The brain IS an information processor but this does not explain how we see. Memory is also an integral and essential part of how information is retained and used to connect what is learned in everyday life in order to make sense of the world. Without memory nothing would make sense because there would be no way to categorize our experiences to be used for later reference. Consciousness is a prerequisite for life itself. Without consciousness, we would be unaware of our very existence or who we are as individuals.
That's what doesn't make sense. Light does in fact convey information. The brain as an information processor does in fact generate consciousness based on information acquired by the senses that is integrated with memory function to enable recognition.
The brain IS an information processor but this does not explain how we see.
Pood, explaining the process many times does not PROVE the process is correct. It’s an idea, not proof.The brain IS an information processor but this does not explain how we see.
They eye interacting with the brain is how we see. The precise and well-understood process has been explained to you many times.
No, the proof is that we have *entirely reverse engineered the system*.
What? I can’t even begin to decode your response. Sorry. It’s my birthday and you won’t ruin it no matter hope right you think you are.No, the proof is that we have *entirely reverse engineered the system*.Pood, explaining the process many times does not PROVE the process is correct. It’s an idea, not proof.The brain IS an information processor but this does not explain how we see.
They eye interacting with the brain is how we see. The precise and well-understood process has been explained to you many times.
I'm not sure you understand this, but successful reverse engineering to an executed, functional system is 100% a proof of a theory of operation.
The alternative outcome of an RE is a "cargo cult result", where the apparent operations are merely performative rather than functional and effective.
Seriously, go watch Paycheck or something. Just the first few scenes of the movie will deliver the idea even into the thickest of skulls what reverse engineering is.
cargo cult to see what it looks like when someone fucks it up.Obviously something is amiss!
I don’t need to do that. All I need to do is prove that this account cannot be awash ax you seem to think.
Sorry, but did not explain anything other than the present theory which is not proof!The just visit
(TLDR: people tried to reverse engineer the causes of ships landing and delivering cargo *by replicating the exact actions and structures of all visible players on the port*. They mistook the theory of operation of a port to not include the *economic ties* and *communication systems* that drive the decision-making of where to make port)
The cargo cult article should make it apparent what the fundamental failure there is, and why RE'ing is readily apparent in its success or failure, but I explained it above.
Please explain where this proves seeing in real time wrong. I’m asking you to stop using big words and big explanations that can be answered more simply.Obviously something is amiss!
I don’t need to do that. All I need to do is prove that this account cannot be awash ax you seem to think.
The just visit
(TLDR: people tried to reverse engineer the causes of ships landing and delivering cargo *by replicating the exact actions and structures of all visible players on the port*. They mistook the theory of operation of a port to not include the *economic ties* and *communication systems* that drive the decision-making of where to make port)
Of course it proves the process is correct. The process has been observed, studied, and reverse-engineered. How we see is fully understood.
Oh, obviously! And why is it obvious? Because your writer does not agree with the facts of how we see. Therefore, something is obviously amiss — not with what he wrote, but with the truth!
How we see is not a theory, it is established fact.
I would advise getting off the internet, at least for today.
Please explain where this proves seeing in real time wrong. I’m asking you to stop using big words and big explanations that can be answered more simplyObviously something is amiss!
I don’t need to do that. All I need to do is prove that this account cannot be awash ax you seem to think.
The just visit
(TLDR: people tried to reverse engineer the causes of ships landing and delivering cargo *by replicating the exact actions and structures of all visible players on the port*. They mistook the theory of operation of a port to not include the *economic ties* and *communication systems* that drive the decision-making of where to make port)
I’ll be seeing my family later! My children and all 14 grandkids!
Reverse engineering may show that light travels and strikes the retina, but it cannot show that the light bounces off an object, taking the information with it through space/time. They cannot prove this.
You are seriously saying that we can’t prove that light is reflected off of objects??? OMFG there are about a million ways to prove it. You can easily prove it yourself with a flashlight!A camera doesn't prove that we see in delayed time. It works like the eye, no different. An eye implant has not shown that we see the external world from implanted electrodes. A child can hear when the implant is turned on, why not with an eye implant? This hasn't been shown with the eyes. Seeing shadows of light and dark doesn't prove that these images are coming from the environment. Decoding image data out of the optic nerve does not prove that this decoding is equivalent to true sight either. It is possible that through this decoding, the brain is able to use this data to see the real world as it is, not as a virtual image. It's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or any doubt for that matter, but it is understandable why people would think it is. This is what the author was up against.
Oh, obviously! And why is it obvious? Because your writer does not agree with the facts of how we see. Therefore, something is obviously amiss — not with what he wrote, but with the truth!
How we see is not a theory, it is established fact.
If we are confident of the theory of operation of each piece, we can replace parts built on those principles while maintaining function, and we have done so. This does, I am sorry to say to the "science doesn't deal in proofs" crowd. Success of replicated action is self evident, and while it's technically true, science plus engineering DOES deal in "proof".
The fact of the camera is proof. The fact of the eye implant is proof. The fact of the ability to decode image data out of the optic nerve is proof.
