It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could the belief in god considered a mental illness ?

page: 22
19
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: gosseyn

I should hope so



Do we have a brain that is particular to humans ?




posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn

Gosseyn , light and its physical properties are well understood, as are the optics of the human eye and the evolutionary path of the eye in most organisms on earth

science has proven this beyond a doubt that living organisms experience colour of the visible spectrum because the eye has cones which detect the various wavelengths of light

if you refuse to accept that fair enough

nae skin aff my nose



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

Why not just answer the question ?

And we are talking about the relation between light and colors, what are they to each other. You keep repeating the same stuff over and over but you fail to see the most important thing.

Just answer simple questions : do you think a brain is needed for light to become color, yes/no ?



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn

yes the visual cortex resides within the brain without the visual cortex in the brain humans couldnt change light into electrical signals

and re order that information into images

WHat has your consciousness got to do with the physical properties of light and how it is used to display images in the visual cortex ?


Colour existed in nature in organisms before consciousness appeared in humans
just because we were not able to give it a physical description with our conscious mind doesnt mean that it didnt exist and doesnt exist indepdendently of the mind of humans



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

So, you agree we are the same species. You agree that we have a brain that is particular to humans. You also agree that in order for light to become color, a brain is needed. (Which already means that colors only exist inside our brain.)

Next question is, how do you think light becomes color inside our brain ?
edit on 11-2-2020 by gosseyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn
we are homo sapiens sapiens , we have a brain particular to humans but also that has a common evolutionary path along with every other organism on earth
and that all animals with eyes share the same photoreceptors that have allowed them to see colours


as I have already provided evidence that shows this

there is no point in continuing with you because
there is plenty of evidence which proves animals have colour vision and colour is important as it plays a role in the evolution of species and also in humans

evolution of human vision

evolution of colour vision


Vertebrates
Researchers studying the opsin genes responsible for color-vision pigments have long known that four photopigment opsins exist in birds, reptiles and teleost fish.[2] This indicates that the common ancestor of tetrapods and amniotes (≈360 million years ago) had tetrachromatic vision — the ability to see four dimensions of color (or three not counting brightness).[3]


Whats that 360 million years ago you say ? before humans existed you say , before consciousness you say ?

Evolution of colour vision in mammals



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

How do you think light becomes color inside our brain ?
(btw you fail to see that eyes only catch photons, not colors, but let's just take one problem at a time)



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

No, the camera does. Unless you are suggesting cameras are secretly using their jedi tricks to manifest our material reality. And this experiment only works on photons, not broad spectrum matter. You seriously need to actually read the research instead of picking out details with zero regard for context.


Being able to measure the path that the photon takes is the variable for whether or not it behaves like a wave or a particle.


Wheeler's delayed choice experiment further reinforces the notion that wave function collapse is caused by our decision whether or not to observe the particle's path. They manage to get the photon to change properties even after it has gone through the slit, and they've even tested this with distance as far as satellites. This reinforces the idea that we are responsible for the observer effect. If it was just the camera then our choice would have no effect in Wheeler's delayed choice experiment.

source



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn

From what I have read it is an extremely complex process involving many different parts of the brain

not one of which changes the physical properties of light information received by the eye into a subjective state of consciousness indistinguishable from other humans during the perception of colour information from light photons.

it is the fact that the properties of light dont change subjectively but the fact that light properties are objective to all
which allows humans to share consensus on the perception of colour , and couple with the fact that we all share the exact same biology which allows us to see colour

but once more and now for the final time, Dont take my word for it , you can look it up yourself.
just because you are wrong , dont feel blue , maybe I will see you later on



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

1- you agree that we are the same species.
2- you agree that we have a brain that is particular to humans.
3- you agree that in order for light to become color, a brain is needed.
4- you agree that we don't know how light turns into color inside our brain.

You have all the pieces to see the big picture. You basically agree with everything I say, but when it comes to articulate all the pieces to form a vision of the whole, you fail to do it.

Next question is this : since our brain is particular to humans, do you think other animals, which have a brain that is different than ours, can have different brain functions that turn light into something different than the colors humans know ?



