What the Eyes Tell Us

What the Eyes Tell Us

We have two eyes, and each eye scans its own visual field. Together, they give us a 280 degree field of vision.

There are two ways to understand the world about us: through science, or through religion. Yet, like the eyes, neither is sufficient to give us a 280 degree understanding of the world.

Some believe there is an inherent dichotomy between consciousness and body. Consciousness and body is just another way of expressing the conflict between science and religion. There is also process. Science describes processes, religion, or true religion, describes people, the human situation, and endeavors to explain the why of existence. Therefore, the problem is not quite between religion and science, but rather, the conflict between determinism and reductionism, and an existentialism which takes into account the awesomeness of the place of the human being in a seemingly alien reality.

And yet, despite this conundrum, both perspectives continue to coexist - both perceptually interact with our field of perceptual understanding, just like our physical eyes.

When the eyes take in photons, flips the object seen in the retina, and channels this information from the optic nerve to the visual cortex in the occipital lobe, the right eyes information gets channeled to the left lobe, while the left eyes information gets channeled to the right lobe. This is something called contra-lateral processing. The brain does it for everything: the right ear gets processed in the left temporal lobe, the left ear in the right temporal lobe; the left side of the body in the right motor cortex, the right side in the left motor cortex. Is it alright to wonder ontologically what this might suggest about the nature of reality?

When information from one side gets fed into the opposite side of the central processor, what might this mean, ontologically? Even asking this question is itself an example of taking information from one side - the scientific observation - and feeding it into its opposite side, the inveterate human search for meaning. This is a type of ontological contra-lateral processing.

But if it works one way, logically, it should work the other way, no? Can the human reality be fed into scientific fact? Sure. It is actually helpful. Neuroscience is all about making correlations between psychological states and brain and hormonal function. However, is it correct to conclude that because human experiences and understanding can be associated, or caused, as it were, by neurological factors, that the human reality is nothing but a quirk of biochemical processing? Is this a legitimate contra-lateral processing?

What we see, what is most apparent to us, is clearly most foundational, right? What can be picked up by our senses, particularly our eyes and ears, should guide our reason, correct? There's no full proof way to argue for or against this argument. One could make the claim. Yet, equally, one could approach the question from a different angle. What of the human situation? Is it not odd that we are born? That we exist? That all around us there is form? Who made things this way? Einstein once said that the most amazing thing about the universe is that we can understand it. Is that not amazing? So, I suppose it boils down to the individual. What does the individual make of his existence? Is he content to live his life within the limits imposed by the strict perimeters of physical sensation - and not allow himself to think beyond it? If he is, then he can call himself an atheist, since even a deist necessarily must make the 'jump' that a God is responsible for the world. However, if you're not satisfied with the limitations of reason, and can't allow the limitations of reason to impose upon you a weltanschaung that strips the world of its awesomeness, then irrationality will enter your field of vision as a countervail to reason.

What the eyes seem to tell us is that you need both working in order to fully appreciate the reality around you. Reality is two - two eyes to see a full 280 degrees; two legs to properly navigate are spatial environments; two hands to make full use of the world, and two conceptual frameworks to handle the questions of reality. When they're accepted, both on their own terms, than the two can become one.

reply to post by dontreally


Quite the elegant way of putting it, but I think you just got influenced by the article of the woman who see's the world upside down. Tell me sir how would this approach work for her? Funny thing neuroscience....I doubt we will ever truly understand if it's like how you explained it. I think my brain needs a break after reading this, but very interesting read. .

This reminds me of a conversation by BF and I had years ago....I don't even remember the specific topic, but my point was...."if you see it, it is real"....lol...and of course he explained why even colors we see aren't actually the true colors but our eyes way of reflecting colors...lol...he said it better.....

What we can grasp and percieve with our physical sences is imporatant and real....but what we can't see but "feel" is a powerful thing.....in my journey through life I think blending practical and spritual thoughts are both part of what I have come to call "God's Plan"...whatever that means?

I absolutely believe there is much more to life then what we "see" with our eyes.....what that is...lol....who knows......I just try and be kind and fair, and hope for the best.....good thread.....

opps..my other eye double posted...

