and/or brain to know what distance that water has traversed.
Hence, it would be impossible for the brain to create a 4-dimensional abstract representation of its external reality.

... Similarly, the same case applies for incoming photons. There is no way an incoming photon can impart the distance it has traversed to the eye/brain.
I suggest that this is evidence to prove that abstract awareness is not dependent upon an external reality.

So are you proving that the blind person doesn't get wet, or just the statement that the perception of wetness is dependant on the brain.

Lifegazer: How does this prove that perception is indepedant of the sense organs? Can you see through walls yet. (I know they only exist in your mind, but can you see through walls?)

The distance the photons travel is independant of the qualities of the perception.

When people talk about the photons from the sun traveling eight minutes to get to the earth, It is an educated assumption based upon the approximation of observed phenomena.

(The Pentagon will be really upset about you revealing how the Stealth bomber works!)

A+ for effort!
C- for originality.

lifegazer

26th January 2004, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
First and formost, is stereoscopic vision. Most mammilian preditors have two eyes in the front of their face to facilitate stereoscopic vision. With stereoscopic vision, you can determine how far away something is. Simply aim both eyes at the object, and when the two images line up, you can take the angle the eyes are at, and the distance the eyes are apart, and calculate the distance. You can also calculate the distance of things that don't line up based on how far off they are from lining up.

This doesn't account for the size of the object, I don't think. For example, the moon and the Sun appear to be the same size. Thus the angle of the eyes would be the same for all objects that appear to be similar in size, regardless of their distance from the eyes. Correct? Which would make determining the distance of similar sized objects impossible unless you knew the width of those objects.

You don't have to pull out the trig book though, as a baby, your brain learned how to do all this stuff on its own.

Well the point would be that in order to construct an accurate depiction of external reality, using the angle of the eyes upon objects, that the brain would need to know trigonometry. I don't see how else the angle of the eyes could be useful to the brain, otherwise.
My question would then be: how can the brain know trigonometry before 'we' learn it?

Next would be related to stereoscopic vision, and that would be how far something moves in relation to other things when we move. This method is better when there are a great number of objects, when the objects are far away, or when you only have one eye.

Okay, I understand this. But we must recognise two things here:-
(1) In order that the brain construct an abstract-reality from external data, it must already understand how to use this data. For example, before constructing an abstract-reality from movement-related observations, the brain must already comprehend what you have just said.
(2) This method would would be very useful to identify which objects were nearer than others, but would tell us nothing of the actual distances which exist between eye and object. Hence, this method cannot be responsible for the accurate depiction of external reality we see within our awareness.

After that, would be blur. If something is blurry while you are staring at things far away, it is probably up close, and vice versa.

Err, okay. But again, the brain needs to understand this prior to constructing its abstract-reality and again, this tells us nothing of actual distances existing between objects.

Next would be atmospheric effects. Because our sky isn't excactly clear (more so on some days or another). You can determine by examining hue, tint, etc, how far away something is. This one really fools people when looking at pictures of the moon, because a mountain can be hundreds of miles away, and yet, because there is no atmospheric effect, we assume it is much closer.

I wasn't aware of this. Presumably, the brain must be in order to use such info.

Also, there is relative size. If we except something to be a particular size, we can use that size to determine how far away something is based on how small it apears.

Err, this doesn't sound too accurate either.

Many of the methods you mentioned wouldn't create an accurate and universal abstract-reality.
I could buy the angle of the eyes method as long as we acknowledge the brain's capacity to do trig, prior to creating that reality. But since the brain doesn't know the size/width of the object, nor the length traversed by the photons, knowing the angle of the eyes wouldn't seem to be of too much use.
Also, we all have differently-spaced eyes which grow further apart into adulthood. Are you suggesting that the brain takes account of this as it gathers its info?

lifegazer

26th January 2004, 01:39 PM

I can see that the eye/brain could fathom that some objects were closer than others, and some further than others. But how does it get an accurate picture of events? None of the replies here have answered that question.

Skeptical Greg

26th January 2004, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

This doesn't account for the size of the object, I don't think. For example, the moon and the Sun appear to be the same size.

Urrh, uhhh, Doh... People did think they were the same size untill we learned better...

Read the book..

Skeptical Greg

26th January 2004, 01:42 PM

Yahweh

26th January 2004, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

This doesn't account for the size of the object, I don't think. For example, the moon and the Sun appear to be the same size. Thus the angle of the eyes would be the same for all objects that appear to be similar in size, regardless of their distance from the eyes. Correct? Which would make determining the distance of similar sized objects impossible unless you knew the width of those objects.
Not at all.

Take two objects. One object has an area of 1 square meter, the other object has an area of 4 square meters. Put the first object at distance of 10 meters away, put the other object at a distance of 20 meters away.

Hopefully, I've done my math right, but as predicted by the Inverse Square Law, each object will appear to be the same size.

When you move to the right about 5 meters, the objects in your field of view "move" as well. You'll notice that the smaller object moves a considerable distance more than the larger object, although they do in fact look the same size.

I wont detail the math, but it is very much possible to derive information regarding the height, width, and distance away those objects are.

This is called "Parallax", its one of the many visual clues.

You dont even need binocular vision, the same monocular clues still give you the information regarding the distance of those objects.

Well the point would be that in order to construct an accurate depiction of external reality, using the angle of the eyes upon objects, that the brain would need to know trigonometry. I don't see how else the angle of the eyes could be useful to the brain, otherwise.
My question would then be: how can the brain know trigonometry before 'we' learn it?
We dont know the math, but we understand the concept. The brain does not need to learn trigonometry, it makes use of visual cues before the concept is even understood.

I dont need to be told that things further away appear smaller.

Most people are unable to determine the height or distance of an object, human judgement alone is very inaccurate. The math makes the guesstimation much more accurate.

Okay, I understand this. But we must recognise two things here:-
(1) In order that the brain construct an abstract-reality from external data, it must already understand how to use this data. For example, before constructing an abstract-reality from movement-related observations, the brain must already comprehend what you have just said.
(2) This method would would be very useful to identify which objects were nearer than others, but would tell us nothing of the actual distances which exist between eye and object. Hence, this method cannot be responsible for the accurate depiction of external reality we see within our awareness.

Err, okay. But again, the brain needs to understand this prior to constructing its abstract-reality and again, this tells us nothing of actual distances existing between objects.

I wasn't aware of this. Presumably, the brain must be in order to use such info.

Err, this doesn't sound too accurate either.

Many of the methods you mentioned wouldn't create an accurate and universal abstract-reality.
I could buy the angle of the eyes method as long as we acknowledge the brain's capacity to do trig, prior to creating that reality. But since the brain doesn't know the size/width of the object, nor the length traversed by the photons, knowing the angle of the eyes wouldn't seem to be of too much use.
Also, we all have differently-spaced eyes which grow further apart into adulthood. Are you suggesting that the brain takes account of this as it gathers its info?
Well, I dont think its necessary for me to detail all the different ways we calculate distances. Just know that humans have no handicap in judging the distances of objects, there are a great number of binocular and monocular cues and precise mathematics which give us all the information we need.

Upchurch

26th January 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

This doesn't account for the size of the object, I don't think. For example, the moon and the Sun appear to be the same size. Thus the angle of the eyes would be the same for all objects that appear to be similar in size, regardless of their distance from the eyes. Correct? Which would make determining the distance of similar sized objects impossible unless you knew the width of those objects. Objects like the moon and the sun are problematic in that there is no point of comparison, there isn't enough experience to make the judgement. When one sees a car at a distance, we have a rough concept of the size of a car, so that not only can we use steriotopic vision but contextual clues as well.
Well the point would be that in order to construct an accurate depiction of external reality, using the angle of the eyes upon objects, that the brain would need to know trigonometry. I don't see how else the angle of the eyes could be useful to the brain, otherwise.
My question would then be: how can the brain know trigonometry before 'we' learn it?Trial and error. Babies, especially young ones, have a great deal of difficulty understanding distance. The brain isn't actually learning trigonometry in terms of sin, cos, tan, etc. It's learns that the more one has to cross one's eyes in order to focus on an object, the closer it is.
Okay, I understand this. But we must recognise two things here:-
(1) In order that the brain construct an abstract-reality from external data, it must already understand how to use this data. For example, before constructing an abstract-reality from movement-related observations, the brain must already comprehend what you have just said.Or, as I said, the brain must learn using trial and error. I'd recommend reading some young child development books. I found it one of the most fascinating aspect of psychology.
(2) This method would would be very useful to identify which objects were nearer than others, but would tell us nothing of the actual distances which exist between eye and object. Hence, this method cannot be responsible for the accurate depiction of external reality we see within our awareness.No one can "eyeball" a distance with absolute accuracy. Even long time carpenters need a tape measure. I'm not sure I understand what the point is.
I could buy the angle of the eyes method as long as we acknowledge the brain's capacity to do trig, prior to creating that reality. But since the brain doesn't know the size/width of the object, nor the length traversed by the photons, knowing the angle of the eyes wouldn't seem to be of too much use.
Also, we all have differently-spaced eyes which grow further apart into adulthood. Are you suggesting that the brain takes account of this as it gathers its info? Practice, practice, practice. We do it every waking moment of our lives and we get quite good at it. Not perfect, but pretty good.

Upchurch

26th January 2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I can see that the eye/brain could fathom that some objects were closer than others, and some further than others. But how does it get an accurate picture of events? How is any understanding of a specific situation made better? Lots of data points. The more observations taken, the more accurate the picture. Being able to walk up to the object and back again would also help.

RussDill

26th January 2004, 02:01 PM

(Lifegazer, if this is a joke, or a troll, please tell me now)

Originally posted by lifegazer

This doesn't account for the size of the object, I don't think. For example, the moon and the Sun appear to be the same size. Thus the angle of the eyes would be the same for all objects that appear to be similar in size, regardless of their distance from the eyes. Correct? Which would make determining the distance of similar sized objects impossible unless you knew the width of those objects.

No, I think I need to draw a picture, as stereoscopic vision has no hope of determining which is farther, the sun or the moon, and also, stereoscopic vision has nothing to do with the size of an object. An extreme example is to look at your nose, your eyes turn inward to a great angle. If you look at anything far away, your eyes are essentially straight, anything else and it is a variation of that angle. And again, your brain can also guess the distance of objects that don't line up.

Maybe a neato little game would help

http://www.vision3d.com/frame.html

3d glasses are a good example too

http://www.scottandmichelle.net/scott/myshots/images/index-04-6.html

put on 3d glasses, and boom, instant 3d vision, and nothing about the time it takes for photons to get to you. Notice in this picture that the two cameras were angled together so that the 1 on the D4 is in focus, everything else generates two images, which are filtered through to the left and right eye with the use of red and blue filters.

Well the point would be that in order to construct an accurate depiction of external reality, using the angle of the eyes upon objects, that the brain would need to know trigonometry. I don't see how else the angle of the eyes could be useful to the brain, otherwise.

My question would then be: how can the brain know trigonometry before 'we' learn it?

It doesn't need to know trig unless you want an exact distance. The brain isn't concerned with exact distances. It is like throwing a ball to someone, you don't need to know trig, your brain guesses. After each subsequent throw, your brain gets better at guessing through a process called learning.

If you have ever taken care of small children, you'll notice that they have not fully developed these skills, their sense of scale may be so far off, that they are afraid of being sucked down the drain in the tub.

Okay, I understand this. But we must recognise two things here:-

It is the same thing as stereoscopic vision, but performed simultaneously. This is also the method we use to accurately calculate how far away a star is. We take a picture of it, wait 6 months, and take another picture.

(1) In order that the brain construct an abstract-reality from external data, it must already understand how to use this data.

Says who? Clearly the brain is structured in such a way to facilitate certain areas performing certain tasks. Perhaps at some level, the brain is hardwired with certain concepts necessary for vision, but neural networks do learn by trial and error, not by understanding how something works.

For example, before constructing an abstract-reality from movement-related observations, the brain must already comprehend what you have just said.

Who says? Children learn to play catch just fine without understanding gravity or differential equations. I can sit you down and have you start playing a game, and you'll start getting better at it before you understand it. The brain is very good at learning through trial and error.

(2) This method would would be very useful to identify which objects were nearer than others, but would tell us nothing of the actual distances which exist between eye and object.

Actually it does, it is just more difficult, a person with the use of only one eye gets very good at this method.

Hence, this method cannot be responsible for the accurate depiction of external reality we see within our awareness.

Very good, that is because it is a combination of all the factors I have listed (as well as the additional ones listed by other posters)

Err, okay. But again, the brain needs to understand this prior to constructing its abstract-reality and again, this tells us nothing of actual distances existing between objects.

No it doesn't, again, trial and error, also, it is not necessary for the blur effect to tell us exact distances, it is just another visual clue.

I wasn't aware of this. Presumably, the brain must be in order to use such info.

no, it is something learned over time.

Err, this doesn't sound too accurate either.

Why not? It is an excellent clue that combines nicely with haze to provide a very good system of guessing the distances of far away objects.

Many of the methods you mentioned wouldn't create an accurate and universal abstract-reality.

Not alone, that is why they are combined.

I could buy the angle of the eyes method as long as we acknowledge the brain's capacity to do trig, prior to creating that reality.

Again, not necessary, since each distance is related to an angle. After learning what distance is associated with each angle after trial and error, the brain is can discern distance, no trig necessary.

But since the brain doesn't know the size/width of the object, nor the length traversed by the photons, knowing the angle of the eyes wouldn't seem to be of too much use.

Sigh, I take it you never took trig either.

Take the eyes (2 inches apart), point a and point b, and something in the distance, point c. The eyes in this simple example both point to the object, point c, so they form an iso...er, sorry, a tringle with 2 equal angles and 2 identical sides. Name the angles A, B, and C to go along with the points. Split the triangle in half at the point right between the eyes, and make point d. The angle at point d, D, will be a right angle. So now we have a right triange, a, d, c. The side, ad is 1 inch. Now, we have angle A, and the length ad, that is enough info to find the length dc.

tan A = dc/ad

so, dc = ad * tan A

pretty simple, the distance is proportional to the tangent of the angle. So your brain does not need to learn trig, just the shape of the tangent function. See how there is no reference to the size of width of the object? Nor is it necessary to know how far photons went.

Also, we all have differently-spaced eyes which grow further apart into adulthood. Are you suggesting that the brain takes account of this as it gathers its info?

Yes, why? The same thing applies to everything else, from walking to throwing a ball. Our brain can even take into account a change in gravity. Throwing things on the space shuttle takes quite a lot of learning, but once learned, it can be done.

Andonyx

26th January 2004, 02:02 PM

Here, here's an expiriment you can conduct at home with a pencil, paper, protractor, and any kind of narrow thin aiming device:

1. Go outside and using a small stand, or chair or whatever, tape a line on the groud, or mark one with chalk that it as straight as you can possibly get it, and at least 30 feet long.

2. Find an object like a tree or telephone pole, that is about 30-60 feet away from the line, somewhere near the line's center if you were to make a perpendicular.

3. Using the protractor, with it's straight edge paralell to the line on the ground, measure at what angle your sighting device points at the center of your object, when the Zero point on the protractor is directly over the left most edge of your line.

4. Go to the right-most edge of your line and mark the new angle for pointing at the center of the object from that position.

5. Now take some some grid paper and make a scale. Say one grid space equals one foot. Draw a scale model of your experiment on the paper. Start with the line being 30 grid spaces across. Then using the protractor find the angles you wrote down at each end of the line and draw lines that follow those angles until they meet.

6. Mark where they meet, and then count the number of spaces from the line to the point the two angled lines meet. Convert that to feet and that's actually how far away the object is in real life.

That's called triangulation, that's how we found out early estimates of things like the distance to the moon and other planetary bodies...and we still use it today by comparing telescope information from opposite sides of the Earth.

Your eyes perform a miniature version of this when you determine how far away other objects are.

As for the "experience" of the object, actually yes, Mercutio answered that as well, which had you bothered to do even the slightest modicum of research on the subject you would have understood that it is a gradual process of learning to match our real physical epxeriences to the informaiton we get from our senses.

An experiment done on infants shows that before six months old Infants really don't understand distance or depth at all. They will walk directly into, or over what would appear to be an open pit to any adult or child observer. (Luckily clear glass, lit invisibly, protects them.) At about 6 months they will stop attempting to cross areas which appear to offer no physical support as they begin to associate their visual perception of their surroundings with the notion of falling.

At 2 years they can be taught when there is an "invisible" shield present to stop the fall and when there isn't and to distinguish between the two.

We learn a piece at a time to associate how far away something is by touch, or by how many steps it takes us to get there. Then we start to associate those distances with visual cues. For instance we know on average trees are much taller than human beings. So a tree that appears to be the same height as a man about 6 feet away is probably much further than six feet away. And so forth.

In fact we get so good at it, we don't even have to think about it anymore, our visual processing just does it for us.

But it's not always perfect which is why we have optical illusions. Such as the fact that for not entirely understood reasons, the Full moon appears larger when it's near the horizon, even though obivously it isn't.

RussDill

26th January 2004, 02:03 PM

Upchurch

26th January 2004, 02:09 PM

People who, for one reason or another, only one functioning eye, for example, have lousy depth perception. What depth perception they do have comes from contextual clues. Try looking at something with one eye shut and guess how far away it is. Then, try it with both eyes open.

BTW, is there a philosophical or religious purpose behind this thread, or do I need to move it to Science?

lifegazer

26th January 2004, 02:11 PM

Okay ladies and gents... I concede to your better knowledge.
I shall now acknowledge that it might be possible to construct an accurate picture of reality, given time and the numerous methods you've all mentioned. I'm not 100% convinced, but you have given me ample evidence to suggest I could be wrong.
I shall now retract my argument here.

Yahweh

26th January 2004, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I can see that the eye/brain could fathom that some objects were closer than others, and some further than others. But how does it get an accurate picture of events? None of the replies here have answered that question.
Experience for the most part.

The closer things are, the easier it becomes to judge their distance by sight alone.

This is why its much easier to judge how you should throw a ball of paper into a trashcan at 3 meters away than at 6 meters away.

When you stand close to a globe (as the moon is in relation to the earth), the closest part of the globe is noticeably nearly to you than the farthest part. When you stand far away (as the sun in relation to the Earth), the difference between the closest and farthest parts of the globe is less significant.

Yahweh

26th January 2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Okay ladies and gents... I concede to your better knowledge.
I shall now acknowledge that it might be possible to construct an accurate picture of reality, given time and the numerous methods you've all mentioned. I'm not 100% convinced, but you have given me ample evidence to suggest I could be wrong.
I shall now retract my argument here.
Cool

:rub:

Interesting Ian

26th January 2004, 02:20 PM

Upchurch

26th January 2004, 02:23 PM

Upchurch

26th January 2004, 02:25 PM

Interesting Ian

26th January 2004, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

whoa whoa whoa...back up a bit. You are assuming here that depth perception has *anything* to do with individual photons, which it doesn't. Determining how far away something is is based off a number of visual cues, all of which can be fooled.

First and formost, is stereoscopic vision. Most mammilian preditors have two eyes in the front of their face to facilitate stereoscopic vision. With stereoscopic vision, you can determine how far away something is. Simply aim both eyes at the object, and when the two images line up, you can take the angle the eyes are at, and the distance the eyes are apart, and calculate the distance. You can also calculate the distance of things that don't line up based on how far off they are from lining up. You don't have to pull out the trig book though, as a baby, your brain learned how to do all this stuff on its own.

