Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
The book states quite clearly that this:
We can’t see
bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope.
The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is
enough light present and it is large enough to be seen. The
explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon —
although much larger — is because it is much much farther away,
which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a
planet the distance of Rigel.
is proof. How is this proof of anything? In fact, how come perspective works if direct sight is true? Under the established idea, we know exactly why and how perspective works, but why would it work in the direct model?
The microscope, if anything, proves that what we see is light. For starters, all it does (and all it is designed to do!) is bend light so a small area strikes a much larger area of the retina.
Secondly, and this is especially compelling, if we just look through a microscope without extra lighting, we hardly see anything at all. The area we are looking at is very small, and only very little light comes off it in normal lighting conditions. We need to use a mirror or a built-in light to flood the small area with light, or else not enough of it comes through the microscope to make it bright!
Again - all this makes sense in the non-direct, non-efferent sight model but has no explanation if you think sight is direct.
|
This lends support to efferent vision actually. If there is not enough light to see a tiny object (which requires a microscope) or a large object (which requires a telescope), we need to manipulate the light (e.g., flood a small area with light to make it bright enough) to create the lighting conditions that would allow the object to be seen. The fact that light strikes a larger portion of the retina in no way indicates that sight is afferent or that the light is being converted to a signal that is then interpreted by the brain as an image. |
Actually, it rather does indicate that. Unless light striking the retina causes the image, there is no reason to believe that the way light strikes the retina influences how we see the object we are looking at. If there is some direct relationship between the eye and what we see, then the mere area that light relfecting off an object covers on the retina should be neither here nor there. |
Not true. If light is a condition of sight, and it doesn't offer enough, it's a very simple conclusion that the more light we have, the easier it will be to see. It's amazing how people will try to make something more difficult than it really is to prove THEIR point WHETHER THEIR POINT IS VALID OR NOT. |
But that doesn't explain why we see something as bigger when the light reflecting off it covers a larger area of the retina. It shouldn't matter, since light only makes sight possible if your idea is correct, but in fact it determines how we see it an object.
If we had some direct relationship with the object through sight, then perspective (and the various tricks that perspective sometimes plays on the eyes) would not work. There would be no reason for things to appear to us the way they appear to us now. It has nothing to do with the amount of light - merely by how large an area it covers on the retina. If sight is direct, then how come this has such a profound effect?