A cool post, very thought-provoking! A few questions and considerations...

Originally posted by dontreally
What we see, what is most apparent to us, is clearly most foundational, right? What can be picked up by our senses, particularly our eyes and ears, should guide our reason, correct?

Of course we have to trust our eyes in many situations for survival, etc. But are they actually a good guide to comprehending reality itself?

For instance, you are in a room and see it from a certain point of view. But what does the room ACTUALLY look like in reality? Even if you could visualize it from many different perspectives, you still would not know exactly what it looks like in reality. And even your view of the room is already in the past because it takes a certain amount of time to experience the seeing of the room. So the seeing is already a memory. We are looking at history, in fact.

Do we want to rely on an incomplete seeing and one that is in the past, to comprehend or at least be the basis for our understanding reality?

Originally posted by dontreally
If he is, then he can call himself an atheist, since even a deist necessarily must make the 'jump' that a God is responsible for the world.

Why is it almost always assumed that if there is God that such a one actually created the cosmos? What about the conditional arising in or as a modification of the Unconditional but without a causative relationship between the latter and the former? Perhaps God as Creator is a myth that fits in with or is a product of man's apparent separation from the Unconditional Reality in which conditions, including us, arise.

reply to post by dontreally

There are two ways to understand the world about us: through science, or through religion. Yet, like the eyes, neither is sufficient to give us a 280 degree understanding of the world.

Perhaps you just made an error when writing this.

But a complete circle is 360 degrees not 280.

Originally posted by bb23108
For instance, you are in a room and see it from a certain point of view. But what does the room ACTUALLY look like in reality? Even if you could visualize it from many different perspectives, you still would not know exactly what it looks like in reality. And even your view of the room is already in the past because it takes a certain amount of time to experience the seeing of the room. So the seeing is already a memory. We are looking at history, in fact.

What does a room look like when you are in it?
What is the direct experience of a room when you are in it? Can you see four walls? Does it appear as a box? No.
The mind has learned in the past that a room has four walls and is like a box and it is assumed that that is what a room is but in your 'real' experience it looks nothing like the minds idea of it.
Direct experience is rarely noticed because the mind has ideas planted in it. The mind assumes a room is a box with four walls but is it in your direct experience? Take a look - can you see four walls at the same time from where you are?

The mind seems to jump outside and look from a different 'perspective' .
Jesus tried to teach the blind to see and the deaf to hear. Instead to seeing with the mind (which is impossible) see directly.

Can you find a line or border between you and what is seen? How can you believe that what you are seeing is past? Even memory has to appear presently.

Originally posted by bb23108
Of course we have to trust our eyes in many situations for survival, etc. But are they actually a good guide to comprehending reality itself?

Do we want to rely on an incomplete seeing and one that is in the past, to comprehend or at least be the basis for our understanding reality?

Complete seeing happens presently. You will never see the past.
Even thoughts appearing that speak of past are arising presently and are seen presently.
What is happening (arising) presently is reality because there is nothing else.
Presence is all.

Originally posted by dontreally
When they're accepted, both on their own terms, than the two can become one.

The one is here presently and is always here presently.
The mind however believes there is more.

What happens if that person is blind? Is his perception of the world the real one since he is not relying on sight but smell, touch, taste and hearing?

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
This reminds me of a conversation by BF and I had years ago....I don't even remember the specific topic, but my point was...."if you see it, it is real"....lol...and of course he explained why even colors we see aren't actually the true colors but our eyes way of reflecting colors...lol...he said it better.....

What we can grasp and percieve with our physical sences is imporatant and real....but what we can't see but "feel" is a powerful thing.....in my journey through life I think blending practical and spritual thoughts are both part of what I have come to call "God's Plan"...whatever that means?

I absolutely believe there is much more to life then what we "see" with our eyes.....what that is...lol....who knows......I just try and be kind and fair, and hope for the best.....good thread.....

I have a rug that is slate blue and some of my friends think it's brown. I have to pull the rug up to show them the name of the rug. Interesting, huh?

