Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
No, this proves that for sight to occur, light only needs to be present at the object, not at the eye.
Making a difference between cameras and eyes even more obvious. A difference we do not observe in reality.
|
You're trying to make an artificial distinction between how a camera works and how an eye works, but it's not working.  |
If eyes are only windows for the brain, how would that translate to a camera? |
Because the lens and film of a camera are very similar to the lens and retina of the eye. If it turns out that we see efferently (I will use the word 'if" to keep everyone from going bonkers), although it's the brain that we're trying to understand in reference to direction, it allows us to look at the lens of a camera differently than what was purported to be occurring, just as it allows us to look at the lens and retina of the eye differently than what was originally believed to be occurring.
In a normal eye, the light rays come to a sharp focusing point on the retina. The retina's functions much like the film in a camera.
How the Eye Works |
So if the eye lens and retina act as a camera lens and film, that means the image has come IN through the lens and is on the retina as the image is on film?
Then why does the brain need to look "out" at all if the image comes IN through the lens to the retina? |
I can't answer you. I can only observe what is happening. That's like saying why did God give us two ears, two eyes, two nostrils, and one mouth?  |
There are rational reasons for those, having nothing to do with God