Next would be related to stereoscopic vision, and that would be how far something moves in relation to other things when we move. This method is better when there are a great number of objects, when the objects are far away, or when you only have one eye.

After that, would be blur. If something is blurry while you are staring at things far away, it is probably up close, and vice versa.

Next would be atmospheric effects. Because our sky isn't excactly clear (more so on some days or another). You can determine by examining hue, tint, etc, how far away something is. This one really fools people when looking at pictures of the moon, because a mountain can be hundreds of miles away, and yet, because there is no atmospheric effect, we assume it is much closer.

Also, there is relative size. If we except something to be a particular size, we can use that size to determine how far away something is based on how small it apears.

Don't forget the simple effect of things being further away being partially obscured by things that are closer.

Also, we may go off other sensory cues, such as sound.

I'm sure I'm missing a few, but this should get you started.
[/B]

No, all this is irrelevant. We learn how far away something is through our tactile sensations.

RussDill

26th January 2004, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

No, all this is irrelevant. We learn how far away something is through our tactile sensations.

The list was how we tell how far something is away on a day to day basis. Not how we learn to pick up these cues.

Interesting Ian

26th January 2004, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio

Oh...to add to the wonderful mentions of parallax, stereopsis, linear perspective, haze, interposition, texture gradient, accomodation and convergence, one final aspect of depth perception must be mentioned:

Which are all irrelevant.

It is learned. For us to have a functional grasp of how far away something is, we must have experience with that distance, not just with our visual picture of it. Walk or run to something you have seen, throw a rock and see how far it goes...our perception of depth only gains meaning when we can combine our visual sense with feedback from the real world. [/B]

Yes! Good! But remember the real world need not be material, and indeed there are no good arguments to suppose it is.

Hexxenhammer

26th January 2004, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Wow. I am truely impressed. Our little lifegazer is growing up and becoming open minded.

:clap: If only Relativity was as easy to explain...

Interesting Ian

26th January 2004, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

The list was how we tell how far something is away on a day to day basis. Not how we learn to pick up these cues.

Okie dokie. That's fine. I don't disagree then.

Hexxenhammer

26th January 2004, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
That's an interesting idea. I wonder if there have been any studies to that effect... I know there have been studies with kittens raised in boxes with either vertical or horizontal lines on the walls. When placed in the real world, these cats would just walk around running into things because they could only distinguish either the vertical or horizontal but not both.

Yahweh

26th January 2004, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What you've said is correct. This is why we need both visual AND tactile sensations to build up a map of the world. I do however think that considerations such as yours strongly suggest that our visual and tactile sensations are heterogenous. This would mean therefore, for example, that a blind person from birth, but who suddenly could be made to see for the very first time, would not be able to tell a cube and sphere from the visual appearance of these objects alone.

Such considerations might be taken to be suggestive that there is no mind-independent reality.
You are quite correct.

In fact, what you have described is exactly correct. The Visual Cortex is undeveloped at birth, while you are growing up, the Visual Cortex is making and breaking connections between other neurons. Neurons begin to grow thicker and longer axons and dendrites. However, if you are blind at birth, the Visual Cortex never developes. Therefore if you suddenly do regain your sight after the Visual Cortex has passed through the stage of developing, you would be quite incapable of distinguishing the difference between a sphere and a cube. (I dont believe this inability to distinguish shapes or depth was a permanent handicap.)

I read about a case (but cant find the news article) about a guy who had this same scenario occur. I believe he was getting an "eye transplant" (thank you modern medicine for allowing me to say "eye transplant"), but when the vision was restored he could not distinguish between a 3D cube and a drawing of a cube. He described both as "a box with lines coming off". His brain had not "learned" to distinguish shapes or depth.

The visual sense organs are necessary to gather information, but they dont make any sense of it. Its the job of the Visual Cortex to make sense of it.

Interesting Ian

26th January 2004, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

The list was how we tell how far something is away on a day to day basis. Not how we learn to pick up these cues.

The trouble is that this is then a non-sequitur to Lifegazer's original point isn't it? :confused:

The point being that we do not literally see at a distance. Therefore our visual sensations cannot give any evidence for an "external world".

Is this what you meant Lifegazer?

Upchurch

26th January 2004, 02:41 PM

Andonyx

26th January 2004, 02:42 PM

Interesting Ian

26th January 2004, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

You are quite correct.

In fact, what you have described is exactly correct. The Visual Cortex is undeveloped at birth, while you are growing up, the Visual Cortex is making and breaking connections between other neurons. Neurons begin to grow thicker and longer axons and dendrites. However, if you are blind at birth, the Visual Cortex never developes. Therefore if you suddenly do regain your sight after the Visual Cortex has passed through the stage of developing, you would be quite incapable of distinguishing the difference between a sphere and a cube.

I read about a case (but cant find the news article) about a guy who had this same scenario occur. I believe he was getting an "eye transplant" (thank you modern medicine for allowing me to say "eye transplant"), but when the vision was restored he could not distinguish between a 3D cube and a drawing of a cube. He described both as "a box with lines coming off". His brain had not "learned" to distinguish shapes or depth.

The visual sense organs are necessary to gather information, but they dont make any sense of it. Its the job of the Visual Cortex to make sense of it.

No no, it's more of a mental problem rather than a brain problem. You see we build up the hypothesis of a 3 D world from primarily our visual and tactile senses. Our vision can be absolutely perfect, but if we were blind from birth before acquiring this vision, then although we have perfect vision, we would not be able to see.

Why is this? Well it's because we haven't built up our implicit low level theory about how the world is. All we'd see is a chaos of differing colors. You wouldn't be able to make sense of your environment.

Interesting Ian

26th January 2004, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
What do you mean by "we do not literally see at a distance"? How don't we?

Lifegazer explained in his opening post. We learn to see at a distance by perceptual cues like Russdill mentioned. The point being is that when we see something at a certain distance, this is a learned ability rather than an innate one.

lifegazer

26th January 2004, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The point being that we do not literally see at a distance. Therefore our visual sensations cannot give any evidence for an "external world".

Is this what you meant Lifegazer?
Yes. Incoming light (if there is any such thing), is distance-less.
It is upto the mind/brain to decide how far that light has travelled.
My argument was that there is no accurate way for the mind/brain to decide how far that light had travelled. Hence, I am puzzled as to the accuracy of our inner awareness of reality.

But I have seen responses to show how the mind could learn that some light-sources were closer than others, or longer than others. Hence, the situation has become too complex for me to argue. That's why I conceded. However, feel free to carry the argument for me.

Yahweh

26th January 2004, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

The trouble is that this is then a non-sequitur to Lifegazer's original point isn't it? :confused:

The point being that we do not literally see at a distance. Therefore our visual sensations cannot give any evidence for an "external world".

Is this what you meant Lifegazer?
A quick experiment:

1. Close one eye, and look around at things for about 30 seconds just to get used to using one eye.

2. Pick an object relatively close to you, within arms distance.

3. Take your hand, and try to move your hand as close to the object as you can before touching it.

You'll notice that it is quite difficult to judge how close your hand is.

We do not see depth entirely indirectly, otherwise we would not be able to distinguish between a scene you view on your 2D television screen and the 3D scenes you view in real life.

The problem comes when the distance of an object is too great to be able to make distinctions between the closest and farthest parts of that object.

(I'm sure if we grew one more eye, which was between our two existing eyes and placed somewhere near the top of our forehead, we would have the ability to judge distances much much more accurately by sight alone.)

Yahweh

26th January 2004, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No no, it's more of a mental problem rather than a brain problem. You see we build up the hypothesis of a 3 D world from primarily our visual and tactile senses. Our vision can be absolutely perfect, but if we were blind from birth before acquiring this vision, then although we have perfect vision, we would not be able to see.

Why is this? Well it's because we haven't built up our implicit low level theory about how the world is. All we'd see is a chaos of differing colors. You wouldn't be able to make sense of your environment.
It seems you have made the same point I made with fewer words. Occam would be proud :p

I do think the mental problem and the brain problem are causally related. Underdeveloped visual cognition due to an underdeveloped brain.

Andonyx

26th January 2004, 03:06 PM

Ian,

There's a play about just the phenomenon of suddenly being able to see as an adult, and learning how to conceptualize the world over again. It's called Molly Sweeny, and it's a pretty good time if it's done well.

http://www.citypaper.com/1998-03-18/theater.html

Interesting Ian

26th January 2004, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

A quick experiment:

1. Close one eye, and look around at things for about 30 seconds just to get used to using one eye.

2. Pick an object relatively close to you, within arms distance.

3. Take your hand, and try to move your hand as close to the object as you can before touching it.

You'll notice that it is quite difficult to judge how close your hand is.

We do not see depth entirely indirectly, otherwise we would not be able to distinguish between a scene you view on your 2D television screen and the 3D scenes you view in real life.

The problem comes when the distance of an object is too great to be able to make distinctions between the closest and farthest parts of that object.

(I'm sure if we grew one more eye, which was between our two existing eyes and placed somewhere near the top of our forehead, we would have the ability to judge distances much much more accurately by sight alone.)

I do not really want to get into an argument about this Yahwah.

Yahweh

26th January 2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I do not really want to get into an argument about this Yahwah.
Alrighty, I'll busy myself on PalTalk and finishing up homework, just give me a prayer if you need me...

*Zooooom*

*Yahweh leaves the thread*

Interesting Ian

26th January 2004, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Yes. Incoming light (if there is any such thing), is distance-less.
It is upto the mind/brain to decide how far that light has travelled.
My argument was that there is no accurate way for the mind/brain to decide how far that light had travelled. Hence, I am puzzled as to the accuracy of our inner awareness of reality.

But I have seen responses to show how the mind could learn that some light-sources were closer than others, or longer than others. Hence, the situation has become too complex for me to argue. That's why I conceded. However, feel free to carry the argument for me.

It seems to me that the argument you were making is that we are not a priori cognisant of distance from our visual sensations alone. Seeing is therefore a learnt ability, ultimately derived from the correlations between what we see and our sense of touch. Using visual sensations alone, visual cues thereafter give us the idea of how far away an object is.

How does this relate to an idea of a material world or an "external reality"? Well some people would say that they know there is an "external reality", or material reality, because they can immediately see it. They might claim that they can see a tree out there external to them residing at a certain distance. But, as has been pointed out, they do not literally see anything at a distance from them, and hence external to them. Normally all distance means is that if I make certain bodily movements (eg walk towards object in question), I will receive a certain tactile sensation. Hence one cannot justify the existence of a material world or "external reality" by saying one is immediately acquainted with such a reality.

On the other hand, only a philosophically naive person would maintain this, and if such a person were so disposed, they are unlikely to understand the argument that we do not literally see at a distance either!

Mercutio

26th January 2004, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Which are all irrelevant.

Yes! Good! But remember the real world need not be material, and indeed there are no good arguments to suppose it is. Or that it is not; such things rely on fundamental assumptions, rather than universal truths.

As for all those things being irrelevant...once you agreed that our depth perception knowledge must be built up with experience (you said tactile, in particular--I would broaden that a bit, but OK), I would have thought you would retract the "irrelevant" statement. Those cues are precisely the visual cues which we learn to pay attention to, based on their correspondence with that tactile experience. So, while they are not automatically developed as depth perception cues (I know you are familiar with the "carpenter-world hypothesis", for instance), they are used as depth perception cues. So...why irrelevant?

Interesting Ian

26th January 2004, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio
Or that it is not; such things rely on fundamental assumptions, rather than universal truths.

As for all those things being irrelevant...once you agreed that our depth perception knowledge must be built up with experience (you said tactile, in particular--I would broaden that a bit, but OK), I would have thought you would retract the "irrelevant" statement. Those cues are precisely the visual cues which we learn to pay attention to, based on their correspondence with that tactile experience. So, while they are not automatically developed as depth perception cues (I know you are familiar with the "carpenter-world hypothesis", for instance), they are used as depth perception cues. So...why irrelevant?

Irrelevant to the issue I believe that Lifegazer was originally getting at.

Dancing David

26th January 2004, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I can see that the eye/brain could fathom that some objects were closer than others, and some further than others. But how does it get an accurate picture of events? None of the replies here have answered that question.

As they say here in the STates "good enough for government work", the perception has to only approximate the external visual field, some organisms do very well with very simple perception.

And the answer is that it isn't accurate, just representational.

And learned.

Dancing David

26th January 2004, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

This would mean therefore, for example, that a blind person from birth, but who suddenly could be made to see for the very first time, would not be able to tell a cube and sphere from the visual appearance of these objects alone.

Such considerations might be taken to be suggestive that there is no mind-independent reality.

Or such considerations might suggest that there is no mind independant of body.

Ian hate to tell you this, and maybe I shouldn't, but the blind person is going to have to learn to see.
Thier brain is not wired to process visual information in the first place, so the nueral network is not going to make much sense of the visual sensation to begin with. I don't know how long it would take them to learn to see but they are not going to recognise any visual input at first. Their brain will have to go through the process that an infant goes through while the brain is growing.

Dancing David

26th January 2004, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Why is this? Well it's because we haven't built up our implicit low level theory about how the world is. All we'd see is a chaos of differing colors. You wouldn't be able to make sense of your environment.

Uh, Ian this isn't done at the cognitive level, it is done in the visual cortex and then presented to the frontal cortex. You could have all the theory you want, it is going to take the nueral network time to learn to process the signals. It is not a thought thing it is a perceptaul thing. Which occurs on the 'unconsious' level.

They aren't going to see anything, they will probably have synsthesia at first, if thier brain still has the potential to learn visual processing. If it is like language aquisition then they will never.

Dancing David

26th January 2004, 05:36 PM

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

26th January 2004, 05:59 PM

Don't forget the Ba Mbuti:

http://www.shodor.org/workshops/forensic/lessons/perception.html

~~ Paul

hammegk

26th January 2004, 06:03 PM

IIRC, some of the ancients proposed the eye "emits" a ray which reflects back into it.

Now, that's the Transactional interpretation's of QM advanced wave travelling backwards wrt (our) wall-clock time. What is the difference between zero+ and zero- for a wavicle whose own clock is moving -- so to speak -- at c.

A basic idea of TI is that no boson in the universe is ever emitted until it has an agreed-upon path that ends at a specific receptor.

lg, you give up too soon. ;)

Skeptical Greg

26th January 2004, 06:05 PM

Interesting Ian

26th January 2004, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Or such considerations might suggest that there is no mind independant of body.

Ian hate to tell you this, and maybe I shouldn't, but the blind person is going to have to learn to see.
Thier brain is not wired to process visual information in the first place, so the nueral network is not going to make much sense of the visual sensation to begin with. I don't know how long it would take them to learn to see but they are not going to recognise any visual input at first. Their brain will have to go through the process that an infant goes through while the brain is growing.

If one has been blind throughout their lives due to some defect in their eyes, then this is cured, and then they have perfect vision (although they can't see very well) then clearly thier brain is "wired to process visual information in the first place".

It's not the brain, it's rather a psychological thing. They haven't had any opportuinity to build up a model/theory about the world to make sense of it.

Of course if you're a materialist you would insist that it is the brain. But then you would also say, for example, ones irrational behaviour is not due to anger (maybe because of things that have recently happened to you), but rather because of certain chemicals in the brain or neurons firing or whatever. In other words, even if you're a materialist, it's not very useful, and it is confusing to say that a person can't see because of the condition of their brain.

I see the brain as being crucial for vision, but the question of seeing (as opposed to vision) is a different matter. Given perfect vision, to also see perfectly is a psychological thing. That which enables us to see, to make sense of our vision, is an implicit theory about the world held by our minds.

Interesting Ian

26th January 2004, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Why is this? Well it's because we haven't built up our implicit low level theory about how the world is. All we'd see is a chaos of differing colors. You wouldn't be able to make sense of your environment.

DD

Uh, Ian this isn't done at the cognitive level, it is done in the visual cortex and then presented to the frontal cortex.

NO NO. Look at my previous post. You wouldn't say Einstein had certain processes occurring in his brain which accounts for how he came up with his idea that acceleration and gravitation are equivalent. Our theories about the world are described at the cognitive level even if such mental processes have neural correlates! Even materialists do this if only for the sake of convenience!

You could have all the theory you want, it is going to take the nueral network time to learn to process the signals. It is not a thought thing it is a perceptaul thing.

NO NO NO. You just don't understand. It is ABSOLUTELY a "thought thing".

Interesting Ian

26th January 2004, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Don't forget the Ba Mbuti:

http://www.shodor.org/workshops/forensic/lessons/perception.html

~~ Paul

Yes! Excellen link! :D

Dymanic

26th January 2004, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

If one has been blind throughout their lives due to some defect in their eyes, then this is cured, and then they have perfect vision (although they can't see very well) then clearly thier brain is "wired to process visual information in the first place".

No, it ISN'T.
It's not the brain, it's rather a psychological thing. They haven't had any opportuinity to build up a model/theory about the world to make sense of it.

...NO NO NO. You just don't understand. It is ABSOLUTELY a "thought thing".

NO, NO, NO! You are quite spectacularly wrong about this, Ian. It is absolutely a difference at the level of structure in the brain. It is very much the same as with language aquisition. Infants have tremendous neural plasticity in the structures designed to recieve a particular type of input, but at some point, the plasticity is 'all used up'. The flexibility is a one-time special offer (which is why adults learn second languages so much more slowly than infants do their first language). If deprived of input, those structures will not develop fully. The structure of the brain of a person blind from birth is different from that of a sighted person.

epepke

26th January 2004, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I can see that the eye/brain could fathom that some objects were closer than others, and some further than others. But how does it get an accurate picture of events? None of the replies here have answered that question.

It doesn't generate an accurate picture! Have you never heard of optical illusions? Have you never been exposed to the fact that generations of people thought that all the stars were at the same distance?

Interesting Ian

27th January 2004, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by Dymanic

Ian
If one has been blind throughout their lives due to some defect in their eyes, then this is cured, and then they have perfect vision (although they can't see very well) then clearly thier brain is "wired to process visual information in the first place".

Dymanic
No, it ISN'T.

Ian
It's not the brain, it's rather a psychological thing. They haven't had any opportuinity to build up a model/theory about the world to make sense of it.

...NO NO NO. You just don't understand. It is ABSOLUTELY a "thought thing".

Dymanic
NO, NO, NO! You are quite spectacularly wrong about this, Ian. It is absolutely a difference at the level of structure in the brain. It is very much the same as with language aquisition. Infants have tremendous neural plasticity in the structures designed to recieve a particular type of input, but at some point, the plasticity is 'all used up'. The flexibility is a one-time special offer (which is why adults learn second languages so much more slowly than infants do their first language). If deprived of input, those structures will not develop fully. The structure of the brain of a person blind from birth is different from that of a sighted person.

They have the visual information coming in. They have perfect vision. Therefore it's a mental thing. They haven't developed an appropriate low level theory about the world. I'm not of course denying there is neural correlates associated with this development of a low level theory and that the lack of such plasticity within the brain makes the acquisition of seeing that more difficult. But you're saying that a person, blind from birth, then being made to have vision for the very first time, could therefore never be made to see without some operation on the brain. Or maybe even never be able to see at all. I find this extremely implausible.