What we see, what is most apparent to us, is clearly most foundational, right? What can be picked up by our senses, particularly our eyes and ears, should guide our reason, correct?

No it shouldn't and here's why. I'll put it in an easy example.
Parents tell their children that Santa Claus exists, which we know is an untruth, a lie.
The kids trust their parents not to lie.
How do the parents prove the lie that Santa Claus is real? How do they convince a child that their lie is in fact a truth?
They leave presents labeled "from Santa". They leave a half eaten carrot or cookie.
Those two items, picked up through the senses, cements the lie as a truth to those children.

Therefore, if one allows what is picked up through their eyes and ears (and other senses) to guide their reason, then they are subject to anyone who feeds them lies and provides purported evidence. Those who feed them lies merely need to create "evidence" that can be experienced through the senses. Case in point: mind altering meditation. Those who preach it state that "you are God. Now, if you'll just alter your consciousness and experience the visions and voices, those experiences will proove the truth of what I stated - "you are god". And sure enough the world is succumbing to it never understanding or believing that the claim "you are god" was a lie all along. Why? Because they rejected the truthfulness of the words which God spoke to us - that He will send a huge delusion and those who believe it will perish and that we are the created, not the Creator.

Science falsely called does the same tactic. It's pouring forth "evidence" that supports the truthfulness of occultism. To two generations indoctrinated to not believe in anything that they cannot experience, science and it's occultism has them over a barrel. You will believe them because of their "evidence".

Jesus Christ kept asking His disciples why they reasoned. The truth was standing in front of them. Holding the Truth as true insulates one from being deceived through the lying signs and wonders bring poured out upon us by wicked men who taught us to rely solely on our senses. Lights in the sky! Must definitely be ufos because those in the know said it is true. It's the fastest way to be suckered. God asks for faith, being hopeful and certain in His promises, believing without seeing. Faith. Doubting the truthfulness of Gods words to us has made us entirely vulnerable because then we reason with everything that wicked men have put in our heads. If God said the sky is blue, you cannot let anyone convince you that it is purple even if the same people give you their "evidence". Likewise, the theory of evolution - its not happening yet we trust science to tell us the truth. We are those kids at Christmas, fully trusting men and rejecting Our Creator who warned us that all hearts are evil.

Originally posted by WhoKnows100

What we see, what is most apparent to us, is clearly most foundational, right? What can be picked up by our senses, particularly our eyes and ears, should guide our reason, correct?

No it shouldn't and here's why. I'll put it in an easy example.
Parents tell their children that Santa Claus exists, which we know is an untruth, a lie.
The kids trust their parents not to lie.
How do the parents prove the lie that Santa Claus is real? How do they convince a child that their lie is in fact a truth?
They leave presents labeled "from Santa". They leave a half eaten carrot or cookie.
Those two items, picked up through the senses, cements the lie as a truth to those children.

Therefore, if one allows what is picked up through their eyes and ears (and other senses) to guide their reason, then they are subject to anyone who feeds them lies and provides purported evidence.

Words lie but the eyes do not. The child receives a present with 'from Santa' on it - that is what is seen. No 'Santa' was seen.
The mind fills in the missing bits with knowledge it has acquired (from parents speaking about Santa).
The senses are where the action is happening. The mind looks elsewhere, it looks at knowledge it has stored away as belief.

reply to post by dontreally


Thank you for posting this, I really enjoyed reading this. Both in the subject the material is about, the angle taken to consider the thoughts concerned but also just the writting style I found to be alot easier to digest as well as leaving room for my own ( the reader's ) thought developement while reading.

When the eyes take in photons, flips the object seen in the retina, and channels this information from the optic nerve to the visual cortex in the occipital lobe, the right eyes information gets channeled to the left lobe, while the left eyes information gets channeled to the right lobe. This is something called contra-lateral processing. The brain does it for everything: the right ear gets processed in the left temporal lobe, the left ear in the right temporal lobe; the left side of the body in the right motor cortex, the right side in the left motor cortex. Is it alright to wonder ontologically what this might suggest about the nature of reality?

