:evil:
i see what you say but i dont see what you mean.
Quote from: "aitm"i see what you say but i dont see what you mean.
i see what you mean but i dont see what you see.
I see dead people... :shock:
> This is the very reason logic and philosophy are so confusing, because one word can have multiple meanings,
That's the reason language is so confusing.
How many ways can you interpret the sentence, "Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana"?
Frank
The blind men and the elephant. Perception is often determined by preconceived notions, such as an elephant is like a snake if all you perceive is the trunk. This is why something innocuous like the god particle becomes "proof" to believers, even though it means nothing whatsoever to do with god.
:evil:
To see means to look at shit with your eyes. It's such a primary sense than we use it as an idiot for "to understand" as in "I see you didn't flush the toilet after taking a shit again. I don't see why you keep doing that unless you want a divorce."
This is not complicated stuff, really.
Philosophy: the discipline which studies how to unnecessarily complicate straightforward things.
Quote from: "Solitary"a)Normally when we say we see an object, what we mean is that we detect with our eyes particles of light called photons, which come from a source of light. b)However, the idea of being able to see by physicist observing particles that scatter from them is common to particle experiments that study tiny objects like electrons, protons, and my favorite "quarks" (out of which protons are made).
This is like throwing a baseball at an object and watching it build up a pattern that looks like the object. I mean why wouldn't someone think that wasn't seeing the object? :roll: This, however, doesn't mean there isn't an object just because it can't be seen by the normal definition we all use to see.
What exactly do you think the difference is between
a) and
b)?
:evil:
Quote from: "Solitary"This:This is like throwing a baseball at an object and watching it build up a pattern that looks like the object. I mean why wouldn't someone think that wasn't seeing the object? Your seeing the pattern not the object itself. Photons and light show color, texture, white, greys, blacks, and nuances because they are bouncing off an object that is larger than a photon and the light is composed of waves of different frequencies and values. Solitary
In both cases you're bouncing baseballs off an object and compiling a result. Try again.
We always only see a pattern of an object. Watching objects that happen to be roughly on our level of scale gives more information because our brain is wired to be good at looking at those things (since they're relevant to us) but ultimately there's no real difference between any of the ways of "seeing", it's all just interpreting signals.
Color and texture is just our brains giving a more effective visual overview of an object at a special level of scale. I mean; we can't see most photons anyway, there's only a very small band of light that's actually visual to us. We can only see texture if it's within a fairly specific level of granularity, otherwise it just gets lost in the picture.
Quote from: "DunkleSeele"Philosophy: the discipline which studies how to unnecessarily complicate straightforward things.
No, philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. When dealing with something easy and obvious, it's just wanking.
Quote from: "FrankDK"> This is the very reason logic and philosophy are so confusing, because one word can have multiple meanings,
That's the reason language is so confusing.
How many ways can you interpret the sentence, "Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana"?
Frank
Language is one of mankind's greatest assets, but it is fraught with pitfalls. It's the basis of many logical fallacies. Theists do use "see" in their special way when they say, "I see the light." They have seen nothing of the sort, well usually. What they really mean is, "I have divined the unknowable through mystical means," or something or other along those lines.
:evil:
Quote from: "Solitary"So scientist know what a sub atomic particle looks like when they do that then, like when I see something, right?
They get information about it. Meaningful information that they can process and build up an image (for want of a better word) of that particle.
Quote from: "Solitary"How can it be the same if the size of the thing bouncing off giving information is totally different?
Photons are far smaller than a mountain. You can still see a mountain. Atoms are bigger than electrons. Phosphor still glows when it's hit by them. Size is largely irrelevant.
Quote from: "Solitary"Where one destroys the object looked at and scatters pieces of it and creates new objects when light doesn't?
Not always... But you can tell a lot from a particle by the way it sheds it's excess energy. In much the same way as a bit of a mountain absorbs a photon, excites an electron, and then scatters a new photon when it drops back down to its ground state.
Quote from: "Solitary"When I see an object I know what it looks like, and it doesn't go to pieces or create new objects. :roll: Solitary
O RLY?
(//http://www.teachnet.com/graphics/powertools/puzzles/illusion1.gif)
Your visual cortex is a complicated arrangement of neurons that doesn't always see what you are looking at!
:evil:
Quote from: "Solitary"Normally when we say we see an object, what we mean is that we detect with our eyes particles of light called photons, which come from a source of light. However, the idea of being able to see by physicist observing particles that scatter from them is common to particle experiments that study tiny objects like electrons, protons, and my favorite "quarks" (out of which protons are made).
What difference does it make what the energy level of the photons is? (Other than determining whether we detect them in our retinas or in instruments we created.) Bouncing a high-energy photon off an electron and detecting it in a PM tube, or bouncing a low-energy photon off a stop sign and detecting it as a change in rhodopsin doesn't really make much difference. (Except that the PM tube is a more direct method of detection.)
Quark also looks like this.
(//http://quark.name/images/quark_richard.benjamin.e3.the.old.and.the.beautiful_0002.jpg)
And this.
(//http://www.peanutbutterboy.com/images/posts/quark1.jpg)
:evil:
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Solitary"Normally when we say we see an object, what we mean is that we detect with our eyes particles of light called photons, which come from a source of light. However, the idea of being able to see by physicist observing particles that scatter from them is common to particle experiments that study tiny objects like electrons, protons, and my favorite "quarks" (out of which protons are made).
What difference does it make what the energy level of the photons is? (Other than determining whether we detect them in our retinas or in instruments we created.) Bouncing a high-energy photon off an electron and detecting it in a PM tube, or bouncing a low-energy photon off a stop sign and detecting it as a change in rhodopsin doesn't really make much difference. (Except that the PM tube is a more direct method of detection.)
I never thought of this before, but that's a good observation. We often put more importance on something we see with our own eyes, as if our eyes are far superior to the instruments we create, which of course they are not, not even close. In addition, we take that upside down, reversed, and distorted image from our eyes, and feed it to our brains, where we can apply all manner of strange interpretations to what we think we see. Of course, we do that when we interpret the readings from the instruments we create, too, but that's not the fault of the instruments.
Nice thought.