Upchurch

27th January 2004, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Lifegazer explained in his opening post. We learn to see at a distance by perceptual cues like Russdill mentioned. The point being is that when we see something at a certain distance, this is a learned ability rather than an innate one. Yes, we have to learn to use our eyes. How does that imply that (1) we do not literally see at a distance and (2) there is no external reality?

It seems to me that what you're saying is analogous to saying that because we have to learn to drive a car, we can not literally drive a car from point A to point B. Because we have to learn how to use our own eyes means that we cannot litterally see objects at a distance? Are we metaphorically or symbolically seeing objects at a distance? I still don't understand what you're trying to get at.

Upchurch

27th January 2004, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

It seems to me that the argument you were making is that we are not a priori cognisant of distance from our visual sensations alone. Seeing is therefore a learnt ability, ultimately derived from the correlations between what we see and our sense of touch. Using visual sensations alone, visual cues thereafter give us the idea of how far away an object is.Are you sure about this or are you guessing? Have there been any studies or experiments about how we begin to corolate our visual inputs with distance? It's true that infants' sense of touch develops before their sense of sight, but its also a much simpler mechanism and, in early life, is much more essential to survival than sight is. I'm not aware of anything that says that touch is essential to learning how sight works.
Hence one cannot justify the existence of a material world or "external reality" by saying one is immediately acquainted with such a reality.I'm not convinced by your argument that we don't litterally see objects therefore, I don't buy your conclusion, but I'm still not sure I understand the premise.
On the other hand, only a philosophically naive person would maintain this, and if such a person were so disposed, they are unlikely to understand the argument that we do not literally see at a distance either! Is it naive to admit what one does not understand or is it just honest? :con2: Regardless, it is fortunate that my sense of self-esteem is not dependant on Ian's rather biased analysis.

Dancing David

27th January 2004, 06:22 AM

Ian:

Glad to have you back!

But NO, NO NO is the rant of a toddler and not worty of you.

When you say 'perfect vision': there is a hole in your definition:
I will digress briefly but I think we can add clarity.
The precess of perception
1. Reaction of the sense organ to some thing that creates the sensation.
2. Transfer of that information to the processing area of the brain.
3. Processing of the material into coherent form and presentation/interaction with the frontal cortex.

In step two there is a learning process that most infants and children go through, in that the brain has to learn to sort the information presented by the sense organ into a 'meaningful' or 'coherent' perception. So a baby need to have interaction with the various colors and shapes to be able to percieve them later. Which is where YHVH was headed in talking about tortured kitties.

This process would be lacking in the person who was blind from birth, so from the materialist POV, they are not going to have pefect sight even if you give them perfect vision, because thier brain has not learned to interpret the data presented by the sense organ of the yes.

1. When you say 'perfect vision', most materialist would assume that you mean, that the sense organs were functioning and that they could transmit a clear signal to the visual cortex.

2. When you say 'perfect vision', I think that what you are trying to say is , something like, 'they have been granted the ability to see which in this case would include : the sense organs, and whatever visula 'wet-ware' that a normal brain would have to be able to process the information in the visual cortex'. Am I right, because from the materialist POV, this is important, because that 'wet-ware' is a learned maturation process, no exposure no process.

3. Which gets to the higher level of perception, it would seem that you are saying that if a person who was blind recieved the ability to see , and for thier visual cortex to be able to make a coherent 'perception' of the visual data, then they would be unable to recognise a 'sphere' or a 'cube' if it was presented to them for the first time.

That seems like a no brainer Ian, and one that a materialist would agree to, language is labeling and the lables that they have would not have had the cross reference yet.

So if theyw were presented with a dog, they might recognise that it was a 'dog' because they can smell 'a dog smell' but they are not going to regocnise it a dog from purely visual cues alone.

I am not sure that they need a theory to recognise the cube, I think that a 'person of low cognitive functioning' could learn to recognise the cuce, by exposure.

I think I understand where you are going, but I would say that most learning and labeling occurs through exposure and not the higher cognitive functions.
Have you ever taught a child to tie thier shoes?

Interesting Ian

27th January 2004, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Lifegazer explained in his opening post. We learn to see at a distance by perceptual cues like Russdill mentioned. The point being is that when we see something at a certain distance, this is a learned ability rather than an innate one.

Yes, we have to learn to use our eyes. How does that imply that (1) we do not literally see at a distance and (2) there is no external reality?

It seems to me that what you're saying is analogous to saying that because we have to learn to drive a car, we can not literally drive a car from point A to point B. Because we have to learn how to use our own eyes means that we cannot litterally see objects at a distance? Are we metaphorically or symbolically seeing objects at a distance? I still don't understand what you're trying to get at.

Well, your analogy is hopelessly off.

Yesterday I provided a particular argument for what distance is. I said normally all distance means is that if I make certain bodily movements (eg walk towards object in question), I will receive a certain tactile sensation. Most crucially though distance doesn't mean anything more than this.

Now obviously, from the visual sensation of an object alone, we can learn approximately how much walking needs to be done before we are able to touch the said object. But the crucially important thing here is that this is all that it means to say that an object resides at a distance from you. It does not literally reside at a distance from you if this means anything more than certain bodily motions are required before having a tactile sensation of the seen object.

Thus a person who argues that we directly see a material world, or "external world" is simply at error. All we have are certain qualia, and experiences of the movements of our bodies. Visual and tactile sensations are strictly speaking heterogenous i.e there is no innate relationship between, say, a seen apple, and the sense of touch of an apple on reaching out our hands. Rather we have families of qualia, meaning that certain qualia, a particular visual sensation, and tactile sensation etc, are regularly found together. Thus, for example, we might have the visual appearance of an apple, what it feels like, what it tastes like, and we group together these qualia and refer to this family of qualia as an apple.

Upchurch

27th January 2004, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yesterday I provided a particular argument for what distance is. I said normally all distance means is that if I make certain bodily movements (eg walk towards object in question), I will receive a certain tactile sensation. Most crucially though distance doesn't mean anything more than this.I disagree, but you are taking your usual immaterialist assumption and I am not. So, once again, it comes down to our assumptions, doesn't it.
But the crucially important thing here is that this is all that it means to say that an object resides at a distance from you. It does not literally reside at a distance from you if this means anything more than certain bodily motions are required before having a tactile sensation of the seen object.In other words, it doesn't exist independantly of the observer? Again, assumptions, assumptions, assumptions....
Thus a person who argues that we directly see a material world, or "external world" is simply at error. {blah, blah, blah}I thought you actually had some point, but you just feel back into your old rhetoric. Nevermind.

edited to add: oh, and if you were just going to assume an immaterialist position anyway, what did it matter if the sense of sight was learned or not. If our understanding of distance was innate to humanity, wouldn't that be more condusive to believing that the "external world" is merely a constuct of the mind? Doesn't the fact that we have to learn what distance is from the external world suggest that it is a property of the external world and not ourselves?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th January 2004, 07:00 AM

Ian! IAN! For Ed's sake, man. If you're just going to assume an immaterialist position and then try to shoehorn all our neuropsychological knowledge into it, you first need to come up with a coherent model for your immaterial world. Otherwise you're just flailing around.

Here, read this and then work it all out:

Gary Marcus, The Birth of the Mind: How a Tiny Number of Genes Creates the Complexities of Human Thought, Basic Books, 2004.

Also, of course, The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th January 2004, 07:09 AM

Ian said:
Yesterday I provided a particular argument for what distance is. I said normally all distance means is that if I make certain bodily movements (eg walk towards object in question), I will receive a certain tactile sensation. Most crucially though distance doesn't mean anything more than this.
Or throw a ball and time how long it takes to get there. Or launch a rocket after calculating how long it will take, then find out you were right. Or watch an object (with which you don't interact) move between two points at a known speed. Or a thousand other ways of determining distance. (Notice that your "bodily movements" are also based on an internal sense, so you have one sense producing another.)

Given that, we have two possibilities:

There is an external world that obeys certain physical laws.
There is only an internal world, but it obeys laws that are just as exquisitely predictable as those physical laws.

Yet, somehow, you think that the first possibility is foolish, while the second is reasonable. And also, somehow, you think the second possibility affords you free will.

They are equivalent.

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

27th January 2004, 08:07 AM

I am not giving an argument for immaterialism! I thought we all agreed that we only learn about distance ultimately from the correlations beteen particular visual sensations and tactile sensations?? Are you all now disputing this??

I'm simply saying we cannot justify the existence of a material world by claiming that we directly are aware of objects residing outward of us. I thought people basically agreed with me. But now people seem to think I have some sort of cunning plan to logically show idealism/immaterialism must be true! :eek:

Look, there is one very important thing that people MUST try to understand.

The issues I am talking about are epistemological not ontological!

I am not saying that there absolutely cannot be objects lying literally at a distance away from us; just that we cannot infer it. Our understanding of distance is derived from the patterns of primarily our visual and tactile sensations. To say that objects literally reside at a distance outward from us, is to go beyond what we can possibly infer ie it goes beyond epistemology and becomes an ontological issue.

Likewise, I am not saying there are no apples, understood as a reality amounting to more than the sum of a family of qualia. There might be, but this is an ontological issue rather than an epistemological one. Indeed I myself believe in the existence of such apples, even if they are not material. I might, for eg, think of apples as conceptions in the infinite mind which our theories about apples (i.e our idea about apples derived from particular qualia), are reflections of.

But all this is getting a bit complex. None of you even understand the simple stuff!

Interesting Ian

27th January 2004, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Or throw a ball and time how long it takes to get there. Or launch a rocket after calculating how long it will take, then find out you were right. Or watch an object (with which you don't interact) move between two points at a known speed. Or a thousand other ways of determining distance.

That's all fine. They all amount to particular visual sensations though. What is it all supposed to show? It certainly doesn't show that distance is anything more than particular patterns represented by our qualia.

(Notice that your "bodily movements" are also based on an internal sense, so you have one sense producing another.)

One sense doesn't produce another! Our senses are heterogenous!

Upchurch

27th January 2004, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I am not giving an argument for immaterialism! I thought we all agreed that we only learn about distance ultimately from the correlations beteen particular visual sensations and tactile sensations?? Are you all now disputing this??No one is arguing about how we learn to use our senses, Ian. We're arguing about gaps in logic you've used to reach your conclusions.
I'm simply saying we cannot justify the existence of a material world by claiming that we directly are aware of objects residing outward of us.Now you're using different language. I don't think any of our senses can be divided into "direct" or "indirect" classifications. And, anyway, that isn't what you said. You said that we do not literally see objects at a distance because objects don't have a distance independant of the observer. This is an immaterialist assumption and one I don't agree with.
I thought people basically agreed with me. But now people seem to think I have some sort of cunning plan to logically show idealism/immaterialism must be true! :eek:Then explain how you can conclude that a distance between two objects has no meaning unless there is an abserver present, without resorting to immaterialism.
I am not saying that there absolutely cannot be objects lying literally at a distance away from us; just that we cannot infer it.But, by saying that distance has no more significance than its relation to an observer, you are infering that there absolutely cannot be objects lying literally at a distance. Otherwise you would have said something to the effect that "distance might not mean anything more than this" rather than "distance doesn't mean anything more than this."

Do you understand the difference?
Our understanding of distance is derived from the patterns of primarily our visual and tactile sensations. To say that objects literally reside at a distance outward from us, is to go beyond what we can possibly infer ie it goes beyond epistemology and becomes an ontological issue.That's fine, but it isn't what you said. I can only read what you say, not what you think.

Upchurch

27th January 2004, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
One sense doesn't produce another! Our senses are heterogenous! Tell that to lifegazer. ;)

Dymanic

27th January 2004, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

They have the visual information coming in. They have perfect vision. Therefore it's a mental thing
Let's call the visual information the 'signal' end of the system, and the brain the 'reciever' end. (This is a bit of an oversimplification, as human eyes are essentially extensions of the brain). What you are saying is that the signal alone constitutes perfect vision, regardless of the ability of the reciever to properly interpret it.

But you're saying that a person, blind from birth, then being made to have vision for the very first time, could therefore never be made to see without some operation on the brain. Or maybe even never be able to see at all.I'm saying that the degree to which such a person could develop the ability to process visual information would depend a lot on the age at which sight was restored. In addition to the problem with decreasing plasticity, there is evidence that what is called 'complex form processing' continues to develop well into adulthood -- so a person who got a late start would likely never catch up.

Study on newly sighted blind people (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030826065256.htm)

Normal visual experience necessary for proper brain development (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/07/010710074403.htm)

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th January 2004, 09:10 AM

Ian said:
I am not giving an argument for immaterialism! I thought we all agreed that we only learn about distance ultimately from the correlations beteen particular visual sensations and tactile sensations?? Are you all now disputing this??
Indeed, everything we know we learn about through our senses. It is possible that the things we sense are external to us. It is also possible that our senses are really "virtual senses" being fed inputs from some uber-being.

As you say, what we can learn through our senses is an epistemological question. Whether there is an external world or virtual senses is an ontological one. However, the severe constraints placed on the situation by the epistemological reality we all agree on renders the ontological question moot, I think. The two ontological positions are equivalent.

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

27th January 2004, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Dymanic

Let's call the visual information the 'signal' end of the system, and the brain the 'reciever' end. (This is a bit of an oversimplification, as human eyes are essentially extensions of the brain). What you are saying is that the signal alone constitutes perfect vision, regardless of the ability of the reciever to properly interpret it.

I'm saying that the degree to which such a person could develop the ability to process visual information would depend a lot on the age at which sight was restored. In addition to the problem with decreasing plasticity, there is evidence that what is called 'complex form processing' continues to develop well into adulthood -- so a person who got a late start would likely never catch up.

Study on newly sighted blind people (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030826065256.htm)

Normal visual experience necessary for proper brain development (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/07/010710074403.htm)

None of this is relevant. I'm not arguing against materialism. To have perfect vision we need a brain, but to have perfect sight involves understanding the world in a certain way (when I refer to "seeing" I mean interpretation of a visual perception. The terminology used in the article you linked to differs from mine). And yes this might be compared to acquiring a language, and it might well be more difficult later in life than as a baby due to the "plasticity" of the brain. OK that's fine. What are you disputing? Are you somehow trying to argue that this vindicates materialism?

The article states:

"Fine, MacLeod and their co-authors suggest that some visual mechanisms such as motion processing are more hard-wired than others"

This is just simply not relevant! A person obtaining vision for the first time ever can see motion because motion involves no theory! 3D objects do! It is very VERY obvious why such a person can detect motion and not 3D objects. It's a psychological thing. Yeah there are neural correlates to this mental activity. So what??

PS Could I please request that rather than you simply posting links, you quote what you believe to be the relevant stuff?? I really can't be bothered to read through a whole web page, especially as invariably they never have anything relevant to say.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th January 2004, 09:44 AM

Ian said:
This is just simply not relevant! A person obtaining vision for the first time ever can see motion because motion involves no theory! 3D objects do! It is very VERY obvious why such a person can detect motion and not 3D objects. It's a psychological thing. Yeah there are neural correlates to this mental activity. So what??
You're talking out of your arse, inventing ad hoc it-is-very-obviousnesses as you need them.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=33196

The fundamental problem in motion perception is the inevitable ambiguity of any sequence of images projected from a source onto a plane, such as the central retina: the observer must respond appropriately to the stimulus, but the sequence of retinal images does not allow a definite determination of its source. There is no analytical way to resolve this dilemma, because the requisite information is not present in the sequence of retinal images. This problem could be solved, however, if the perceived motion were determined by accumulated experience, such that the percept elicited would always be isomorphic with the probability distribution of the source of the stimulus. In this conception of motion perception (and vision more generally), the neuronal activity elicited by any particular stimulus would, over the course of both phylogeny and ontogeny, come to match ever more closely the probability distribution of the same or similar stimulus sequences (12). The aim of the experiments reported here was to test this hypothesis by establishing the probability distributions of the physical displacements underlying simple linear motion stimuli and then comparing the percepts predicted on this basis to the percepts reported by subjects.

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

27th January 2004, 09:58 AM

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th January 2004, 09:59 AM

And, you know, what in holy hell is the point of the uber-being projecting virtual images of a virtual 3D world onto our 2D retina? Why not just give us an accurate mental picture of this virtual world? If there is an uber-being, he's obviously an amateur or a joker.

Sorry, I had a bit of an ontological moment there.

~~ Paul

Dymanic

27th January 2004, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

What are you disputing? Are you somehow trying to argue that this vindicates materialism?
I am not as obsessed with the materialism issue as you are (I doubt if anyone is as obsessed with the materialism issue as you are). Actually, I'm not disputing what I think is your main thrust: that we see, not with the eyes, but with the brain. As you may remember from some previous discussions, that is something about which we agree. I'm merely straightening out some details you couldn't be bothered to read about.

Interesting Ian

27th January 2004, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
And, you know, what in holy hell is the point of the uber-being projecting virtual images of a virtual 3D world onto our 2D retina? Why not just give us an accurate mental picture of this virtual world? If there is an uber-being, he's obviously an amateur or a joker.

Sorry, I had a bit of an ontological moment there.

~~ Paul

Such an "uber-being" doesn't. A 3D world is a theory we make up to understand the patterns exhibited by our qualia. But bare motion is not a theory.

Interesting Ian

27th January 2004, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Dymanic
I am not as obsessed with the materialism issue as you are (I doubt if anyone is as obsessed with the materialism issue as you are). Actually, I'm not disputing what I think is your main thrust: that we see, not with the eyes, but with the brain. As you may remember from some previous discussions, that is something about which we agree. I'm merely straightening out some details you couldn't be bothered to read about.

I agree. No-one is obsessed with the materialism issue as much as me. That's why I'm trying not to argue about it!

Seeing is a matter of the self/soul and brain and eyes.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th January 2004, 11:13 AM

Ian said:
Oh for Chr*st's sake. If we had all lived 10,000 years ago, and therefore we all knew nothing about the brain whatsoever, I could have told you that a person who acquires vision for the first time ever would be able to see motion but not 3D objects.

It's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
How my vision develops during my childhood is a philosophical question? God ... gap ...

Such an "uber-being" doesn't. A 3D world is a theory we make up to understand the patterns exhibited by our qualia. But bare motion is not a theory.
It's a figure of speech. Why does the ultimate immaterial reality jump through such hoops to give us a virtual external reality?

Ultimate Reality: Okay Johnny, now we want to give those people an external reality.

Johnny: Why?

UR: Well, I don't have one and I'm bored to tears. So, how shall we do it?

Johnny: Well ... why don't we give them senses?

UR: Why bother? Why not just construct their minds to include a reality?

Johnny: Don't you think they'll be confused by that? How will they know where it comes from?

UR: They will just know that they are individuated pure being.

Johnny: Come on! They'll never buy that. There has to be an external context.

UR: Hmm. Okay, I get it. So we'll give them senses and then project the phony external context on them.

Johnny: Yes, yes! And then, in an attempt to understand what the heck the sensory input is, they will construct a 3D model.

UR: Why don't we just project 3D directly into their senses?

Johnny: Come on, dude! They'll never fall for that. Anyway, give them something to do. Let them build a model.

UR: Oh, all right. Johnny, you're a pip!

~~ Paul

Upchurch

27th January 2004, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

UR: Oh, all right. Johnny, you're a pip!
Johnny: Hey, UR. Why don't you just go ahead and make this "external reality"? I mean, you've already thought up all the physical laws that physical objects would have to abide by. Wouldn't it be less work to actually build the stupid thing rather than try to trick everyone in to only thinking that it's there?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th January 2004, 11:36 AM

(time passes...)