I thought this was a particularly interesting connection and although you went on further that quote above is the initial point you put about it.

I feel like there is a real alchemical message hidden somewhere in there.. Often the material/physical/literal world is used to correspond to spiritual/alchemical concept. Alot of this is an angle I haven't thought of in depth but I would say there could be found a connection, undoubtably, between how our physical body receives the information for us to perceive our world - and the spiritual/alchemical reality/metaphor of our experience in itself. I would have to look further into that actual physical process and then delve deeper into some past alchemists. I have seen some interesting diagrams in the past but can't find them right now, maybe someone more learned could come here and make a connection.

Is he content to live his life within the limits imposed by the strict perimeters of physical sensation - and not allow himself to think beyond it? If he is, then he can call himself an atheist, since even a deist necessarily must make the 'jump' that a God is responsible for the world. However, if you're not satisfied with the limitations of reason, and can't allow the limitations of reason to impose upon you a weltanschaung that strips the world of its awesomeness, then irrationality will enter your field of vision as a countervail to reason.

Another cool connection I make to this, seems like two extreme choices. Just like the contralateral processing flips the eye sight between brain sides ( dualism working as one ), we live in a reality where for the most part we have two extreme choices to define our existence - and although most people will choose one of the extremes, I would say having the two work together much in the same harmonious manner of the seemingly strange contralateral processing way. Hope I have worded that right because I think that could be profound in a way.

Maybe that is what you meant in your conclusion to this thread here, but I don't want to put words in your mouth by trying to illustrate my own sort of epiphany after reading this:

Reality is two - two eyes to see a full 280 degrees; two legs to properly navigate are spatial environments; two hands to make full use of the world, and two conceptual frameworks to handle the questions of reality. When they're accepted, both on their own terms, than the two can become one.

Thanks for sharing this, again I thought it was a great read and I will have to keep look out if I find anything in the future that reminds me of these thoughts.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
The mind seems to jump outside and look from a different 'perspective' .

Regardless of what the mind does, it is clear that no matter how many perspectives (or points of view) could be taken into account, there would be no visually accounting for how the room ACTUALLY looks altogether in reality. Because there are an innumerable amount of points of view that would have to be seen for one to say they actually see with their eyes what the room looks like in reality.

Eye sight can only see from one point of view at a time and regardless of how many perspectives the mind could "see" or hold on to, it still could never see what the room actually looks like.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
How can you believe that what you are seeing is past? Even memory has to appear presently.

The process of experiencing the visual memory is in the present, but the actual memory is an image that took time to process, and so my statement that what we are actually seeing is from the past.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Complete seeing happens presently. You will never see the past.
Even thoughts appearing that speak of past are arising presently and are seen presently.
What is happening (arising) presently is reality because there is nothing else.
Presence is all.

As I responded prior to this post, what you are experiencing when you see something is the memory or image of that object and that takes time to create the memory, and then process the memory. So the eyes are not a completely reliable faculty for basing an understanding of our actual reality on.

Originally posted by texasgirl
What happens if that person is blind? Is his perception of the world the real one since he is not relying on sight but smell, touch, taste and hearing?

I think this is a good question because such a person cannot rely on his eyes for comprehending his reality. However, blind people can still understand that they arise in a vast field of indivisible (non-separate) relatedness because this can be felt - and perhaps felt more readily for someone blind than for someone who also sees.

Isn't recognizing this simple fact of existence even more fundamental than having a visual experience?

reply to post by dontreally


Most elegantly written, as I think someone else already said, but it is wortth repeating, for it is true.

Some believe there is an inherent dichotomy between consciousness and body. Consciousness and body is just another way of expressing the conflict between science and religion. There is also process. Science describes processes, religion, or true religion, describes people, the human situation, and endeavors to explain the why of existence. Therefore, the problem is not quite between religion and science, but rather, the conflict between determinism and reductionism, and an existentialism which takes into account the awesomeness of the place of the human being in a seemingly alien reality.

