Fact: In our whole lives, we humans have never seen what an object looks like!

First, great post by smithjustinb here... www.abovetopsecret.com...
His thoughts sparked me enough to log in and actually post, which I rarely do. To further what he has already said..... In my studies, I have found one of those wondrous, enchanting places where science meets spirituality....

IN OUR WHOLE LIVES WE HAVE NEVER SEEN AN OBJECT!
That is, if you believe reality to be a series of nouns (person, places, "things")..... Explanation:

Within the human eye there resides about 90 million rod cells and 4 million cone cells. Rod cells are responsible for the perception of light or dark and helps us with night vision and peripheral. Cone cells are responsible for the perception of color. Neither one of these cells "makes you see" an object. They only allow you to see the reflected light and perceived color of that so-called object.

Therefore, IN YOUR WHOLE LIFE YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN AN OBJECT ONLY THE LIGHT REFLECTING OFF OF THAT "OBJECT".

How is that for a serious head-spinner? ;P

Any great things to add to this, ATSers?

err, I think its semantic. Read your title, if course you saw what it looks like because without reflecting light it would be invisible to you. get what i mean?

I'll go one step beyond that. You don't see anything, and whether or not the energy wave IS condensed into exactly what we are seeing and experiencing is also debatable.

We cannot prove there is an outer world that way.

The programs in the computer brain are what shapes the world around us. Our eyes, take in the signals, the light, and our other senses take in signals as well, touch, taste, sound, smell.

Basically they are energy input, and our brain has programs and deciphers them against the programs and erects in the back of the mind, its like a screens there in the back of our brain, all these things 3d, and spatially.

There is no spoon.

The chair, even the room you think you're in, is inside you.

When ufology abductions occur, someone else has the remote, can pause, the programs.

That smithjustinb guy is a pretty awesome dude.

Here's an idea I had in the past going along with what you're saying. I'm not sure what knowing or believing this led to though. But I can't say it isn't thought-provoking.

The fact that we have never seen an object for what it is is also why compassion is so important. Compassion is also very practical. Check this thread out.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As amazing as this is, it brings to mind a question...

If the action of the nerves in our eyes (and other sense organs) are manufacturing our individually perceived reality; wouldn't this light (or other input) be external to the body, or are our senses deceiving us here too? This question assumes of course that reality is a construct viewed internally only. In other words, if everything is inside our heads, where is the light; part of the construct (internal) or something else (external)?

This has an obvious religious implication, though not intentional on my part. Not looking for religious answers, just the speculative physics type...

Ok, found an answer on another thread; thanks Justin...

Originally posted by smithjustinb
That smithjustinb guy is a pretty awesome dude.

Here's an idea I had in the past going along with what you're saying. I'm not sure what knowing or believing this led to though. But I can't say it isn't thought-provoking.

I meant to post this link with that reply.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

HA, I am actually using this as an example in this thread. (Not my own thread, and I don't enter till page two (I think))

Yeah, the brain is fancy like that. We do not experience anything, other than our own thoughts!

reply to post by elegant-gypsy


All perception is relative and subjective. Ever become so aware of your perceptional senses that you observe them arise and go? Observe where they start and end? Observe that you are thinking? Aware of 'that' which is aware?

Rabbit hole goes deeeeeeeeeeppp!

I would go beyond that and say that the only reason the outside world looks the way it does is because our physical senses are programmed to receive the information and translate it to our brains. The visible light spectrum is only a tiny part of the full thing. Imagine if our brains were programmed to receive everything... the world around us would probably look a lot different than it does to us now.

reply to post by elegant-gypsy

I LOVE this site! Someone was reading my mind.
I must say that yesterday I was thinking about this very subject intently. My mind would not let it go. I had no idea where to begin the search for information on it. I am slowly losing my sight and at this point in time, I have no fear of the loss. I am rather keenly interested in what will happen to my perception of the world around me. I often question what others see. Is it the same thing I see? I assume it must be. My husband and I have similar taste in colors of clothing and home furnishings. ( attempt at humor) We share no other similar likes except for each other.
Have a good one!

Great thread, people .
I have another brain f*ck for you .
If I get time later , I will post it

I have a spare ten minutes , so here goes....

When two people look at a colour . How do they know that they are actually seeing the same colour ?
There is a very good chance that though they may correctly identify any given colour , the colours they see could be completely different .
It all boils down to our infant years when we learn to associate things , collectively.

For instance . A group of young children are taught that when they see a given colour , they will always associate it as ( for example ) red . Regardless of what colour you are actually seeing , you always associate it as being red . The person next to you might be seeing a totally different colour , but he too will always associate it with being red and it is the same for every other colour.

Now hows that for a brain f*ck ?

reply to post by dawnprince


Yes , dawnprince, you are on the same page I am on. This is a very good example of what I am curious about. Do you have any links to lead me on my quest for answers. I am not brainy so something in laymans terms?

Have a good one!

reply to post by grandmatruthseeker


Here are some basic ideas:

en.wikipedia.org...

Solipsism ( /ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from the Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind.

en.wikipedia.org...