UR: You know, Johnny, that was an awfully smart question. At first, I thought it was a good idea. But then I started thinking about how to implement telepathy, remote viewing, and homeopathy. I can't quite work them into the natural laws that we came up with.

So let's stick with the virtual reality thing and just kludge up the paranormal stuff. After all, we can miracle those things; who cares if they follow the laws? Then, later, when we've figured out how to amend the laws to accomodate them, we can switch to physical reality and take a vacation.

Johnny: Switch?! How can we possibly do that?

UR: Ah, that's the cool part. The two schemes are equivalent, so when we switch, no one will notice!

Upchurch

27th January 2004, 11:56 AM

Johnny: http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/cwm/cwm/eek7.gif

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th January 2004, 12:15 PM

UR: No, really, the two schemes are logically equivalent, except for the magic part. So the trick is to keep the magic stuff obscure and hard to replicate until we switch over to the physical reality. They won't be able to figure out the laws that pertain to the magic stuff---we'll call it paranormal stuff---because there aren't any laws! Then when we switch, we can slowly let the paranormal stuff become more replicable. If we do it too fast, they'll suspect a trick. Eventually they'll discover those new laws and be real proud of themselves.

Johnny: Are you sure the two schemes are equivalent?

UR: Well, my young friend, if you can figure out a way to tell the difference, I'll buy you a malted.

~~ Paul

lifegazer

27th January 2004, 12:20 PM

I've been thinking. :D

Firstly, we know that photons yield no information of distance traversed. Consequently, the concept of "distance" is a given, by the brain, to the abstract reality it creates of the [supposed] external reality for its own awareness.
So, how do we know that this distance (from the observer to the source of this light) even exists? I mean, if a photon says nothing about distance traversed, how do we know that any distance has been traversed?
Some of you gave reasons, such as some regions of light obscure other regions of light as they move across our vision... thus infering that some regions of light must emanate from sources which are closer than others.
But guess what? The same effect is seen on a 2-dimensional TV screen. So it doesn't automatically mean that some objects are closer than others.
Why would the brain choose to believe it was seeing 3 spatial dimensions instead of 2, particularly when it was only seeing photons giving info of 2?
What is it within the info yielded by photons which forces the brain/mind to think there are 3 spatial dimensions?

Upchurch

27th January 2004, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
But guess what? The same effect is seen on a 2-dimensional TV screen. So it doesn't automatically mean that some objects are closer than others. Tell me, lifegazer, when you are watching TV, can you look at items in the background and bring them into focus?

lifegazer

27th January 2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Tell me, lifegazer, when you are watching TV, can you look at items in the background and bring them into focus?
I am not sure what you are asking me here, or why.

Upchurch

27th January 2004, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I am not sure what you are asking me here, or why. When one looks at something (IRL) in the foreground, items in the background are often blurry and double-imaged. Focusing on the items in the background will cause items in the foreground to become blurry and double-imaged.

Does this same effect occur when you watch TV?

(The answer is "no." TV manages to fool you by recreating some of the visual clues that indicate distance, but unless you suspend your disbelief, no one is fooled into thinking there are actual 3D items extending past the screen.)

edited to add: forgot the "why".

People choose to "believe" that the image on the TV are three dimensional for the same reason they choose to "believe" in Godzilla or Alf. It's enterntainment and escapism. It's called "suspension of disbelief"

Skeptical Greg

27th January 2004, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I've been thinking. :D
What is it within the info yielded by photons which forces the brain/mind to think there are 3 spatial dimensions?

There is nothing in the photons that provides this information.. Photons only provide information about freqency and intensity.. Nothing about direction, source or distance travelled...

A single photon from a star is indistinguishable from a single photon emitted from a TV, against which, you have pressed your face..

Go back and read page one of this thread..

What books have you read since you said:

Okay ladies and gents... I concede to your better knowledge.

Mercutio had some particularly good advice for you..
Lifegazer...a simple question for you. I have on my bookshelf a book which would answer for you every aspect of this current puzzlement. It is a book on Visual Perception (this one happens to be by Sekular & Blake, but there are a dozen or more others which are every bit as current and as thorough), and it covers in detail what "materialists" know about visual perception.

It is still good advice..

scribble

27th January 2004, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I've been thinking. :D

Dude, enough witht he thinking. IT's obviously not getting you anywhere. Instead, try going out and LEARNING.

I can actually see your post getting stupider the more you "think."

Optics is not only a fascinating field, it's one where the questions you are asking were answered a very, very long time ago.

lifegazer

27th January 2004, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
There is nothing in the photons that provides this information.. Photons only provide information about freqency and intensity.. Nothing about direction, source or distance travelled...

Exactly. So each one of those concepts is given to [perceived] reality, by the mind itself.

Go back and read page one of this thread..

What books have you read since you said:

Mercutio had some particularly good advice for you.. [read lots of books]

It is still good advice..
Do you actually ever have anything to say other than go and read the same books that you have swallowed?

RussDill

27th January 2004, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I've been thinking. :D

Firstly, we know that photons yield no information of distance traversed. Consequently, the concept of "distance" is a given, by the brain, to the abstract reality it creates of the [supposed] external reality for its own awareness.

Everything about our view of the world is an abstraction. If our senses worked in a literal sense, it would be a very confusing world to our simple brains indeed. However, when we study the external reality, we use tools and methods meant to get literal answers and free us of that level of abstraction.

So, how do we know that this distance (from the observer to the source of this light) even exists? I mean, if a photon says nothing about distance traversed, how do we know that any distance has been traversed?

There are a very large number of ways. Triangulation is one, boucing a photon of a distant object and timing it is another. using measuring tape is yet another. I can go on and on.

Some of you gave reasons, such as some regions of light obscure other regions of light as they move across our vision... thus infering that some regions of light must emanate from sources which are closer than others.
But guess what? The same effect is seen on a 2-dimensional TV screen. So it doesn't automatically mean that some objects are closer than others.

Although your TV is 2d, it still contains many of the cues necessary for you to discern depth. Paralax when the camera moves, haze for distant objects, blur for out of focus objects, and the relative size of known objects. However, these relatively few cues are really easy to fool as evidenced in order pre-cg movies involving giants, or little people.

For little people, they try to insert cues that the little people are close to the camera, and the big people are far from the camera, but it is really the opposite on the set.

Why would the brain choose to believe it was seeing 3 spatial dimensions instead of 2, particularly when it was only seeing photons giving info of 2?

It doesn't choose, it is hardwired. Also, with stereoscopic vision, we are seeing photons that give info on three dimensions. Some lower organisms may have no sense of depth and are at a disadvantage to organisms that do have a sense of depth.

What is it within the info yielded by photons which forces the brain/mind to think there are 3 spatial dimensions?

The brain isn't forced to view 3 spatial dimensions, it is hardwired that way, it is an evolutionary advantage. You might take not that it is impossible for our feeble minds to visualize a 4 dimensional scene (although we can discuss all aspects of such a scene).

Also, I already explained what yields a 3d view, the angle of the eyes, and the offsets of objects. The offset part is pretty easy to confuse to. If you stand in front of a repeating pattern (such as a chainlink fence) and look at something far away, sometimes the repeating pattern of the fence lines up when it shouldn't, really screwing with your depth perception.

Another good example is those posters with all the little silly dots. Stare long enough, and the random patterns in the dots will line up and create a 3d image, fooling your depth perception.

http://www.vision3d.com/sghidden/dino.jpeg

Here are some examples:

http://www.vision3d.com/virtual.shtml

(BTW, the entire vision3d site is for kids that have trouble with 3d vision because of various medical problems. The site is designed to get kids interested and exciting about gaining depth perception and includes a large number of excercises and information intended to be helpful, related article: http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/story/0,1259,---18156,00.html)

Upchurch

27th January 2004, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Exactly. So each one of those concepts is given to [perceived] reality, by the mind itself. Ah, so your "thinking" constitutes repeating what Ian said above? Interesting...

edited to add: No, I lied. It isn't interesting at all. You've been repeating Ian's schtick pretty much since you got here.

RussDill

27th January 2004, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Exactly. So each one of those concepts is given to [perceived] reality, by the mind itself.

The mind does not give direction or distance to individual photons. We aren't even aware of individual photons

lifegazer

27th January 2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
When one looks at something (IRL) in the foreground, items in the background are often blurry and double-imaged. Focusing on the items in the background will cause items in the foreground to become blurry and double-imaged.

Does this same effect occur when you watch TV?

(The answer is "no." TV manages to fool you by recreating some of the visual clues that indicate distance, but unless you suspend your disbelief, no one is fooled into thinking there are actual 3D items extending past the screen.)

Actually upchurch, you're talking about images perceived which have been created by the brain/mind.
The awareness of 3 dimensions is a mind-given construct. I thought we'd already agreed to this? Remember that photons say nothing of distance, so that the mind/brain creates the image or awareness of distance for itself. Right?
So when you speak about the awareness of 'blurring' within the image that the mind/brain has already constructed for itself, you must acknowledge that the blurring is a phenomena of the construct, and not of the incoming photons. Agreed?

Upchurch

27th January 2004, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I thought people basically agreed with me.
Originally posted by lifegazer
I thought we'd already agreed to this? Aw.... that's cute. You're like Ian's little brother, copying everything he does.

Upchurch

27th January 2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually upchurch, you're talking about images perceived which have been created by the brain/mind.Actually we're talking about the mind imaging the external world through data inputed by the senses, in this case, the eyes. Why would need the perception of sterioscopic vision if all our minds would need is the final image?

I also find it interesting that you rely on material world concepts like photons and distance to try to argue that there is not such things as photons or distance, but that's neither here nor there (so to speak).
The awareness of 3 dimensions is a mind-given construct. I thought we'd already agreed to this? Remember that photons say nothing of distance, so that the mind/brain creates the image or awareness of distance for itself. Right?At no point did we agree on this. A single photon can doesn't say anything about distance, but the multitude of photons that we receive from different objects provide multitudes of information.
So when you speak about the awareness of 'blurring' within the image that the mind/brain has already constructed for itself, you must acknowledge that the blurring is a phenomena of the construct, and not of the incoming photons. Agreed? I agree it is a phenomena of the perception, errors on the part of the awareness in interpreting the information.

Skeptical Greg

27th January 2004, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

We aren't even aware of individual photons

I read somewhere that a single photon can be detected by the eye in an otherwise darkened room.. I Admit it was a dubious source, but it sounded cool..

Do you know if this is true or not?

Upchurch

27th January 2004, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes

Do you know if this is true or not? I don't think it is. There are certain luminations that are too dim for the human eye to detect. Now, I may have this wrong, but more illumination = more photons. So if there are a certain number of photons that are undetectable by the human eye, one certainly would be undetectable.

Dancing David

27th January 2004, 01:16 PM

lifegazer

27th January 2004, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
There are a very large number of ways. Triangulation is one, boucing a photon of a distant object and timing it is another. using measuring tape is yet another. I can go on and on.

Russ, you are failing to distinguish between abstract awareness and [supposed] actual external reality - the source of the photons.
What I mean by this, is that 'we' see what is constructed for us by our brain/mind. And the brain/mind sees (we assume) the external reality. We do not.

It doesn't choose, it is hardwired. Also, with stereoscopic vision, we are seeing photons that give info on three dimensions.

Yes, we are seeing a 3-dimensional abstract-realm. We even see that we have two eyes. That's part of what is perceived too. That's part of the mind's own construct.

Let me ask you this: If photons give one eye no details of a concept we know as distance (in external reality), then why should two eyes?

Upchurch

27th January 2004, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

If photons give one eye no details of a concept we know as distance (in external reality), then why should two eyes? Because two eyes, by their very nature of being distinct eyes, are seperated by a physical distance. Remember that whole steryoscopic vision thing? It only works if the input is coming from two sources that are not located at the same point.

Are you familiar with triangulation?

Dancing David

27th January 2004, 01:22 PM

Ian of the Interesting:

If you were paying attention you would have seen that some of us might have actualy agreed with you, but then you would have to get off the pedastal of the Underappreciated Genius wouldn't you?

And here I thought you were smart, looks like you really just like to argue.

Sigh.

There are some phenomena of the visual field that do fall directly into what you are saying, that is why a newly sighted person might recognise a dog through smell but not sight.

And I agree even if they had a visual cortex that was capable of creating a coherent visual field , they most likely would not visualy recognise a 'cube' when first seeing it.

So stop stomping your feet and holding your breath and tell us why you think that is important.

A materialist would just say, no brainer they haven't learned the visiual reference to the previous tactile map of a cube. So what?

There is no magic part of the mind that holds the template for 'cube' where the different senses go for reference, all associations are learned.

So if you are done throwing your tantrum, why not tell us why you think that it is important that a newly sighted person wouldn't recognise a cube?

I would have predicted it, big whoop.

Dancing David

27th January 2004, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes

I read somewhere that a single photon can be detected by the eye in an otherwise darkened room.. I Admit it was a dubious source, but it sounded cool..

Do you know if this is true or not?

Hmm, sound like a questioin for Dr. mecrutio!

I don't know, I always thought the threshold was higher than a single photon.

Dancing David

27th January 2004, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually upchurch, you're talking about images perceived which have been created by the brain/mind.

I have said that already and repeatedly. But they are constructed from information sent to them by the sense organs.

The awareness of 3 dimensions is a mind-given construct. I thought we'd already agreed to this? Remember that photons say nothing of distance, so that the mind/brain creates the image or awareness of distance for itself. Right?

Yeah so, that doesn't mean that an apple is really flat does it? The fact that our eyes create the brains create a 3D illsuion doesn't mean that the 3D world doesn't exist. All perception is an illusion LG. I already know that, which is why I chose nihilism.

BTW do you see the 'blind spot' in your eye when you look through one eye, no you don't. That is because your brain makes up the image there. Cool huh?

So when you speak about the awareness of 'blurring' within the image that the mind/brain has already constructed for itself, you must acknowledge that the blurring is a phenomena of the construct, and not of the incoming photons. Agreed?

That is a cart horse question LG, the photons do not transmit the blurring directly, but they can be represented on a TV screen, like when you look at a photo taken on a foggy day. When the light bounces off the photo and then eneters your eyes, there is already the information that our brain percieves as blurry.

The information of the blurring is carried by the photons and then interpreted by our brains to give the depth effect.

So I would say that blurring is information carried in the picture but that the depth interpretation is done by the brain.

Skeptical Greg

27th January 2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Hmm, sound like a questioin for Dr. mecrutio!

I don't know, I always thought the threshold was higher than a single photon.

O.K. you have me thinking now.... ( dangerous )..

I'm sure you have heard of the ' slit ' experiments, and questions about how do the photons ' know ' if there is one slit or two, thus creating interference patterns.

It seems that one photon should be enough in light of the question of ; why should the receptors respond to an arbitrary number, rather than just one?

But I will defer to a more informed opinion..

Dymanic

27th January 2004, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes

I read somewhere that a single photon can be detected by the eye in an otherwise darkened room.. I Admit it was a dubious source, but it sounded cool..

Do you know if this is true or not?
I heard it was more like seven, but I can't remember where I heard it. IIRC, Penrose touched on it in The Emperor's New Mind.

lifegazer

27th January 2004, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
"The awareness of 3 dimensions is a mind-given construct. I thought we'd already agreed to this? Remember that photons say nothing of distance, so that the mind/brain creates the image or awareness of distance for itself. Right?"

All perception is an illusion LG. I already know that, which is why I chose nihilism.

What?!
How does the conclusion follow the observation? You lost me on that one.

Dancing David

27th January 2004, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes

O.K. you have me thinking now.... ( dangerous )..

I'm sure you have heard of the ' slit ' experiments, and questions about how do the photons ' know ' if there is one slit or two, thus creating interference patterns.

It seems that one photon should be enough in light of the question of ; why should the receptors respond to an arbitrary number, rather than just one?

But I will defer to a more informed opinion..

I found this the key phrase is 'absolute threshold' and in this article the authoer says a 'few quanta of light' are all that are needed to trigger a dark adapted retina.

More article here (http://web.utk.edu/~wverplan/biblio10.html)

The issue as to why a specific number of quanta is that there may be a threshold for the variation in the photopigment rhodopsin.

Dancing David

27th January 2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

What?!
How does the conclusion follow the observation? You lost me on that one.

I guess I am not an absolute nihilist, it just comes from having a father who was an athropologist and a mother who was a literature major, then I studied psychology.

Although I do believe that the universe appears to have come from a nothing that was really a 'something'. ;)

My take on hihilism is that nothing know by humans is true, everything we know is just a product of the biological nature of being. It is all abritrary and open to interpretation So while I may 'see a car', I know that I am just having a perception made up by my brain for my benefits. So I feel that applies to all human concepts, they are just handy referents that we use in speech to denote meaning. That meaning has no real correlary in the 'real' world. And it seems to even be a subject of some debate as to wther or not the real world exists. I already had rejected the mental world as false by the age of fiveteen and the 'real' world soon followed. So I believe that i have perception but they are only approximations of the experience of the sense organs.

I keep forgetting that Nihilism scares people, I figure you just go on and assume that the oberservations you make are just a best guess and subject to revision at any time.

I still have morals and ethics and try to enjoy the false world of perception as much as I can.

lifegazer

27th January 2004, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
My take on hihilism is that nothing know by humans is true,

Contradictory statement, since you're proclaiming this as a truth.

everything we know is just a product of the biological nature of being.

Unfounded assertion.

So while I may 'see a car', I know that I am just having a perception made up by my brain for my benefits.

True. So at least you know you have a mind. The Mind is the creator of the things it puts upon 'your' awareness. As discussed in this thread, your reality of things is a mind-construct. And whilst we cannot be sure about the things, there can be no doubt about the mind itself.

You can know your own reality by going to the source of its construct. But note that "the brain" is a thing within that construct. It's in your awareness, along with everythin else.

hammegk

27th January 2004, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Johnny: Are you sure the two schemes are equivalent?

UR: Well, my young friend, if you can figure out a way to tell the difference, I'll buy you a malted.

Sounds good to me; undefined monism + agnosticism is the unassailable stance imo.

Or is that just another drive-by by a strawman??? :D

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th January 2004, 03:43 PM

Hammy said:
Sounds good to me; undefined monism + agnosticism is the unassailable stance imo.
Any ontology that fits the observed epistemological parameters is groovy. And unassailable, since there is no way to prove it one way or the other.

~~ Paul

Mercutio

27th January 2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Do you actually ever have anything to say other than go and read the same books that you have swallowed?
Interesting...I thought there was a chance you had asked the question because you wanted to learn something. Apparently not.

These "same books that you have swallowed" were written by people who used to have the same questions you were asking. And they may have done a bit of the thinking you have been doing. The difference is, they did not stop there. They challenged their conclusions, tested their assumptions, read the works of others before them who had addressed the same questions...and found the subject so fascinating that they dedicated their lives to its study.

I am constantly amazed at the level of detail with which the human visual sense has been studied. Yes, there is still a great deal to study, but we know an incredible amount about it. I have friends who have studied color perception for over 20 years. Another who has studied depth perception for over 10 years. These are not people whose interest in vision is an idle curiosity.

But I suppose their conclusions are of no interest to you. Sitting around thinking, you have come to conclusions that satisfy you, and that is good enough. All I can say is, I am very glad that the place you are now was only the first step in a long, long road for these others. It's a helluva journey. You ought to read about it. Um...yeah, it's right there in that book.

