Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
|
We can see what we see when the object is within optical range
|
Tautology, because "optical range" means "able to be seen"! So you just said " We can see what we see when the object is able to be seen."
Once again, using different words to say the same thing is a tautology |
But it's not the same thing because the proposition is different. When I say we're in optical range, I mean that the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen. |
Which means "able to be seen". LOL you just did it again.
You are saying only "If it can be seen it is bright enough and large enough" or "If it is bright enough and large enough it can be seen", but what does that mean? How is brightness and size measured and what measurement is "enough"?
Unless you can determine what is "bright enough" or "large enough" without relying on whether or not it can be seen, you aren't offering any information at all..it is a tautology.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
When you say we're in optical range, all you mean is that photons are at the retina, and therefore we see, but the object is not part of the equation.
|
No, nobody has said anything like that. None of us has used the term optical range because it is only used when discussing specific measurements of instruments...like zoom lenses.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
"We are just light detectors" you say
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I've never said "we are...". I said the eyes are light detectors, yes. I've said cameras are light detectors, yes. Those are true statements. That makes the eyes a sense organ as they use specialized receptor cells to detect stimulus from the outside world just as the other receptor cells do in the other senses.
|
No LadyShea, what determines a sense is that it relays information to the brain which can cause the brain to identify something from the external world that is impinging on the internal world. |
No, that is not the definition. Brains are not required as brainless animals have senses. You are putting unnecessary limitations on the word. Even Lessans definition said nothing about brains either
sense: A faculty by which the body perceives an external stimulus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lessans
The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’ is defined as
any of certain agencies by or through which an individual receives
impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five senses.
Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and
transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc.
|
Quote:
|
If efferent vision is true, there is nothing from light alone that is causing an effect, as is the case with the other sense organs.
|
Light is the stimulus and the other senses have different stimuli. So it is "the case" with the eyes just as it is with the other senses.
You have been unable to name any difference between the other senses and the eyes to account for Lessans insistence that the eyes are not a sense organ. |
Yes I have LadyShea, and you are not the last word. Who are you LadyShea to announce these ridiculous accusations? Science has not established conclusively that light brings an image without the object. It's all conjecture based on false premises that place the eyes in the same category as the other senses, and there's no telling science that they could be wrong or I will be tarred and feathered, which is exactly what is happening.