In philosophy, the brain in a vat is an element used in a variety of thought experiments intended to draw out certain features of our ideas of knowledge, reality, truth, mind, and meaning. It is drawn from the idea, common to many science fiction stories, that a mad scientist, machine or other entity might remove a person's brain from the body, suspend it in a vat of life-sustaining liquid, and connect its neurons by wires to a supercomputer which would provide it with electrical impulses identical to those the brain normally receives. According to such stories, the computer would then be simulating reality (including appropriate responses to the brain's own output) and the person with the "disembodied" brain would continue to have perfectly normal conscious experiences without these being related to objects or events in the real world.

en.wikipedia.org...

Consensus reality is an approach to answering the philosophical question "What is real?" It gives a practical answer: reality is either what exists, or what we can agree seems to exist.[citation needed]

The process has been (perhaps loosely and a bit imprecisely) characterised as "when enough people think something is true, it... takes on a life of its own".[citation needed] The term is usually used disparagingly as by implication it may mean little more than "what a group or culture chooses to believe", and may bear little or no relationship to any "true reality", and, indeed, challenges the notion of "true reality".

en.wikipedia.org...

The dream argument is the postulation that the act of dreaming provides preliminary evidence that the senses we trust to distinguish reality from illusion should not be fully trusted, and therefore any state that is dependent on our senses should at the very least be carefully examined and rigorously tested to determine whether it is in fact reality.

Some evidence that causes me to question my reality:

en.wikipedia.org...

A false awakening is a vivid and convincing dream about awakening from sleep, while the dreamer in reality continues to sleep. After a false awakening, subjects often dream they are performing daily morning rituals such as cooking, cleaning and eating. The experience is sometimes called a double dream, or a dream within a dream.

en.wikipedia.org...(illusion)

Maya or Māyā (Sanskrit माया māyāa[›]), in Indian religions, has multiple meanings, usually quoted as "illusion", centered on the fact that we do not experience the environment itself but rather a projection of it, created by us. Māyā is the principal deity that manifests, perpetuates and governs the illusion and dream of duality in the phenomenal Universe.

en.wikipedia.org...

Simulated reality is the skeptical hypothesis that reality could be simulated—perhaps by computer simulation—to a degree indistinguishable from "true" reality. It could contain conscious minds which may or may not be fully aware that they are living inside a simulation.

Of course this is just scratching the supposed surface...

reply to post by adigregorio


Thank you kind sir. I see I will have plenty to read and explore this weekend. I counted seven links to theories on conceptual realities posted. I am sure you saved a few for later. Are you certain I will be able to wrap my mind around these? I can only assure you I will check out each one.
Have a good one!

reply to post by dawnprince


But colours effect peoples moods pretty much the same way. We all understand red as a warm colour, and blue as cold. So if we were not seeing the same actual colour, there wouldn't be that connection, because it is the colour not the perception of colour that effects the brain.

Colour is simply light broken down to only reflect certain wavelengths, and I think all our brains perceive light in the same way?

To answer the OP yes we see objects as they appear imo, light reflects off an object exactly as it appears. There may be some distortion here and there. All you have to do is describe an object to someone eh?

reply to post by ANOK


Fair enough I suppose , but you have forgotten one very important factor ...... Colour blindness .

Now have two children ( one of them being unknowingly colour blind ) and explain to them that every time they see a specific colour ( again we will use red as an example) they will always associate it with red . Both will undoubtedly be able to pick out anything red from that moment on , b ut neither will actually be seeing the same colour .

Even the greatest of theories can be flawed

reply to post by dawnprince


That's not true, my brother cannot see red, red looks like brown and brown looks like green. He used to have a bone handed knife when he was a child and he always thought it was green, as he became older he realized that bone cannot be green! He hated my parents putting brown shoes on him, they didn't realize that he hated wearing 'green' shoes!
My parents found out he was color blind when they asked him to sort smarties (colored sweets) into color groups, he mixed the colors.
If a color blind person could be shown what red always looks like my brother would not have been turned away from the career he wanted in the Royal Navy.

All theories are flawed because a theory is not truth. You theory was based on no experience, you just pretended that you had two children, one with colorbindness and one without. I have experienced this senario firsthand.

Originally posted by elegant-gypsy
First, great post by smithjustinb here... www.abovetopsecret.com...
His thoughts sparked me enough to log in and actually post, which I rarely do. To further what he has already said..... In my studies, I have found one of those wondrous, enchanting places where science meets spirituality....

IN OUR WHOLE LIVES WE HAVE NEVER SEEN AN OBJECT!

That is, if you believe reality to be a series of nouns (person, places, "things")..... Explanation:

Within the human eye there resides about 90 million rod cells and 4 million cone cells. Rod cells are responsible for the perception of light or dark and helps us with night vision and peripheral. Cone cells are responsible for the perception of color. Neither one of these cells "makes you see" an object. They only allow you to see the reflected light and perceived color of that so-called object.

Therefore, IN YOUR WHOLE LIFE YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN AN OBJECT ONLY THE LIGHT REFLECTING OFF OF THAT "OBJECT".

How is that for a serious head-spinner? ;P

Any great things to add to this, ATSers?

edit on 3-5-2012 by elegant-gypsy because: (no reason given)

I would say that you are correct.

I think you are basically describing indirect realism.

Direct and Indirect realism

the philosophical position that our conscious experience is not of the real world itself but of an internal representation, a miniature virtual-reality replica of the world.