So tell me...have you ever taken any interest of yours beyond the "sitting and thinking about it" stage, to the "let's see if my conclusions actually hold water" stage? You might want to try it sometime. Hey, if you are interested in some tried-and-true methodologies for testing some of your ideas...yup, it's right there in that book.

Beleth

27th January 2004, 04:26 PM

A single photon contains no information about distance of its generating object, true, but multiple photons, traveling different paths from that object and through a lens, do. The distance an object is away from your eye has a definite, observable effect on where the real image of that object is on one's retina.

This is basic optics, and the reason why bifocals are a good thing.

Apologies if this has been said before.

hammegk

27th January 2004, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Any ontology that fits the observed epistemological parameters is groovy. And unassailable, since there is no way to prove it one way or the other.

~~ Paul
You seem to imply there is a smorgasbord of options. What am I missing as I see just 2: body, or spirit?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th January 2004, 04:49 PM

Hammegk said:
You seem to imply there is a smorgasbord of options. What am I missing as I see just 2: body, or spirit?
Any ontology, with any number of fundamental existents, that is compatible with the epistemological constraints placed on our observations of the world, is a logically coherent ontology. That is, assuming that you think asking what the fundamental existents are makes any sense at all, which I don't.

Occam would suggest the fewest possible number of existents. My claim is that all ontologies with one existent are equivalent, since you can't actually know what that one fundamental existent really is, stuffwise. So calling the existent body, spirit, computer program, matrix, or snurfle makes no difference at all.

I will be shown to be a raving lunatic when someone comes up with an experiment that can differentiate one fundamental existent from another, in such a way that the differentiating attribute clearly partitions the set of all possible existents.

Edited to add: It may be the case that philosophers don't think they are trying to determine the actual stuff of the existents, only the existents' logical attributes. That's fine, but then there is certainly no reason to assign meaningful names to the existents. Just heap on the attributes until you can explain everything.

~~ Paul

hammegk

27th January 2004, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

... So calling the existent body, spirit, computer program, matrix, or snurfle makes no difference at all.

Yeah, I suspected as much from you. And as you probably anticipated, I disagree. Try Occam yourself, mmmkay?

All philosophy looking at the body/spirit dichtomy is erroneous since computer program, matrix, or snurfle didn't receive equal billing? I don't think so, but it's the usual materialist/atheist obfuscation on questions they can't address.

If you can't or won't fight your way through the logical implications of body monism vs spirit monism vis-s-vis modern physics, biology, etcetc, and arrive at a conclusion, your choice.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th January 2004, 06:06 PM

Hammegk said:
All philosophy looking at the body/spirit dichtomy is erroneous since computer program, matrix, or snurfle didn't receive equal billing? I don't think so, but it's the usual materialist/atheist obfuscation on questions they can't address.

If you can't or won't fight your way through the logical implications of body monism vs spirit monism vis-s-vis modern physics, biology, etcetc, and arrive at a conclusion, your choice.
Okay, help me out. Give me two things:

One distinction between material monism and spirit monism. Something that one of them can explain that the other cannot, in principle, explain.
An example of something that your favorite monism can explain that, say, mind-as-computer-program cannot.

Also, tell me if you think that the fundamental existent really is actual mind stuff, or whether you're just thinking of a logical existent with a set of properties that you're calling "mind."

~~ Paul

Skeptical Greg

28th January 2004, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Do you actually ever have anything to say other than go and read the same books that you have swallowed?

Mercutio addressed this rather well ( thank you, Mercutio ), but I wanted to respond also..

Since you do not seem to listen to what anyone has to say, what possible difference could it make, how much they have to say or how they aquired that knowledge?

Your original post in this thread revealed a complete ignorance of optics, light transmission and how visual information is processed by the human brain.

Several people who overcame their ignorance of this subject in a traditional manner, that includes reading, attempted to take your question/s seriously, explain some of it to you on a very elementary ( you are obviously not ready for anything more ) level, and suggest resources for expanding your knowledge.. Resources that have been available for a hundred years or more, that you have somehow managed to avoid.

Yes, unlike you, I have very little to say, that does not reflect what I have managed to read from books...

If you find that people often direct you toward knowledgeable resources, you might consider that they are trying to spare you further embarassment..

Interesting Ian

28th January 2004, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Okay, help me out. Give me two things:
[list]
One distinction between material monism and spirit monism. Something that one of them can explain that the other cannot, in principle, explain.

Paul,

Material monism cannot explain anything at all.

But let's suppose both positions explain the world equally well. What you're adopting is a wholesale rejection of metaphysical/ontological questions. In essence what you're doing is embracing the major tenet of logical positivism. It held that only the epistemological is meaningful with the metaphysical/ontological being literally meaningless.

So neither materialism or "spiritual monism" is true. They are not true because they are both meaningless! But you cannot hold this because you hold that the mental realm has its origin in physical processes. But this is a metaphysical position by definition.

Basically logical positivism is simply meaningless.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

28th January 2004, 07:35 AM

Ian said:
So neither materialism or "spiritual monism" is true. They are not true because they are both meaningless! But you cannot hold this because you hold that the mental realm has its origin in physical processes. But this is a metaphysical position by definition.
I do not hold that the mind has its origin in an ontological "physical process." I hold that what we observe as mind most probably has its origin in what we observe as brain. It is an entirely epistemological position. I admit that I use physicalist-sounding terms when I discuss these things, but that is because I don't know how else to talk. I have not heard an argument to persuade me that the mind cannot have its origin in the brain. Neither have I heard an argument to distinguish one monistic position from another.

I am therefore willing to concede that, if we really could figure out what the fundamental existent "stuff" is, we might find it more like spirit than material. However, I don't think we can figure that out.

If pressed to take an ontological stand, even in the face of its utter meaninglessness, I would go for the existence of an external world independent of us.

If this all makes me a logical positivist, then so be it. I will gladly stop slamming ontology when someone presents me with an argument why it is meaningful. Logical positivism rejected ethics, too, did it not? I don't.

~~ Paul

Dancing David

28th January 2004, 10:09 AM

Way to go Paul!

:)

Dancing David

28th January 2004, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Contradictory statement, since you're proclaiming this as a truth.

I don't recall saying that, I would say that all statemenst are false. There is only a false human approximation of the non-existant reality.
All statements are false , including this one.

Unfounded assertion.

Quite true since all statemenst are assertions at best and assumptions at the very least.

True. So at least you know you have a mind. The Mind is the creator of the things it puts upon 'your' awareness. As discussed in this thread, your reality of things is a mind-construct. And whilst we cannot be sure about the things, there can be no doubt about the mind itself.

Sure there can, I don't know anything, I just make educated guesses. I could be a brain in a jar. I could be an experients being fed qualia.
The proof of the mind is the same as the proof of the physical world.
I experience=I sense. In my POV.
The reality of the mind is a mind thing as well, no proof whatsoever. I think I have a body, no proof, I think that I think, no proof. Same:same.

You can know your own reality by going to the source of its construct. But note that "the brain" is a thing within that construct. It's in your awareness, along with everythin else.

And mind is just a construct within mind. Same:same.

All equaly true, and all equaly false.

lifegazer

28th January 2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Contradictory statement, since you're proclaiming this as a truth.

I don't recall saying that

"My take on hihilism is that nothing know by humans is true"

... Are you, or are you not, saying this is true? If it is true, then your statement is self-defeating; and if it is false, then humans can know truths. Either way, you lose.

I would say that all statemenst are false. There is only a false human approximation of the non-existant reality.
All statements are false , including this one.

If this statement is false, as you declare, then all statements are not false.
Your philosophy is self-defeating DD, like Wittgenstein's and Geoffs. You really need to change it.

Quite true since all statemenst are assertions at best and assumptions at the very least.

Is this statement true? Or is it another statement that is false, like all others?
I've got nothing more to say about your nihilism, except that it makes no sense and is a self-defeating philosophy. But it's never too late to change your mind.

lifegazer

28th January 2004, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Mercutio
Interesting...I thought there was a chance you had asked the question because you wanted to learn something. Apparently not.

I presented an argument for the purpose of rational debate. Given that not a soul in this thread has completely explained my questions and doubts, I'd say that the convo was far from over.

I haven't joined a book club you know.

Skeptical Greg

28th January 2004, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I presented an argument for the purpose of rational debate.

No you didn't...

You said:

Here's the question: How does the eye and/or brain know what distance any specific photon has traversed through space?

.... And revealed a total ignorance of the visual process of human beings.. Then proceeded to ignore all attempts to remedy your ignorance..

Dancing David

28th January 2004, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

"My take on hihilism is that nothing know by humans is true"

... Are you, or are you not, saying this is true? If it is true, then your statement is self-defeating; and if it is false, then humans can know truths. Either way, you lose.

You are just pointing to the underpinning of nihilism, that there is no statement that can be proved true.
All statements are false, would exclude the dichotomy because the dichotomy is false as well. I am not going to defend nihilism beyond saying it is a tool like monism, and in fact they are drawn from the same conclusion.
You are operating under the assumption that if not-p=true then p=false and or some other arrangement which is similar. Nihilism says that all such statements are false from the get go. And therefore all statements are equaly false and equaly true.
It is like the island of knights and knave where all memebrs of the island either tell the truth or always tell a lie. In nihilsism it is assumed that they are all knights and all knaves, equally.

If this statement is false, as you declare, then all statements are not false.

That is true in that all statements are equaly true and equaly false. It is just a position, and nihilsim also aknowledges that it too is a false position, because all positions are false. Isn't that cool!
It can't be self defeating because, there is no 'real' concept of victory or defeat, all concepts are false. And because all concepts are false the correlate is true that all statements are true.

"If this statement is false ,as you declare, then all statements are not false is true" is a false statement because all statements are false, and therefore all are equaly true. It then comes to the observer to decide thier own method for determining truth because all methods are false.

See there is this problem in any absolute position, wether it be nihilism or any absolute position. All positions are false.

Your philosophy is self-defeating DD, like Wittgenstein's and Geoffs. You really need to change it.

My philsophy is a disjointed mish-mash of convenience. I am a materialist, a pagan animist, a buddhist and a nihilsist. I use different tools in different situations to come to different ends in each case. Works for me, but lacks coherence on any level , because I maintain that all are true and that all are false.

Is this statement true? Or is it another statement that is false, like all others?

All statemenst are true, and then for any particular observer there statement may be relativly true, so all statements are true, because all statements are false.
Then there is the grey area where everything is neither false of true, because the statements that everything is true is false and the statements that everything is false is false and the statements that everything is neither is false and the statement that everything is both is false, so
All statements are equaly true and equaly false.
I thought that this was grade school philsophy contained in Heraclites and the observation 'You never step in the same river twice.'

I've got nothing more to say about your nihilism, except that it makes no sense and is a self-defeating philosophy. But it's never too late to change your mind.

"I've got nothing more to say about your nihilism, except that it makes no sense and is a self-defeating philosophy. But it's never too late to change your mind." is a false statement!
;)

All hail Eris!

What can you point to as true LifeGazer, they same things that lead you to believe that there is a mind are the same things that lead me to beleieve that there is a physical world.

physical world(David)=Mind World(LifeGazer)

the negation of physical world makes the equation read

NOT(physical world(David))=NOT(Mind World(LifeGazer))

but then they are both false statements any how!

lifegazer

28th January 2004, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
.... And revealed a total ignorance of the visual process of human beings.. Then proceeded to ignore all attempts to remedy your ignorance..
I've not ignored anything. I even conceded to understand how the brain could fathom that some light appeared to be from a closer source than other light. Although I later realised that even a 2-dimensional TV screen can make objects (discerned from the light upon its screen) appear nearer than others, thus showing that there is no default 3-d reality anyway.
But my other main concern was that it was upto the brain to declare the distances which exist between objects since photons give no information of distance, even if they do give the appearance that distance might exist.

Alot of you are mistaking the image 'we' see as the image the brain would see. But this is not the case. The image we see is the brain's abstract construct of the 2-d image that it has become aware of. I've already had to point out to upchurch that "blurry vision" is a phenomena occuring in the image that 'we' see. It's a consequence of the way the brain constructs abstract perception.
Alot of the so-called explanations given by the members here, are totally irrelevant because they are also guilty of failing to distinguish the brain's sight from our own.
The brain literally sees a 2-dimensional construct of light. It completely creates the third spatial dimension for itself, as fathomed from light motion upon that 2-d screen.

Also, looking at a 2-d plane with two eyes would make no difference, I don't think. I mean, we look at the objects upon our 2-d TV screen with two eyes, don't we?
Two eyes would only make a difference to 3-dimensional [spatial]information.
I would suggest that in a 3-d spatial construct, that the brain would create the awareness of a body with two eyes to see the 3-dimensional information given to awareness through those eyes.
But to the brain that sees 2 dimensions, of what use are two eyes?

Skeptical Greg

28th January 2004, 12:24 PM

But to the brain that sees 2 dimensions, of what use are two eyes?

You seem to have missed the point that it is precisely the two slightly different images, presented by two eyes that enables the brain to construct a 3D image.

lifegazer

28th January 2004, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes

You seem to have missed the point that it is precisely the two slightly different images, presented by two eyes that enables the brain to construct a 3D image.
"Also, looking at a 2-d plane with two eyes would make no difference, I don't think. I mean, we look at the objects upon our 2-d TV screen with two eyes, don't we?
Two eyes would only make a difference to 3-dimensional [spatial]information."

What do you say to this?

Skeptical Greg

28th January 2004, 12:34 PM

Dancing David

28th January 2004, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

"Also, looking at a 2-d plane with two eyes would make no difference, I don't think. I mean, we look at the objects upon our 2-d TV screen with two eyes, don't we?
Two eyes would only make a difference to 3-dimensional [spatial]information."

What do you say to this?

I'd say that that is whole point that both of us are making, the brain/mind uses a number of cues to create the depth perception, mentioned already are shading, blurriness, the hazing effect and the texture gradient. these are all phenomena that our brain/mind uses to create the perception of depth to 2D picture as presented on a TV screen.

I thought this has already been addressed.?

lifegazer

28th January 2004, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes

Yes one eye is all we need TV..

I don't understand what your point is.. A 2-D TV screen is a construct.. I don't think our visual system evolved with TV in mind.
But the initial point of the discussion was that the brain is only aware of a 2-dimensional plane of light, which gives no direct information of distance travelled (by that light). Those distances are infered by the brain, because of the changing appearance of light upon that plane. The brain then constructs a 3-dimensional abstract spatial-reality for its own awareness. The ego is born.
But for the brain itself, seeing reality is akin to us observing a TV screen. That's why I said that two eyes are actually useless for the brain. Having two eyes doesn't make any real difference when observing a 2-d plane.
That's why I also suggested that two eyes are constructed into the 3-dimensional reality that 'we' see, since in
3-d, two eyes are useful for judging distances.

RussDill

28th January 2004, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

But the initial point of the discussion was that the brain is only aware of a 2-dimensional plane of light, which gives no direct information of distance travelled (by that light). Those distances are infered by the brain, because of the changing appearance of light upon that plane. The brain then constructs a 3-dimensional abstract spatial-reality for its own awareness. The ego is born.
But for the brain itself, seeing reality is akin to us observing a TV screen. That's why I said that two eyes are actually useless for the brain. Having two eyes doesn't make any real difference when observing a 2-d plane.
That's why I also suggested that two eyes are constructed into the 3-dimensional reality that 'we' see, since in
3-d, two eyes are useful for judging distances.

You still don't quite grasp what is going on. The brain does not view a 2d plane, it is grasping the difference between two 2d planes. So the start of the process would look more like this:

http://www.scottandmichelle.net/scott/myshots/images/3ddice.jpg

(but of course, with a little less confusion, and without the crazy colors). From the congomeration of the two images, it can be determined fairly quickly the 3d shape of each object in the scene. Look at the D4. By seeing the 1 line up in both images, but the 3 is offset, you can determine that the triangle shape is slanted towards you.

In the brain, the process of vision is segmented into many seperate processes. Perceiving motion, for example, is a process all on its own. People who have damage to this part of their brain can no longer perceive motion:

http://www.hhmi.org/senses/b210.html

Even people milling through a room made her feel very uneasy, she complained to Josef Zihl, a neuropsychologist who saw her at the Max Planck Institute for Psychiatry in Munich, Germany, in 1980, because "the people were suddenly here or there but I did not see them moving."

The vision we perceive is a lot more complex than just a 2d plane.

lifegazer

28th January 2004, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
I'd say that that is whole point that both of us are making, the brain/mind uses a number of cues to create the depth perception, mentioned already are shading, blurriness, the hazing effect and the texture gradient. these are all phenomena that our brain/mind uses to create the perception of depth to 2D picture as presented on a TV screen.

I thought this has already been addressed.?
We look at a TV screen and depth or distance is infered. There is no actual information on that screen to tell us that there is any actual depth or distance between the objects and ourselves.
We assume that there is because it appears as though there is, from the particular actions of the light upon the screen. That's why TV works. If it wasn't for the fact that our brain is the master of deducing distance from 2-dimensional interaction of light, TV would be a complete washout.
The same principals apply to the brain's perspective of external reality (if one exists), whereby the brain sees a 2-d plane full of light that actually says nothing of depth or distance. Regardless, because of the actions/motion/transformation of that light, depth or distance is deduced. Exactly as on TV.
The brain then goes on to construct the 3-d realm it has deduced for itself. Hence, the third dimension of space is not only the brain's deduction, but the brain's construct. The distances we see and measure between objects and ourselves are created by ourselves, in that they are created by our brains.

I think this is worth pursuing. I'm particularly struck by the realisation that two eyes are useless for a 2-dimensional plane of information. I think this is evidence to show that "two eyes" is itself part of the brain's construct of reality.
Rather... The Mind's.

Dancing David

28th January 2004, 03:45 PM

I agree LifeGazer that the brain makes up reality for us, but we do use the two eyes, have you ever played with a stereo scope or a viewmaster.

I just contend that our brain makes up our reality from the information presented by the sense organs. And that our reality is dual dependant phenomena, on the brain and the sense organs.

Which lead in an earlier debate to a discussion of wether or not farts actualy exist.

Skeptical Greg

28th January 2004, 03:48 PM

O.K everyone, time to bail out...

It just clicked with me, where this is going..

Our lifegazer is trying to understand why the illusion of the physical world we live in requires ( the illusion of ) two eyballs... ( instead of one ).. :rolleyes:

I fear the next question is going to invlove the number of gonads that we have..

Why do we need two ears, lifegazer?

lifegazer

28th January 2004, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
You still don't quite grasp what is going on. The brain does not view a 2d plane, it is grasping the difference between two 2d planes.

Tell me Russ - what difference does having two eyes make to watching the TV? Assuming you have excellent vision in both eyes, why would it help you to observe your 2-dimensional TV pictures with two eyes, rather than one?
This is the crux of the matter Russ. Even if the brain had two ever-so-slightly different perspectives of a 2-d plane full of light, what difference would it make?

So the start of the process would look more like this:

http://www.scottandmichelle.net/scott/myshots/images/3ddice.jpg

(but of course, with a little less confusion, and without the crazy colors). From the congomeration of the two images, it can be determined fairly quickly the 3d shape of each object in the scene. Look at the D4. By seeing the 1 line up in both images, but the 3 is offset, you can determine that the triangle shape is slanted towards you.

I cannot see any of this. Sorry. And I'm not sure what you what message you want to convey anyway.

