Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
I Take A Shot At It

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mario Dovalina on July 27, 2001 17:06:42 UTC

"Our notion of three-dimensional space is based on our sense of vision."

Well, it's also based on our sense of movement (I can move on three axes) and other inputs, but I'll play along.

"The interesting thing is that we know exactly where those images are: our retinae, and nowhere else."

I suppose you're right, however those images came from somewhere. In order for the retina to relay an image to your brain, the retina must have recieved some kind of light reflection in order to display that image. Regardless of any corruption in data, the light came from somewhere external to the retina.

With regards to visual effects like hallucinations, the image in the retina has nothing to do with that. It's an action the brain performs: a corruption of the data the retina feeds us. If you believe that everything we experience is "in here," the retina is unneccesary: if it is used, your argument falls apart since the entire purpose of the eye is a reciever.

"If you say that, you are basically saying that your brain fools you into thinking that the images are where they are not. Your brain is making you believe in a lie."

That's true. I think the time it takes the brain to process something is something like 1 millisecond, so things are never where they seem to be, and experiences like color are simply an invention of the brain, but as long as the retina is recieving and transmitting signals, you can say pretty accurately that those signals are originating from non-brain space.

"Knowing that the images are in our eyes and not out there where they appear to be, doesn't it make sense to reevaluate our idea of what space really is? Or better just to forget the issue?"

The images are in our eyes. Yes. If the eye is sending that image to our brain, than it is true by definition that the originator of the image is not in our eyes. The only way space is not three dimensional is if our eyes are an unneccesary commodity: the brain can do it all itself. However, if the eyes are neccesary for vision, than they must be recieving a signal from somewhere, since that's what they "do." Recieve signals. Unless every single thing about us is an illusion, space is not.

"(in case you haven't noticed, this is just an attempt to expose how an illogical argument crumbles down by itself, no esoterism required)"

I assume you're referring to your own argument?

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins