Visual reality: a new insight.

[RussDill]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

Relativity.

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]

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]

Re: Relativity.

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Upchurch]

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]

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]

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]

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.