The vision we perceive is a lot more complex than just a 2d plane.
It's a 2-d light show, Russ. The rest is infered.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

28th January 2004, 03:52 PM

Lifegazer said:
The same principals apply to the brain's perspective of external reality (if one exists), whereby the brain sees a 2-d plane full of light that actually says nothing of depth or distance.
No, it does not. It sees two 2D planes. Snap out of it, man!

Oh, look, as I was posting:
Diogenes said:
Our lifegazer is trying to understand why the illusion of the physical world we live in requires ( the illusion of )two eyballs... ( instead of one )..
Why does it require eyeballs at all? Just project reality directly onto my brain and drop all these ridiculous senses! What a kludge.

~~ Paul

RussDill

28th January 2004, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

We look at a TV screen and depth or distance is infered. There is no actual information on that screen to tell us that there is any actual depth or distance between the objects and ourselves.
We assume that there is because it appears as though there is, from the particular actions of the light upon the screen. That's why TV works. If it wasn't for the fact that our brain is the master of deducing distance from 2-dimensional interaction of light, TV would be a complete washout.
The same principals apply to the brain's perspective of external reality (if one exists), whereby the brain sees a 2-d plane full of light that actually says nothing of depth or distance. Regardless, because of the actions/motion/transformation of that light, depth or distance is deduced. Exactly as on TV.
The brain then goes on to construct the 3-d realm it has deduced for itself. Hence, the third dimension of space is not only the brain's deduction, but the brain's construct. The distances we see and measure between objects and ourselves are created by ourselves, in that they are created by our brains.

I think this is worth pursuing. I'm particularly struck by the realisation that two eyes are useless for a 2-dimensional plane of information. I think this is evidence to show that "two eyes" is itself part of the brain's construct of reality.
Rather... The Mind's.

I don't see how you go from our mind abstracting a concept, to insisting that because our mind abstracts it, it must not be real.

Upchurch

28th January 2004, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

We look at a TV screen and depth or distance is infered. There is no actual information on that screen to tell us that there is any actual depth or distance between the objects and ourselves. {snip} If it wasn't for the fact that our brain is the master of deducing distance from 2-dimensional interaction of light, TV would be a complete washout.Wow. It's like you completely forgot most if not all of this thread. Remember sterioscopic vision? How the brian uses two input sources to triangulate distance?

No one is fooled into thinking that the objects displayed on the TV screen projects backwards into the TV set. We accept the illusion of depth because we choose to let ourselves be fooled.
The same principals apply to the brain's perspective of external reality (if one exists), whereby the brain sees a 2-d plane full of light that actually says nothing of depth or distance. Regardless, because of the actions/motion/transformation of that light, depth or distance is deduced. Exactly as on TV.Again, you are completely forgetting the most important component of our depth perception. Your analogy does not hold because our ability to approximately measure distance is not exactly like watching pictures on TV. You are leaving out our ability to triangulate.
The brain then goes on to construct the 3-d realm it has deduced for itself. Hence, the third dimension of space is not only the brain's deduction, but the brain's construct.How do you derive your conclusion from the premise? If the 3D realm is the brain's construct, it does not deduce its existance because in creating something the brain would have direct knowledge of it. Likewise, f it deduces the 3D realm's existance, it did not construct it. Your argument both relies and denies on the different definitions of the 3D realm at the same time.
I think this is worth pursuing. I'm particularly struck by the realisation that two eyes are useless for a 2-dimensional plane of information.Not useless, redundant. And two eyes are essential for reasonably accurate perception of a 3D space. I think this is evidence to show that "two eyes" is itself part of the brain's construct of reality.
Rather... The Mind's. Whatever. Your conclusion is in no way supported by your argument, which is in itself faulty.

Mercutio

28th January 2004, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

We look at a TV screen and depth or distance is infered. There is no actual information on that screen to tell us that there is any actual depth or distance between the objects and ourselves.
fascinating supposition deleted for length
I think this is worth pursuing. I'm particularly struck by the realisation that two eyes are useless for a 2-dimensional plane of information. I think this is evidence to show that "two eyes" is itself part of the brain's construct of reality.
Rather... The Mind's. You know who else found this worth pursuing? About a couple hundred psychologists and psychophysicists, neurologists and other assorted riff-raff. You have the opportunity to give yourself a running start on your navel-gazing, but reject it.

Diogenes, you are right. Time to bail.

Lifegazer, this is a fascinating area of research and theory. It is one of my areas of interest; I have served as a subject in some experiments on depth perception. I love this stuff. When you show me that you can give this area the respect it deserves, I'll be glad to come back and talk about this stuff with you. There are very few more fascinating topics, IMHO. I sincerely hope you take the opportunity to read that book (or books) that are so readily available. If you ever do...PM me, I'd be happy to add to another thread. But this one? Sorry, but if you can't respect your own curiosity enough to find out what the people who have dedicated their lives to this study have found out about it, then you really don't care about the questions you pretend to ask. And if you are asking just to generate discord....we have a word for that. So, show that you are not a troll, and we can have a great talk.

lifegazer

28th January 2004, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
O.K everyone, time to bail out...

It just clicked with me, where this is going..

Our lifegazer is trying to understand why the illusion of the physical world we live in requires ( the illusion of ) two eyballs... ( instead of one ).. :rolleyes:

I fear the next question is going to invlove the number of gonads that we have..

Everybody here assumes that they really have two eyes.
If you follow the course of my reasoning, you'll see that two eyes are actually useless to a brain that can only see 2-dimensional information. The distances and depth infered from a 2-dimensional "light show", do not benefit from having two eyes. Likewise, one good eye is sufficient to watch TV.

Why do we need two ears, lifegazer?

Sound is also a construct of the brain. But let's not over-complicate this issue. It's already complex enough.

RussDill

28th January 2004, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Tell me Russ - what difference does having two eyes make to watching the TV?

none. Same with looking at a painting.

Assuming you have excellent vision in both eyes, why would it help you to observe your 2-dimensional TV pictures with two eyes, rather than one?

It doesn't, and never was it said that it does.

This is the crux of the matter Russ. Even if the brain had two ever-so-slightly different perspectives of a 2-d plane full of light, what difference would it make?

TV is not reality. In reality, we are not viewing a 2d plane full of light.

I cannot see any of this. Sorry. And I'm not sure what you what message you want to convey anyway.

Can you tell me what part you don't understand? Being involved in 3d graphics for so long, as well being interesting in, and studying optics, I may have glazed over some complex concepts in just a few words.

It's a 2-d light show, Russ. The rest is infered.

Actually no, our 3d stereoscopic vision does a very good job of reassembling a 3d representation of objects. So good in fact, that when we need to build robots that interact with a 3d environment, we give them stereoscopic vision.

Mercutio

28th January 2004, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Everybody here assumes that they really have two eyes.
If you follow the course of my reasoning, you'll see that two eyes are actually useless to a brain that can only see 2-dimensional information. The distances and depth infered from a 2-dimensional "light show", do not benefit from having two eyes. Likewise, one good eye is sufficient to watch TV.

Sound is also a construct of the brain. But let's not over-complicate this issue. It's already complex enough. Ah, the triumph of reasoning over experience!

Oh, we probably get the added benefit, since two eyes would be superfluous, of disproving natural selection too!

RussDill

28th January 2004, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Everybody here assumes that they really have two eyes.

Alright, you go ahead and argue against that...

If you follow the course of my reasoning, you'll see that two eyes are actually useless to a brain that can only see 2-dimensional information.

Whew, good thing we have brains that can see 3d information. Otherwise, I might have to poke out my other eye. Of similar note, is that 2d retinas limit us to seeing 3d information. If we evolved to witness a 4d world, we would probably have 2 retenas that cover a 3d volume. If we evolved to witness a 2d world, we would have two retinas that cover a 1d line. If we evolved to witness a 1d world, life would be really boring.

The distances and depth infered from a 2-dimensional "light show", do not benefit from having two eyes. Likewise, one good eye is sufficient to watch TV.

Good thing we live in a 3d world then, and not merely a 2d lightshow.

Sound is also a construct of the brain. But let's not over-complicate this issue. It's already complex enough.

Everything we perceive is the result of abstractions in the brain. However, that still says nothing as to the source of these stimuli and what they represent. You are somehow assuming that because we perceive abstractions of these stimuli that their source does not exist.

Upchurch

28th January 2004, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Everybody here assumes that they really have two eyes.
If you follow the course of my reasoning, you'll see that two eyes are actually useless to a brain that can only see 2-dimensional information....er, right. So what you're saying is that the human mind can only picture 2 dimensional images, like a TV.

Well, I guess lifegazer has finally proven something: TV really does rot your brain.

lifegazer

28th January 2004, 04:33 PM

I'm not sure what the problem is here with you guys. Let me try to summarize:-
(1) The brain sees a 2-dimensional light-show since light gives no real information of distance traversed. Agreed?
(2) The distances perceived are actually infered by the changing light. Distances appear to be real, just like TV. Agreed?
(3) Having two eyes would actually be useless to the brain's awareness of the original 2-d light-show. Likewise, having two eyes doesn't really benefit us when watching TV. Agreed?
(4) Therefore, having two eyes is part of the brain's construct of this abstract-reality, since two eyes are beneficial amongst a 3-dimensional realm.

I suggest that we only appear to have two eyes. They exist within the abstract construct of our Mind.

RussDill

28th January 2004, 04:39 PM

OK, so the image doesn't show up, here is the image I attempted to refer to:

http://www.scottandmichelle.net/scott/myshots/images/index-04-6.html

(edited to add, do a full referesh to avoid image caching)

RussDill

28th January 2004, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm not sure what the problem is here with you guys. Let me try to summarize:-
(1) The brain sees a 2-dimensional light-show since light gives no real information of distance traversed. Agreed?

No, through the use of stereoscopic vision, the brain is able to create a 3d representation.

(2) The distances perceived are actually infered by the changing light. Distances appear to be real, just like TV. Agreed?

No, stereoscopic vision has nothing to do with changing light. Nor does stereoscopic vision have anything to do with TV

(3) Having two eyes would actually be useless to the brain's awareness of the original 2-d light-show. Likewise, having two eyes doesn't really benefit us when watching TV. Agreed?

Yes, it doesn't benefit us when watching TV, however, watching TV is not necesasry to our survival. Other activities, such as chipping out an arrowhead, would be next to impossible without 2 eyes.

(4) Therefore, having two eyes is part of the brain's construct of this abstract-reality, since two eyes are beneficial amongst a 3-dimensional realm.

Therefore, through your own ignorance, you have once again proven your philosophy to yourself, congratulations.

lifegazer

28th January 2004, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
No, through the use of stereoscopic vision, the brain is able to create a 3d representation.

Stereoscopic vision is a feature of constructed reality. Same as "blurry vision". Tell me, what value does stereoscopic vision have upon the light of a TV screen? NONE.

The same principal applies to having two eyes and seeing an image of light which gives no information of distance traversed (by that light). In other words, stereoscopic vision is useless for discerning distances amongst a 2-dimensional image, whether TV or real.

No, stereoscopic vision has nothing to do with changing light. Nor does stereoscopic vision have anything to do with TV

The brain receives 2-dimensional information.

RussDill

28th January 2004, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Stereoscopic vision is a feature of constructed reality. Same as "blurry vision". Tell me, what value does stereoscopic vision have upon the light of a TV screen? NONE.

No one ever said it did, did they? A TV screen is monoscopic.

The same principal applies to having two eyes and seeing an image of light which gives no information of distance traversed (by that light).

No, it doesn't. Look at the image I provided the link for. All the information necessary to reconstruct a 3d representation of the environment is there in that image.

In other words, stereoscopic vision is useless for discerning distances amongst a 2-dimensional image, whether TV or real.

Well gee, duh, If we look at a drawing or a tv screen, it doesn't do us any good. But that isn't what stereoscopic vision is for. Stereoscopic vision is used to look at 3d objects and determine depth.

The brain receives 2-dimensional information.

Depending on how you look at things, it does receive two sets of 2d information, however, because the information comes from two sources, the differences between the two images contain 3d information. In that, the brain receives 3d information.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

28th January 2004, 05:01 PM

I hereby proclaim that Lifegazer has failed the Turing test.

~~ Paul

Mercutio

28th January 2004, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The brain receives 2-dimensional information. Two sets of it. Slightly different. Which are interpreted, through experience, as three dimensional. Ever see a 3-d movie? It is projected on a 2-d screen...We can...excuse me...We do process 3-dimensional information.

Ever see those "magic eye" posters? ever wonder about them? You know why they work? They work because we actually do understand how we see in three dimensions.

Read the d@mned book, lifegazer, and just maybe you won't say as many truly stupid things.

lifegazer

28th January 2004, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
...er, right. So what you're saying is that the human mind can only picture 2 dimensional images, like a TV.

Given that light says nothing of depth or distance (from the brain/mind that sees it), the answer to your question is "yes".

But the brain (if it actually exists) infers/deduces the existence of distance between light (sources)(things) by those similar principals which enable us to watch the TV.

"Distance" is the mind's own construct. I mean, even if there were such a thing as "distance between objects", the mind/brain is not privy to this real information. What we measure is given to us by our mind - not by "reality". The distances we perceive are not given to us by light itself.

RussDill

28th January 2004, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Given that light says nothing of depth or distance (from the brain/mind that sees it), the answer to your question is "yes".

Really lifegazer, are you this unable to grasp the concept of stereoscopic vision, or do you just refuse to attempt to grasp it.

But the brain (if it actually exists) infers/deduces the existence of distance between light (sources)(things) by those similar principals which enable us to watch the TV.

No, the primary principle has nothing to do with TV.

"Distance" is the mind's own construct.

Depends on how you mean it. As a concept, yes. As a part of physical reality. No. The distance between the earth and sun will effect its orbit regardless of our existence.

I mean, even if there were such a thing as "distance between objects", the mind/brain is not privy to this real information.

Sure it is, we just require tools in order to get excact numbers.

What we measure is given to us by our mind - not by "reality".

No, stimulis comes from reality, and that is what we measure. The source of stimuli is not our brain.

The distances we perceive are not given to us by light itself.

No, they are given by differences in our two eyes. Also, don't forget our tactile deductions of distance.

Beleth

28th January 2004, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Given that light says nothing of depth or distance (from the brain/mind that sees it),But it does, and that's not even counting stereoscopic vision. As I have mentioned before.

Light traveling from an object and passing through a lens will make a real, focused, image of that object on the other side of the lens. The location of that image is dependent on the distance between the object and the lens.

One photon gives no distance information. But two or more photons passing through a lens do. And that, after all, is how we see.

uruk

28th January 2004, 10:51 PM

Sorry if this has been brought up before.

For photons: parallax, doppler shifting, motion dillution, dispersion, etc.

And we can abstractly visualise the 4th dimension through mathmatic descriptions.

Blind people visualise their surroundings by physicaly touching the walls and objects in the room they are in and memorizing their locations (i.e. distance of objects with relation to each other). provided that noone move things around, they can navigate around the room same as a sighted person. The point?
in order to gain this mental visualization, the blind person has to
physicaly pace out and thus measure the actual distance between objects. That our mind (or that which is experiancing the experiance, or whatever) is what experiances and gives perception a "quali" or name, does not mean that an objective reality does not exist. It does not say anything about what is causing the stimulus, only what is experianceing the stimulus.

The fact still remains that all we can experiance is this existance (which seems acts like an "objective reality")and no other. There is no evidence, only speculation, that there is anything else other than this existance.

So if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then......

"Distance" is the mind's own construct. I mean, even if there were such a thing as "distance between objects", the mind/brain is not privy to this real information. What we measure is given to us by our mind - not by "reality". The distances we perceive are not given to us by light itself.

lifegazer

29th January 2004, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by Beleth
"Given that light says nothing of depth or distance (from the brain/mind that sees it)"

But it does, and that's not even counting stereoscopic vision. As I have mentioned before.

Light traveling from an object and passing through a lens will make a real, focused, image of that object on the other side of the lens. The location of that image is dependent on the distance between the object and the lens.

One photon gives no distance information. But two or more photons passing through a lens do. And that, after all, is how we see.
All along I've been saying that depth/distance has been infered via the action/transformation of light upon the brain's awareness. Please note that when I say this, I'm not talking about the images that we see (lenses et al), since these images are the consequent construct of the brain, after having deduced distance exists within the 2-dimensional information it has received.
May I remind you that light which gives no direct info of distance is completely 2-dimensional, exactly like a TV screen.
Clearly, this light gives the appearance of being 3-dimensional, but so does the light on our TV screens. I.e., the third dimension is infered, via the action of light, by the brain.
The brain then constructs the reality 'we' get to see.

Stereoscopic vision is part of the construct. It works in this reality we see, as given by the brain. But I cannot see how two eyes would actually benefit the brain itself, as it ponders the behaviour of a 2-dimensional lightshow. That's why I said that one eye is equally adept at watching the TV as two eyes. Two eyes only become an asset within this brain-constructed reality, it seems to me.
Hence, I conclude that having "two eyes" is merely part of the brain's construct of reality.

lifegazer

29th January 2004, 04:24 AM

Whilst we're all agreed to the fact that our actual awareness of reality is an abstract construct of the brain or mind, with distances imposed upon that awareness, I thought it might be interesting to mention this again:-

"The speed-of-light is a constant because The Mind feeds the visions of that light to its own awareness. So, it doesn't matter what velocity the observer is [supposedly] moving at, since the light he/she sees emanates not from the sources he approaches or recedes from, but from The Mind itself."

You see, Einstein's knowledge does relate to inner reality. It says nothing of an external reality. And the constancy of lightspeed is finally explained in a way that now makes sense.
I could also talk further of why distance and time are perceived differently by everyone, but I'll leave it for now. But the facts speak for themselves, I think. What we are actually seeing and experiencing is an illusion of space and time, created by the mind for the mind.

Skeptical Greg

29th January 2004, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

That's why I said that one eye is equally adept at watching the TV as two eyes.

Yes, you keep saying this... And yes, we only need one eye to accurately process the information presented by a TV..

But what does watching TV have to do with why we have two eyes..

P.S. Try watching TV with one eye for a while, and see if you prefer it to two..

P.S.S.. You are trying to make a point that only one eye is needed for the 2d construct of what we imagine is reality.. The fact that we have two eyes would seem to refute your position.

Upchurch

29th January 2004, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Whilst we're all agreed to the fact that our actual awareness of reality is an abstract construct of the brain or mind, with distances imposed upon that awareness, I thought it might be interesting to mention this again:-We might agree that our awareness of reality is an abstract construct, the concept of distance is imposed by the material world. What need would an abstract concept need of distance, weight, direction, or location? These are qualities of a physical reality which are not necesitated by something that is only a mental construct. That we have such ideas in our awareness is evidence that there is a physical world which is imposing such properties on us.

Incidently, repeating a false statement you've made before doesn't make it true or lend any credibility to this current line of argumentation.
What we are actually seeing and experiencing is an illusion of space and time, created by the mind for the mind. I challenge you, then, to prove it. Take the JREF Million Dollar Challenge. If space and time are illusions of the mind, they should be manipulable. Teleport from one room to another. Or fly without mechanical aid. Or move a box across a room without touching it. If you are right about the nature of the physical world, these things should just be a matter of concentration and self-control, like they are in dreams.