This is where, however well you wrote it, I don't agree at all. Any "inherent dichotomy" between consciousness and body is far more than anything expressed by the conflict of science and religion, though these last, both rely upon faith and belief, and therefore, are not as inherently dichotomous as those in charge of such institutions would have the rest of us laymen consider.

You then write: "Science describes processes, religion, or true religion, describes people, the human situation, and endeavors to explain the why of existence. "

How does science, really, seek to describe, much less deal with any way religion or this: (interesting differential)
true religion? I don't think science seeks to do any of what you write here. Rather, science seeks to describe, define the rules and definitions for, and therefore the logical workings of the PHYSICAL REALM....that which we perceive, physically, through our senses (eyes included, as you have focused in your OP). The "Why" of existence is something else altogether. I think they call that philosophy, sometimes combined with some of what people call these days "woo-woo" sciencey type stuff, all added in to call it "metaphysics." The only processes science deals with, really, are mathematically based, which is just another language, like English, or say, Dutch, but nevertheless, just another language., which uses rules of numbers and numbers as representational quotients, something like we use words to stand in for a "thing" we can point to, and supposedly agree upon its definition as being represented by this or that word.

That is what science attempts to do, and why it attempts to do it, and it has really nothing to do with describing religion, people, the human situation, much less to explain the "why of existence," again, not a scientific endeavor at all. That's where we get into religion, metaphysics, etc.

My point is, you cannot describe a dichotomous conundrum without first understanding how to express each points of view representing said dichotomy, and then representing the conundrum as it would then follow.

Don't get me wrong. I am very interested in where you are going, or thinking in the now, but I think your means of expressing it could use some fine tuning, as otherwise, it lacks some logic.

If you want to talk about the dichotomy of science relying almost solely upon math, as a language, and empiricism, as the one of six senses we most rely upon for science, discernment or judgment of absolutely anything, real or otherwise, that's another matter, and should be expressed, in my opinion in another way.
In my signature, at the end of the long lengthy thing you'd probably rather not be bothered with, you will find two threads I wrote which attempt to address a little of what you are speaking of, I think.....and what that means to all of us. What is reality, after all, if empiricism means nothing. And without empiricism, what is consciousness, then.......

Enjoyed your thoughts and writing, nonetheless.

reply to post by bb23108

Perhaps God as Creator is a myth that fits in with or is a product of man's apparent separation from the Unconditional Reality in which conditions, including us, arise.

And perhaps this too is a myth??? When it comes to philosophy, or metaphysics, or theology, the most we can do is speculate, because unlike science, such speculations cannot be confirmed.

My 'evidence' for the existence of God is of course based on the existence of the human individual. I do not take it for granted, that we are. I do not attempt to abstract from the given to try to explain the nature of reality. This again, is mankind's foible. Your attempt to explain away our earthly personal experience of the world is a left-brained scientific approach akin to that taken by Buddhism and most sciences (particularly quantum physics), i.e reductionist.

Just because something can be traced back to a particular state does not mean that state is more real than this state. They are two states. The conundrum between the postulated "unconditioned" or indeterminate reality and our conditioned and determined reality is just being restated today in scientific terms; but again, it has nothing to say on metaphysics, philosophy and theology, and only an intellectual liar would attempt to convince people that it does.

Oure feelings, our experiences, give rise to interpretations (philosophies) of the world. We must always draw a line between that, which everyone has a right to devise on their own, and science, which is merely a tool which helps us to understand and manipulate our knowledge of the physical world.

reply to post by dontreally
Yesterday's scientific discoveries are often undone by today's discoveries. And this points out that even science changes, just like all form does. The one constant that is certain to me is that fundamental awareness does not change. Objects are seen in the waking state, and even in the dream state, but in deep sleep, there are no objects, and yet awareness persists. It is the one constant that transcends all the states the body-mind changes through every day, whether waking, dreaming, or in deep sleep.

I understand that science cannot prove this, but it is tacitly obviously that it is the case. Awareness does not age - my body-mind has changed since I was a teen, but my fundamental awareness (not intellect, not knowledge) has not changed. This is not reductive - it is utterly observable .