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I remember reading about the observer "state" and that even measuring something is in effect an observer any attempt of measurement is considered observation , it doesnt require a living conscious being in order to "observe"

I also read that the universe acts as though it is an observer simply by the fact that all particles are constantly and continually interacting / reacting to one another and so this also serves as observation or measurement in a sense

so the universe is effectively constantly observing itself and collaspsing the wave function in order to produce reality in dimensional space

After all , if we are all a part of the same system (david bohm , wholeness and the implicate order) , then there is no escaping the "observation"
as we are one giant sea of particles constantly interacting in one system known as the universe.



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

It's mechanical interference, not some jedi trick that proves quantum sorcery. Interacting with data affects the data on a subatomic level.



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn

1. Yes
2.Yes , but shares a common evolutionary path with the brains of other mammals and organisms with the ability to sense light
3. No both the brain and the Eye are required.
4. I personally dont understand the complex process of how light is converted into electrical signals and then how those signals are perceived as colour on our mind , as its still being researched .

Despite us not knowing exactly how the eye and then brain turns light information into electrical signals that then convey the perception colour doesn't mean we don't understand why light can be perceived as colour
its due to the energy and wavelength of the photons.
since the fact that all humans can see colour and have agreed on colour theory and the physical properties of light and that the physical properties of light dont change subjectively therefore allowing us to advance in the understanding of optics and light and physics in general , If the perception of light information was subjective to each human , we probably wouldnt have telescopes or lazers or any other form of light based physics .

WHy cant you see that ?

TO answer your last question the only differences as I've explained before in humans and others animals , is that some animals have a greater palette of colours in their vision or have more rods than cones or more cones than rods and these are all based on evolutionary adaptations for their survival.

Such as eagles and birds having more cones in order to increase their vision for colour and movement detection at longer rangers, Some butterflies can see colour hues that humans will never see due to their increased number of cones in their eyes some can have 12 cones allowing them to see millions of individual colour hues.


The reason they dont see differently than us because of the common evolutionary path of the eye in organisms on earth .

It is unlikley that any other living organism has different vision than humans because of the physical properties of light within our universe , it is likely that all organisms with the ability to see will have similar eyes to humans
simply due to the evolutionary aspect of life , and how life tackles these problems

I mean look at how our own vision has evolved, it is theorised that over 90 million years ago human ancestors only had UV vision.
So even though we did have consciousness and brains and eyes, we still couldnt see colour as our species had yet to have the mutation or adaptation to the environment which allowed us to make more use of the visible spectrum of light.


Like I said dont take my word for it

read about it

a clear molecular view of how human colour vision evolved



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

who said anything about jedi mind tricks and sorcery ?



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

You agree that our human brain is different than any other animal's brain, and yet you say the following:



the only differences as I've explained before in humans and others animals , is that some animals have a greater palette of colours in their vision or have more rods than cones or more cones than rods and these are all based on evolutionary adaptations for their survival.


So which is it ? Is our brain different than theirs or not ? Or are the cones and the rods the only difference ?



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 10:11 AM
link   
double
edit on 11-2-2020 by gosseyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Like I said please provide me with some evidence that supports your claims

Although I really doubt you will find any as what you are suggesting is entirely based in subjectivity

and it cant be proven outside of ones own consciousness unless we were eyes and brains in jars hooked up to machines that can see what our eyes see


Also Im so happy that humans share colour objectively , think of all the accidents that would occur if we all perceived colour independently from one another
bomb disposal cutting red blue and green wires, also , "dont" push the big "red " button
we probably wouldnt be 7.6 billion humans if that were the case



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn

Animals on earth have varying numbers of rods and cones in their eyes depending on its natural behaviours and adaptations to its environments.

I am not going to continue answering your questions , because I've already explained my position with evidence


Why dont you provide me with evidence that shows humans "perceive" colours differently due to our consciousness
and subjectively from each other

I am not going to hold my breath.



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

Well, you are the one who claimed that "dogs can see blue and yellow", so basically you are the one who has to prove something.

And again, for the 10th time at least, if you and me are able to discuss red and blue and green, it is because we have the same brain with the same brain functions. Same species, same brain, same brain functions = same sensations.

But you didn't answer the question :
Do you agree that other animals may have brain functions that turn light into something different than the colors humans know ?



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: gosseyn
Why dont you provide me with evidence that shows humans "perceive" colours differently due to our consciousness
and subjectively from each other


I NEVER claimed something like that. Wow, that's crazy. Where did you get that ? My WHOLE point is that because we are the same species, we have the same sensations, thus we see the same colors. And that different species may have different sensations because they have a different brain with different brain functions.




top topics



 
19
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join