Go on, I dare you to take the Challenge and back up your claims with more than just talk.

lifegazer

29th January 2004, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
"That's why I said that one eye is equally adept at watching the TV as two eyes."

Yes, you keep saying this... And yes, we only need one eye to accurately process the information presented by a TV..

But what does watching TV have to do with why we have two eyes..

My point is that the brain sees a 2-dimensional image, like a TV image. Thus, two eyes are actually useless to the brain. It only needs one eye to observe a 2-dimensional image.

P.S. Try watching TV with one eye for a while, and see if you prefer it to two..

Only because it would feel weird since I'm used to having two eyes open.

P.S.S.. You are trying to make a point that only one eye is needed for the 2d construct of what we imagine is reality.. The fact that we have two eyes would seem to refute your position.
The brain only needs one eye. But if the brain wants to construct a 3-dimensional realm and be aware of itself from within this realm, then it would construct a body for itself with two eyes.

This might be confusing to some people and difficult to grasp; but the realisation that 'we' are living within the brain's own construct of a 3-dimensional [spatial] reality is also a realisation that those 3 dimensions are actually illusory, since 3 dimensions of boundless space do not really exist within the mind's own awareness.
The spaces we actually see between objects are made to appear thus, by the brain or mind.

Skeptical Greg

29th January 2004, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

My point is that the brain sees a 2-dimensional image, like a TV image.

Your point is asinine and wrong.... The brain sees/builds a 3D image, even when looking at a 2D ( flat ) object... Even to the point of ' making up ' missing information..

lifegazer

29th January 2004, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
We might agree that our awareness of reality is an abstract construct, the concept of distance is imposed by the material world.

It has been acknowledged that light imparts no direct knowledge of distance upon the brain. The 2-dimensional lightshow may appear to be suggestive of distance, but that is all. The actual evidence is that of a 2-dimensional existence.
Hence, the brain infers the existence of distance via the "lightshow".

What need would an abstract concept need of distance, weight, direction, or location? These are qualities of a physical reality which are not necesitated by something that is only a mental construct. That we have such ideas in our awareness is evidence that there is a physical world which is imposing such properties on us.

Is the universe imposing 'pain' upon you, or 'hot' or 'cold' or 'sweet' or 'loud' or 'red' or 'blue' or 'pungent' or 'angry' or 'happy' or... you get the picture: the physical world does not impose these experiences upon us. Therefore, something else must.

Incidently, repeating a false statement you've made before doesn't make it true or lend any credibility to this current line of argumentation.

Do you accept that our experience of reality is a mind or brain construct? Then you should accept that our experience of light emanates from the mind or brain. Therefore, as the observer accelerates, he neither approaches or recedes from the true source of that light - the mind or brain - therefore, the speed-of-light remains a constant. The source of light is not from an object which that light appears to depict, but is from the brain or mind itself. Hence, the constancy of lightspeed no matter how you move in relation to anything. It makes perfect sense of the realisation that we are living amongst the mind's own construct. Why don't you like this? What do you see that is wrong with it?

I challenge you, then, to prove it. Take the JREF Million Dollar Challenge. If space and time are illusions of the mind, they should be manipulable. Teleport from one room to another. Or fly without mechanical aid. Or move a box across a room without touching it. If you are right about the nature of the physical world, these things should just be a matter of concentration and self-control, like they are in dreams.

Go on, I dare you to take the Challenge and back up your claims with more than just talk.
You're asking for "a miracle". Is the evidence itself not enough?

lifegazer

29th January 2004, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Your point is asinine and wrong.... The brain sees/builds a 3D image

The brain builds a 3D image, but it most definitely does not see one for itself. The 3rd dimension of space is infered. Assumed.

, even when looking at a 2D ( flat ) object... Even to the point of ' making up ' missing information..
Exactly, the distances in your awareness are constructed by your brain or mind.

Upchurch

29th January 2004, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're asking for "a miracle". Is the evidence itself not enough? ACtually, it's a logical conclusion that such things would be possible if your philosophy were correct. Plus, such actions would be absolutely explainable under your philosophy would not be explainable under materialism.

All of the "evidence" you've presented so far has been inconclusive. Performing one of the acts I have suggested above would be conclusive proof that materialism is false. So, please, prove to us that space and time are merely illusions of the mind for the mind. Perform a "physical" act that would not be possible if materialism were true.

Skeptical Greg

29th January 2004, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The brain builds a 3D image, but it most definitely does not see one for itself. The 3rd dimension of space is infered. Assumed.

Exactly, the distances in your awareness are constructed by your brain or mind.

You are obviously still stuck on the ( wrong ) idea that the information contained in the light that reaches our eyes is two dimensional..

The fact that light has two components; freqency and intensity, has nothing to do with the dimensionality of the information contained in those two components.. i.e. billions of hues and gradients.

You only continue to paint a picture of your ignorance of the physics of light transmission, optics and the human visual process.

Dancing David

29th January 2004, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm not sure what the problem is here with you guys. Let me try to summarize:-
(1) The brain sees a 2-dimensional light-show since light gives no real information of distance traversed. Agreed?
(2) The distances perceived are actually infered by the changing light. Distances appear to be real, just like TV. Agreed?
(3) Having two eyes would actually be useless to the brain's awareness of the original 2-d light-show. Likewise, having two eyes doesn't really benefit us when watching TV. Agreed?
(4) Therefore, having two eyes is part of the brain's construct of this abstract-reality, since two eyes are beneficial amongst a 3-dimensional realm.

I suggest that we only appear to have two eyes. They exist within the abstract construct of our Mind.

'the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round'

I suggest that you play with a stereo scope, there is a reason that we have two eyes, actualy I have three but a comb over takes care of that.

Sorry LG, but I can't even debate you here, there is no fun in lampooning the absurd.

lifegazer

29th January 2004, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
You are obviously still stuck on the ( wrong ) idea that the information contained in the light that reaches our eyes is two dimensional..

That's because it is. Light gives no evidence of distance traversed. The third dimension is infered and assumed, via a 2-dimensional lightshow, yet you still fail to see this. The analogy to a TV image has been lost on you.

The fact that light has two components; freqency and intensity, has nothing to do with the dimensionality of the information contained in those two components.. i.e. billions of hues and gradients.

You still haven't grasped the distinction between the image 'we' see and the image the brain would see. Colours are part of the brain's own construct. Hence 'hue' is inherent within that construct. Upchurch made a similar error with "blurry vision", but that was a few pages back. Have you been following the conversation?

You only continue to paint a picture of your ignorance of the physics of light transmission, optics and the human visual process.
You are discussing things from within the goldfish bowl. It's time to get out of the water.

Dancing David

29th January 2004, 07:23 AM

This line of reasoning is the 'brain in the jar' argument.

Upchurch

29th January 2004, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
This line of reasoning is the 'brain in the jar' argument. Basically, yes. One he's not even willing to back up, apparently. About time to start some actual threads, doncha think?

lifegazer

29th January 2004, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
This line of reasoning is the 'brain in the jar' argument.
Actually, this line of reasoning is the everything in God argument. Not a jar in sight.

There is no evidence of a 3-dimensional reality. We begin with a 2-dimensional lightshow. The rest is infered and assumed... and then constructed to be how we see it. We are in the construct itself. We are within the mind's eye of everything. Einstein's physics confirm this. Hell, quantum mechanics confirms this.

It's only a matter of time until I put all of this together. Do you just intend to deny deny and deny until you die? Why?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

29th January 2004, 07:43 AM

Lifegazer, why do you suppose old god chose to have us fake up a 3D world by beaming 2D information into our eyes and then letting our brains do the rest? Somehow this seems to you like such an obvious choice of construction for god.

~~ Paul

lifegazer

29th January 2004, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
ACtually, it's a logical conclusion that such things would be possible if your philosophy were correct.

It is possible. I am sure it's possible. But to do it would require the same sort of mentality/faith possessed by Jesus.

What you should realise is that my philsophy only points to the existence of God as our reality. It's really the beginning of the spiritual odyssey, not the end.

Also, to demand a miracle to verify the soundness of a rational argument is pretty silly. Miracles have nothing to do with philosophy.

Upchurch

29th January 2004, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

It is possible. I am sure it's possible. But to do it would require the same sort of mentality/faith possessed by Jesus. uh-huh. So, not only do you watch too much TV, but apparently you've been watching The Matrix.
Also, to demand a miracle to verify the soundness of a rational argument is pretty silly. Miracles have nothing to do with philosophy. It's not a miracle if your philosophy is true. It's a consequence of your philosophy. It would only be a miracle if materialism were true.

And if you're the one who is to bring the message of your philosophy to the world, I'd think you'd have that kind of mentaility and/or faith in your philosophy. Having doubts, are we?

uruk

29th January 2004, 10:21 AM

posted by lifegazer:
as the observer accelerates, he neither approaches or recedes from the true source of that light - the mind or brain -

How do you explain red shift and blue shift? (doppler effects on light)If the "source" of "light" is the "mind". Then there would be no shifting of wavelength.

There is no evidence of a 3-dimensional reality. We begin with a 2-dimensional lightshow. The rest is infered and assumed... and then constructed to be how we see it. We are in the construct itself. We are within the mind's eye of everything. Einstein's physics confirm this. Hell, quantum mechanics confirms this.

Well, how about blind people? They have no eyes yet percieve a 3-dimensional existance by physical touching and judging those spatial distances.

Take a gander at NASA's JPL Mars probe site. Spirit and oppourtunity have binocular cameras that takes stereoscopic pictures of the surface of Mars. Computers then takes those images and generate a 3-dimensional plot or construct which allows the rover to plot a path that avoids obstacles.
There you have a machine approximation some of the processes that the human brain does in incorporating two 2-dimensional images into a 3-dimensional construct. Notice how both these
processes relie on an "actual" objective 3-dimensional reality.

The probe has no consciousness to provide a "qualia" to what it sees. the distances and measurements are there for the device to record and process. That seems to be evidence for an external reality.

there is no human brain on those probes. the computers on the probe relies on the images to generate the 3-dimensional plot.

Is the probe the source of the light that it uses to percieve mars?

Acrimonious

29th January 2004, 11:12 AM

Is this where I post my "I told you so"?

He wouldn't read it, just as surely as he didn't bother doing the simplest google search on vision or depth perception before posting this garbage.

This thread follows the typical Lifegazer M.O.

Since it goes against his philosophy, he arbitrarily dismisses it as incorrect and not worth reading or considering.

We could have the world's greatest authorities on stereoscopic vision and the brain's occipital lobe in this forum, detailing exactly how the eyes work and how vision is processed and interpreted for all to see. Lifegazer would ignore them, throw insults at them, and post more horribly inaccurate garbage based only on his "philosophy."

I told you so.

Lifegazer has never been interested in discussion or in learning. Only in mindlessly preaching his homebrew religion, oblivious to fact, embracing obvious fallacy.

Any intelligent discussion that goes on in this forum is in spite of Lifegazer, not because of him.

Beleth

29th January 2004, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
All along I've been saying that depth/distance has been infered via the action/transformation of light upon the brain's awareness.I know. And what I am saying is that you are wrong. Nothing is inferred. The information about the distance of an object is completely, really contained in the location of the image of the object after the light from that object passes through a lens.

Please note that when I say this, I'm not talking about the images that we see (lenses et al), since these images are the consequent construct of the brain, after having deduced distance exists within the 2-dimensional information it has received.These images are created when light passes through any lens, not just the ones in our eyes. These images exist with or without a brain to "deduce" anything.

RussDill

29th January 2004, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Whilst we're all agreed to the fact that our actual awareness of reality is an abstract construct of the brain or mind, with distances imposed upon that awareness, I thought it might be interesting to mention this again:-

Whoa, he used whilst instead of while...he must be super smart.

"The speed-of-light is a constant because The Mind feeds the visions of that light to its own awareness.

Nope, not last time I checked. I suppose you've never attempted to read up on why the speed of light is a constant.

So, it doesn't matter what velocity the observer is [supposedly] moving at, since the light he/she sees emanates not from the sources he approaches or recedes from, but from The Mind itself."

Yup, you haven't a clue as to why the speed of light is a constant, nor the mechanism of why that occurs.

You see, Einstein's knowledge does relate to inner reality.

What you have stated represents a profound misunderstanding of what einstien discovered In no way does the speed of light as a constant have any relation to consciousness.

It says nothing of an external reality. And the constancy of lightspeed is finally explained in a way that now makes sense.

hahahahahah

Funny Guy. I Kill You Last

Why is it that you always ask questions that have been asking before, think you are the first to ask it, and then assume that no one has ever answered it before?

The reason the speed of light is a constant is already well understood, and has nothing to do with awareness.

I could also talk further of why distance and time are perceived differently by everyone, but I'll leave it for now. But the facts speak for themselves, I think.

The only thing that speaks for itself is your willful ignorance. Both in the relativity thread, and this thread, you claim that some aspect of reality is unexplained, and therefore your philosophy is required. When the actual explanation is given to you, you plug your ears and sing lalalallala (or at least I think you do, otherwise, you are by far the desnest individual I have ever met)

Skeptical Greg

29th January 2004, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Acrimonious

Any intelligent discussion that goes on in this forum is in spite of Lifegazer, not because of him.

Actually, I learn a lot from informed people who are responding to his crapola...

Not really sure if that is ' because ' of, or ' in spite ' of..

It seems like it's ' because '...:D

RussDill

29th January 2004, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

There is no evidence of a 3-dimensional reality. We begin with a 2-dimensional lightshow. The rest is infered and assumed... and then constructed to be how we see it.

a 3d reality is no more, no less assumed than a 2d "lightshow".

We are in the construct itself. We are within the mind's eye of everything.

Prove it.

Einstein's physics confirm this. Hell, quantum mechanics confirms this.

I am sorry lifegazer, you have no grasp or understanding of either area. So to claim them as a proof just makes you look like a complete idiot.

It's only a matter of time until I put all of this together.

I won't be holding my breath. I can't wait till your next insight. I'm sure it will be totally original (unlike all the other insights and questions you have had).

Do you just intend to deny deny and deny until you die? Why?

So sorry we aren't listening to the ravings of someone who clearly hasn't a clue what he is babbling about.

lifegazer

29th January 2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by uruk
How do you explain red shift and blue shift? (doppler effects on light)If the "source" of "light" is the "mind". Then there would be no shifting of wavelength.

Have you heard of the shapiro effect?
http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/animate.htm

Maybe Upchurch has some more details?

Well, how about blind people? They have no eyes yet percieve a 3-dimensional existance by physical touching and judging those spatial distances.

Sure. But the mind's construct of our reality extends to more than one sense (sight). We have 4 other abstract senses, which are constructs of the mind also, created to enhance the experience of the 3-dimensional spatial universe given to awareness by the mind. There is also a sense of motion/balance.

Take a gander at NASA's JPL Mars probe site. Spirit and oppourtunity have binocular cameras that takes stereoscopic pictures of the surface of Mars. Computers then takes those images and generate a 3-dimensional plot or construct which allows the rover to plot a path that avoids obstacles.

Sure, but now we're discussing events within the 3-dimensional construct, using machines that we have built to search for details that exist within our perception of space.

Is the probe the source of the light that it uses to percieve mars?
I argue that nothing exists, except within the mind. Even the results of those machines.

lifegazer

29th January 2004, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
Whoa, he used whilst instead of while...he must be super smart.

What's the relevance of this response? Is it psychologically uplifting for you?

Nope, not last time I checked. I suppose you've never attempted to read up on why the speed of light is a constant.

Yup, you haven't a clue as to why the speed of light is a constant, nor the mechanism of why that occurs.

Light, as we see it, in the glory of colour and shade and brightness, is an abstract creation given to awareness by the mind. This is a fact. All sensations are created by the entity which has them.
The source of light, is not the object depicted by that light, but the mind itself... which imposes light upon its own awareness and depicts the image of an object in the process. The objects in your mind/awareness are not real. Only a plonker would think that they had real objects within their minds. And only a plonker would think that these unreal objects were the sources of the light we see coming from them. The mind creates light as we experience it. That's no different from saying the mind creates pain as we experience it. It's a fact.

There are no real/tangible objects inside/within your awareness. The source of light within your awareness, is your mind.
Hence, 'you' can neither approach or recede from your own mind. This is why your [perceived] motion has no effect upon the speed-of-light: you position in relation to the source of that light is static, throughout.

Deal with it. It's a fact.

Skeptical Greg

29th January 2004, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

This is why your [perceived] motion has no effect upon the speed-of-light: you position in relation to the source of that light is static, throughout.

Why is it just light that exhibits this phenomenon of constant velocity?

Beleth

29th January 2004, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I argue that nothing exists, except within the mind.And we argue that the proofs you have of this is based on faulty interpretations of the evidence.

Besides, so what? If everything exists in my mind, but I don't have any way of differentiating between a world that only exists in my mind and a world that exists outside of my mind, what point is there to believe anything but what my senses tell me?

What's the difference between an external reality and a Matrix-like pseudo-reality that no one can blue-pill out of? If there is no difference, why not go with what the evidence suggests - that there is indeed an external reality?

Marquis de Carabas

29th January 2004, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
The mind creates light as we experience it.
This is very nearly something that I could agree with. If you mean 'the mind creates our experience of light,' I'm with you. The mind does in fact interpret the light coming in and creates for us all the colors and shades and brightness that we experience in the act of what we call seeing.

If, as I suspect, you mean the mind creates the light itself as well as the interpretation of that light, I'm afraid I'm going to ask what has led you to that conclusion?

lifegazer

29th January 2004, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes

Why is it just light that exhibits this phenomenon of constant velocity?
As opposed to what, for example?

lifegazer

29th January 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
"The mind creates light as we experience it."

This is very nearly something that I could agree with. If you mean 'the mind creates our experience of light,' I'm with you.

Yes, that's what I mean.

The mind does in fact interpret the light coming in and creates for us all the colors and shades and brightness that we experience in the act of what we call seeing.

Yes.

If, as I suspect, you mean the mind creates the light itself as well as the interpretation of that light, I'm afraid I'm going to ask what has led you to that conclusion?
"Light" is the experience of it (colour, brightness, etc.). And its source (the source of the experience of it) is the mind itself.

Most of us assume that the source of light is the objects depicted by that light (in our awareness). Yet the light (and hence those objects), as we experience it, is given to awareness by the mind.

So, for example, the source of light from the perceived Sun is not the Sun, but the mind itself!! And this light gives the appearance, within awareness, of a thing we call the Sun.

'We' are only aware of what the mind constructs within its own eye of awareness. And light as we experience it does emanate from the mind.
So the speed-of-light is a constant because the observer does not approach or recede from the source of light as he experiences it.

So, my philosophy makes sense of Einstein's relativity. It also makes sense of quantum indeterminancy, if you're interested.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

29th January 2004, 02:10 PM

Lifegazer said:
'We' are only aware of what the mind constructs within its own eye of awareness. And light as we experience it does emanate from the mind.
So the speed-of-light is a constant because the observer does not approach or recede from the source of light as he experiences it.

So, my philosophy makes sense of Einstein's relativity. It also makes sense of quantum indeterminancy, if you're interested.
S P R O I N G !

There goes a perfectly good Turingometer.

Say, Lifegazer, why is the speed of sound not constant?

~~ Paul

lifegazer

29th January 2004, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
Besides, so what? If everything exists in my mind, but I don't have any way of differentiating between a world that only exists in my mind and a world that exists outside of my mind, what point is there to believe anything but what my senses tell me?

What's the difference between an external reality and a Matrix-like pseudo-reality that no one can blue-pill out of? If there is no difference, why not go with what the evidence suggests - that there is indeed an external reality?
The point of my philosophy is to show that God is existence. That there is nothing else but the unreal things which appear within God's mind.
That's the difference. And words can hardly express the profundity of this, nor the implications for mankind. I'm sure you can imagine.

Upchurch

29th January 2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Have you heard of the shapiro effect?
http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/animate.htm

Maybe Upchurch has some more details?Never heard of it before this, but I googled it. There are actually a couple of different Shapiro effects. The one lifegazer is referring to is an abscure situation where EM radiation pass close enough to the sun that it somehow causes an effect that is similar to red-shift. From what I can tell, however, is that the red-shift is minimal. It wouldn't account for the high degree of red-shifting of light we see coming from distant galaxies.

Regardless, as with Doppler shift, it is a physical phenomenon and not an abstract mental construct. lifegazer is on a fishing expidition.

lifegazer

29th January 2004, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Never heard of it before this, but I googled it. There are actually a couple of different Shapiro effects. The one lifegazer is referring to is an abscure situation where EM radiation pass close enough to the sun that it somehow causes an effect that is similar to red-shift. From what I can tell, however, is that the red-shift is minimal. It wouldn't account for the high degree of red-shifting of light we see coming from distant galaxies.

How many large bodies do you think light would come close to on its passage to us from distant galaxies?

Regardless, as with Doppler shift, it is a physical phenomenon and not an abstract mental construct. lifegazer is on a fishing expidition.
The laws of physics mirror the order of our perceptions as constructed by the mind. Therefore, the laws of physics are laws of the order present within the internal realm of the mind.

Upchurch

29th January 2004, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

How many large bodies do you think light would come close to on its passage to us from distant galaxies?I thought you didn't believe in large bodies, light, or distant galaxies. Now, you are depending on them to prove they don't exist? :rolleyes:

spejic

29th January 2004, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The point of my philosophy is to show that God is existence. That there is nothing else but the unreal things which appear within God's mind.
That's the difference. And words can hardly express the profundity of this, nor the implications for mankind. I'm sure you can imagine. Can you at least try? Throw us a bone here, dude.

Mercutio

29th January 2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

How many large bodies do you think light would come close to on its passage to us from distant galaxies?
Ooh! I know! I know!

None...because they are all in the mind....

in which case, of course, Shapiro's effect is moot. Why even bother bringing up one physical phenomenon to argue that another physical phenomenon might be in error? Even if you are right (which you most certainly are not), you have shown a physical effect, which is in opposition to your major thesis. Do you even take the time to see whether what you say is consistent with what you have previously said? I think PCA may be right--you are a Turing machine gone evil...

The laws of physics mirror the order of our perceptions as constructed by the mind. Therefore, the laws of physics are laws of the order present within the internal realm of the mind. So why bother to try to disprove them in the first place? Again, gazer, internal consistency is not your forte.

lifegazer

29th January 2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
I thought you didn't believe in large bodies, light, or distant galaxies. Now, you are depending on them to prove they don't exist? :rolleyes:
The inner-experience of the universe, with its behavioural order, is real. Likewise, the inner-experience of distance is real.
But the inner-experience being real doesn't mean that either the universe itself, or distances, are real.
Physics is not destroyed by my philosophy. There is still perceived order whether that order applies to real or unreal things.

Upchurch

29th January 2004, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Physics is not destroyed by my philosophy. There is still perceived order whether that order applies to real or unreal things. But if it only applies to illusionary unreal things and are applied by nothing other than the mind, those rules and illusionary unreal things should be manipulable by the mind, since that is their source. If your philosophy were true, we could control our perception of the physical world just as we can control our dreams.

The consistancy and immutability of physics does, in fact, put the lie to your philosophy.

lifegazer

29th January 2004, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by spejic
Can you at least try? Throw us a bone here, dude.
Okay. You are God, having the inner experience of being spejic.
Now, should this information affect your attitude and your future actions? Should it affect ours also, since we are God also? Should it affect mankind as a whole? To what ends?
It's deep stuff. But there's a bone for ya.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

29th January 2004, 03:08 PM

Liegazer said:
Physics is not destroyed by my philosophy. There is still perceived order whether that order applies to real or unreal things.
But somehow the two metaphysics are not equivalent, right? What's an experiment we can run to verify yours?

~~ Paul

spejic

29th January 2004, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Okay. You are God, having the inner experience of being spejic.
Now, should this information affect your attitude and your future actions? Should it affect ours also, since we are God also? Should it affect mankind as a whole? To what ends? No, it does nothing for me. The label "God" doesn't mean anything if there is no reality behind it. Being a god doesn't give me any power over what I perceive, or over other gods, does it? If not, then what good is it? Does it really make sense for a God to rent a room in a townhome, go to work for 8 hours a day, worry about not eating enough fiber, go poo once a day, and get so bored that he goes to the randi.org web site to argue with some guy that thinks he is a figment of God's imagination?

lifegazer

29th January 2004, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
But if it only applies to illusionary unreal things and are applied by nothing other than the mind, those rules and illusionary unreal things should be manipulable by the mind, since that is their source.

They are. This universe is the mind's own construct, remember.
Everything we see has been manipulated to be like that, by the mind.

If your philosophy were true, we could control our perception of the physical world just as we can control our dreams.

But 'we' are lost within the dream. Who here truly knows himself as the Mind I speak of, so that no separate ego remains? We cannot control existence whilst we see ourselves as upchurch or lifegazer or whomever.
As I said, my philosophy is the beginning of the odyssey.

The consistancy and immutability of physics does, in fact, put the lie to your philosophy.
Physics relates to a realm constructed by the mind itself: to the experienced universe. Physics applies to a mind-reality. That's why the speed-of-light is a constant - the source of perceived light is the mind.

Upchurch

29th January 2004, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

They are. This universe is the mind's own construct, remember.
Everything we see has been manipulated to be like that, by the mind.Then why do you keep insisting on arguing from physical principles? You never get them right and, if your philosophy were correct, it could never lead to anything resembling proof for your philosophy unless you found an inconsistancy in physical law itself. (1) you're not well versed enough in physical law to be able to identify such an inconsistancy and (2) if you did, it would invalidate your philosophy which you claim is consistant with phyiscal law.

RussDill

29th January 2004, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The point of my philosophy is to show that God is existence.

Excactly, the point of your philosophy is not to discover the truth, or explain the world around us, but to try to prove that god is real.

That there is nothing else but the unreal things which appear within God's mind.
That's the difference.

Again, right on, the difference between other ideas and your own is that the only purpose of your ideas is to prove that there is a god and that we'd all be happy if we agreed with you.

And words can hardly express the profundity of this, nor the implications for mankind. I'm sure you can imagine.

You, lifegazer, put the "fun" back into profund.

Acrimonious

29th January 2004, 09:33 PM

'We' are only aware of what the mind constructs within its own eye of awareness. And light as we experience it does emanate from the mind.
So the speed-of-light is a constant because the observer does not approach or recede from the source of light as he experiences it.

Tell me how your philosophy explains the simple concept of Refraction with a constant speed of light.

Or, why the mind (if only it exists and it is imagining the light) has figured out that the speed of light is constant only in a pure vacuum. How the mind came to the conclusion that 299,792,458 m/s was the best speed at which to "imagine" light's speed in a vacuum. And how this mind, having never experienced a true physical reality with atmospheres, refractive indices, and/or pure vacuums, would know that light travelled at different speeds in different physical media.

On one hand, the world exists, and I experience it.

On the other hand, the world doesn't exist, but I experience it anyway.

What does your "philosophy" gain anyone?

Absolutely nothing.

Deedle deedle queep.

BillHoyt

30th January 2004, 05:43 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Given that light says nothing of depth or distance (from the brain/mind that sees it), the answer to your question is "yes".

But the brain (if it actually exists) infers/deduces the existence of distance between light (sources)(things) by those similar principals which enable us to watch the TV.

"Distance" is the mind's own construct. I mean, even if there were such a thing as "distance between objects", the mind/brain is not privy to this real information. What we measure is given to us by our mind - not by "reality". The distances we perceive are not given to us by light itself.
Distance is not a mental construct. It is a physical reality. If you think not, then I'd challenge you to take this test. Stand on the train tracks with an oncoming speeding train at a "mental construct" of five miles. Step away when you think you must. Now repeat with an oncoming speeding train at a "mental construct" of one-fifth of a mile. Step away when you think you must. Assuming you even stepped onto the tracks in the first place, why could you not stand on the tracks as long the second time?

BTW, if light gave you no information in this test, how did you know where the train was in the first place?

lifegazer

30th January 2004, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
if your philosophy were correct, it could never lead to anything resembling proof for your philosophy unless you found an inconsistancy in physical law itself.

What?
My philosophy has tried, amongst other things, to relate certain aspects of physical-law (namely relativity and QM) to the conclusion that there is a (Mind of) God.
There's few gripes that I have about science, except:-
(1) When scientists state stupid and illogical things like "the universe sprang from nothing". Or "1-dimensional strings created everything we know". Or "This is a finite and boundless universe."
In other words, some scientists seem to be absolutely hopeless when it comes to making rational conclusions about existence.
(2) When scientists criminally assert unfounded conclusions about our existence, such as "consciousness has emerged from material processes". Or "there is an external reality". Or "material processes are the cause for all existence".
In other words, assumptions debase the purity of science.
(3) I state that light emanates directly from the mind and not the object that the light is depicting. But given that this discussion has shown that the light we experience is part of the mind's construct of reality, it should be pretty bloomin' obvious to anyone that light emanates from the mind and not the object that this light depicts.
Consequently, what I have to say about relativity should be taken seriously.

lifegazer

30th January 2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by RussDill
Excactly, the point of your philosophy is not to discover the truth, or explain the world around us, but to try to prove that god is real.

Proving that God is real equates to finding the truth and to explaining the world around you.

Again, right on, the difference between other ideas and your own is that the only purpose of your ideas is to prove that there is a god and that we'd all be happy if we agreed with you.

I don't think you care about the truth.

lifegazer

30th January 2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Acrimonious
Tell me how your philosophy explains the simple concept of Refraction with a constant speed of light.

Or, why the mind (if only it exists and it is imagining the light) has figured out that the speed of light is constant only in a pure vacuum. How the mind came to the conclusion that 299,792,458 m/s was the best speed at which to "imagine" light's speed in a vacuum. And how this mind, having never experienced a true physical reality with atmospheres, refractive indices, and/or pure vacuums, would know that light travelled at different speeds in different physical media.

Silly questions.

On one hand, the world exists, and I experience it.

On the other hand, the world doesn't exist, but I experience it anyway.

What does your "philosophy" gain anyone?

Absolutely nothing.

It gains realisation of Godself. If you think this is insignificant, then it's already too late for you.

lifegazer

30th January 2004, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Distance is not a mental construct. It is a physical reality. If you think not, then I'd challenge you to take this test. Stand on the train tracks with an oncoming speeding train at a "mental construct" of five miles. Step away when you think you must. Now repeat with an oncoming speeding train at a "mental construct" of one-fifth of a mile. Step away when you think you must. Assuming you even stepped onto the tracks in the first place, why could you not stand on the tracks as long the second time?

BTW, if light gave you no information in this test, how did you know where the train was in the first place?
Sigh.

lifegazer

30th January 2004, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio
Ooh! I know! I know!

None...because they are all in the mind....

in which case, of course, Shapiro's effect is moot. Why even bother bringing up one physical phenomenon to argue that another physical phenomenon might be in error?

I was asked to give an alternative explanation for the redshift of distant galaxies. So I did.
The universe, real or just perceived, behaves with specific order... has specific laws.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

30th January 2004, 12:24 PM

This conversation is the definition of pointless.

~~ Paul

Skeptical Greg

30th January 2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Silly questions.

Translation = I have no idea what that means..

lifegazer

30th January 2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
This conversation is the definition of pointless.

~~ Paul
Why is it pointless? Because you don't care whether there's a God or not? Why?

lifegazer

30th January 2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Say, Lifegazer, why is the speed of sound not constant?

Light & sound both emanate directly from the mind. But sound mirrors, or proceeds, behaviour within and of the construct. It's a sensation which is constructed (by the mind) to be a consequence of events, just like pain for example. Whereas light precedes form and behaviour (of that form), giving rise to the perception of both.

Hence, things are not the origin of light in any sense, whereas they can be said to be the origin of sound in a particular sense.

spejic

30th January 2004, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Why is it pointless? Because you don't care whether there's a God or not? Why? Because by your own admission, knowing that there is a God does nothing for you. There is no macroscopic effect that you can point to that demonstrates your idea. What is the point?

lifegazer, it is very important that you believe that there is an insubstantial, invisible pixie on my shoulder named Harold. If you can only admit it, then you're eyes will open and you will see the path to .. well, something good. I can't describe it. Everything will take on a new significance, without actually changing in any way. Come on, man, pixies!! Oh, dear Harold, how can you be so blind!

Upchurch

30th January 2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by spejic
invisible pixie on my shoulder named Harold. That's funny. I know a fairy named Harald who sits next to me in the GLBT community band....

ba-da-bump.

lifegazer

30th January 2004, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by spejic
Because by your own admission, knowing that there is a God does nothing for you. There is no macroscopic effect that you can point to that demonstrates your idea. What is the point?

lifegazer, it is very important that you believe that there is an insubstantial, invisible pixie on my shoulder named Harold. If you can only admit it, then you're eyes will open and you will see the path to .. well, something good. I can't describe it. Everything will take on a new significance, without actually changing in any way. Come on, man, pixies!! Oh, dear Harold, how can you be so blind!
Your first reaction to the possibility that you are God is "What's in it for me?". What's in it for 'you', is a gradual death (transformation really) of your ego, if you were to take this realisation seriously, and a spiritual odyssey towards knowing yourself and your fellow man as that God. But hey, there's no reward in that for 'you', is there?
So screw it. Screw everything... get what you can while you can and screw everybody else in the process. Screw God.

Mercutio

30th January 2004, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I was asked to give an alternative explanation for the redshift of distant galaxies. So I did. Um, no, actually. I realize that you don't understand the explanation you linked to, but the fact is that it has very different properties from the doppler shift of receding galaxies. So, no, you did not give an alternative explanation. You gave a link with some big words that you thought might impress people.

The universe, real or just perceived, behaves with specific order... has specific laws. Why? I know why the real world should behave in manners which we describe by laws, but I can see no reason--and you have certainly offered none--why a perceived universe should behave similarly. You have even likened it to dreaming--my dreams often feature apparent violations of physical laws...so please explain why it is that a perceived-only universe should follow laws.

Acrimonious

30th January 2004, 03:01 PM

Your first reaction to the possibility that you are God is "What's in it for me?". What's in it for 'you', is a gradual death (transformation really) of your ego, if you were to take this realisation seriously, and a spiritual odyssey towards knowing yourself and your fellow man as that God

No, my first reaction to the possibility that I am God is best described by invoking the the state motto of Missouri. Show me.

No, I don't mean "blather incoherently, ignoring hundreds of years of research and knowledge." I mean: "Show me." Show me one, single, individual person who has gone through your "Spiritual Odyssey" and come out the other end changed in any slightly measurable way.

Your hackneyed philosophy consists of nothing more than cheap talk and conjecture. You're like a twisted, wanna-be Peter Pan.

-------------------------------------
Lifegazer: Here's how the world works; if you think happy thoughts, you can fly.

Everyone: Anyone can fly?

Lifegazer: Yes.

Everyone: Can you fly?

Lifegazer: I could, if I went on a Spiritual Odyssey.

Everyone: So you can't fly?

Lifegazer: Not yet. I haven't started my Spiritual Odyssey yet.

Everyone: So how do you know happy thoughts will allow flight?

Lifegazer: I thought a little about it. You see, moments of pure joy are known as "elation." "Elate" comes from the same Latin root as "Elevate." So, purely from inferring from the language The Mind (TM, all rights reserved) has constructed for itself to communicate with itself, it is obvious that happiness allows flight. I have discounted the past 100,000 years of flightless human evolution and the past 2000 years of scientific study of aeronautics because it does not agree with my analysis and is therefore wrong.

Everyone: That's all fine and dandy. But still... people cannot fly simply by having happy thoughts.

Lifegazer: I believe that no person has fully embraced this philosophy yet, and so we are all unable to reach the levels of joy necessary to obtain flight. I'm only a messenger to help you start the Odyssey. Also: If you really don't want to grow up, you can stay young forever.

Everyone: Call us when there's proof.
--------------------------

There are still two options.
1) Everything is real, we experience reality with our senses, and we're just plain human beings.
2) Nothing is real, we experience an elaborately concocted illusion that is indistinguishable from reality, and we're all God fooled into thinking we're plain human beings, causing us to be unable to access the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.

Net total difference: Zero.

Beleth

30th January 2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
The point of my philosophy is to show that God is existence. That there is nothing else but the unreal things which appear within God's mind.
That's the difference.That's not a difference. That's a statement.

Let me rephrase what Acrimonius said just above this in the form of a question:
What is an observable difference between a universe that actually has solid, 3-D objects, and a universe that exists solely of "unreal" things in God' mind? What test could we perform that would enable us to distinguish between the two possible realities?

If there is no such test, then what do we gain by doubting our own existence and experiences?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

30th January 2004, 05:16 PM

Lifegazer said:
Light & sound both emanate directly from the mind. But sound mirrors, or proceeds, behaviour within and of the construct. It's a sensation which is constructed (by the mind) to be a consequence of events, just like pain for example. Whereas light precedes form and behaviour (of that form), giving rise to the perception of both.
Can you spell a-d h-o-c ?

~~ Paul

billydkid

30th January 2004, 07:21 PM

scribble

31st January 2004, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by billydkid

God, you are an idiot.

Lifegazer is one, too.

I've just had to study optics for the programming I'm doing. It's a fascinating field.

RussDill

1st February 2004, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

(1) When scientists state stupid and illogical things like "the universe sprang from nothing". Or "1-dimensional strings created everything we know". Or "This is a finite and boundless universe."
In other words, some scientists seem to be absolutely hopeless when it comes to making rational conclusions about existence.

It is only stupid and irrational to you because you don't bother to dig deeper and understand the theories. Interestingly enough, scientists say something you like, and before even understanding what they said, you pounce on it as proof.

Scientist: We have been working on a theory, <something that disagrees with lifegazer's philosophy>

LG: You guys make me sick, you are all so stupid

Scientist: We think that possibly <Something that might agree with Lif..

[LG cuts them off] LG: hahaha! absolute proof of my philosophy, behold, your god.

(2) When scientists criminally assert unfounded conclusions about our existence, such as "consciousness has emerged from material processes". Or "there is an external reality". Or "material processes are the cause for all existence".
In other words, assumptions debase the purity of science.

Everything in science is a theory. You are the only one here with assertions and assumptions.

(3) I state that light emanates directly from the mind and not the object that the light is depicting.

stare at the sun for 5 minutes, see what that does for you.

But given that this discussion has shown that the light we experience is part of the mind's construct of reality, it should be pretty bloomin' obvious to anyone that light emanates from the mind and not the object that this light depicts.

Actually, the point is, you don't know the source of your stimuli, nor can you ever know for sure.

Consequently, what I have to say about relativity should be taken seriously.

I'll take it seriously as soon as you show an understanding for relativity.