The Instigator
Furyan5
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DrillerBoy
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Reflections do not exist objectively.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 620 times Debate No: 81419
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (0)

 

Furyan5

Pro

First round is for acceptance.

Objective existence means to exist without the involvement of any living creature.

Reflections mean the image seen in a mirror or off water of an object that exists objectively.

Any disagreement of the meanings must be discussed in comments, prior to accepting.
DrillerBoy

Con

First of all, we must ensure that we understand orientation. If triangle ABC with letters of vertices in clockwise order is reflected across the y-axis, the letters of the vertices ABC are now in counterclockwise order, therefore the "orientation" has been reversed in the reflection.
Debate Round No. 1
Furyan5

Pro

That is not true. The image may appear to be reversed in our perception and the letters will be mirror images. The B and C will face the opposite direction. A b will become a d (not the letter D!)

Now most people are under the impression that if we see something it exists. This is due to the fact that people believe we see reality with our eyes. The truth is we actually see an image created by our brains subconscious and the subconscious can't differentiate between real and illusion. As everyone knows, light waves pass through the lenz of the eye and strike our retina. But the image created on our retina is upside down and inverted left to right. If we saw reality with our eyes, this is how we would see the world as there is no mechanism to correct this picture.

Scientists performed a vision experiment where they asked people to wear special glasses for a month. These glassed made them see the world upside down. After 3 weeks the people observed the world as normal. Their brain had adjusted the image. After a month they took off the glasses and again saw the world upside down for about 3 weeks. Then their vision returned to normal. This proves we don't see the image on our retina, but somewhere in our mind. But how?

Think of your eyes as antenna receiving radio waves. They send a signal to your TV via the RV cable and your TV converts this signal into a picture. Your eyes work on a similar basis. They receive light of different wavelengths and send electrical impulses to our brains optic centre via the optic nerve. In our brains optic centre these electrical impulses are converted into a visual representation of our surroundings. The cones on our retina respond to different wavelengths and our brain interprets this as color. Light waves themselves have no color and colours actually only exist in our minds.

The problem is that our optic centre is part of our subconscious and can't tell real from imaginary. The light striking our retina comes in 3 forms. Direct light, which is light from an object which creates its own light. Eg the sun, a flame, a globe. Reflected light is the second second type. This is light from a direct source being reflected off an object. Eg apples, trees, cars, people, etc. The 3rd type is phantom light. This is light which is reflected off a reflective surface such as a mirror, glass or water. It reflects the light exactly as it recieves it, but a mirror image. Our subconscious mind percieve an object where none exists. Fortunately for us, our conscious mind recognizes that it's not real or we would think our reflection is another person the way animals do.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the reflection of light isn't happening. But the image we percieve in a mirror is an illusion that exists only in our mind. Therefore it's existence is subjective.
DrillerBoy

Con

DrillerBoy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Furyan5

Pro

Furyan5 forfeited this round.
DrillerBoy

Con

DrillerBoy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Furyan5

Pro

Have you given up?
DrillerBoy

Con

DrillerBoy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Furyan5

Pro

Furyan5 forfeited this round.
DrillerBoy

Con

DrillerBoy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
What's your point? Everyone's eyes work the same way. Everyone sees a picture in their head.
Posted by Deb-8-A-Bull 1 year ago
Deb-8-A-Bull
If ya get a cat a cow and a whale . Line em up then ask 1000 people to point to the cat . They would all point to the cat. Red ball blue ball green ball . Point to the blue one . Ask 1000 people to describe a triangle. All will have the same answer .
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
The number seven.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
I actually enjoy a good ad hominem as much as I enjoy a good debate. Especially with someone who doesn't take it personally.

And it may be obvious to you, but review my forum post on the existence of rainbows and you will see just how many people don't realize that our perception of reality exists in the mind.

Anyway, I gotta make like I'm working. Play later.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Lol. Ouch. You mean. I'm telling my mummy.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
I never even said I disagree. You're just assuming I do. I actually agree. The light waves that create the image are objective because they're measurable, but the images we perceive are just our eyes making sense of the wavelengths we see. So the images (reflections) themselves are just images our minds create. It's not that hard to understand. I learned this stuff in like my junior year of high school.

And you know what an ad hominem fallacy is right? Attacking a person instead of addressing the arguments? It's a logical fallacy, which means using it is generally just to cover up a lack of logical argumentation.

(So attempting to speak your language here hoping you'll understand me this time) I guess some people just aren't up to the same caliber of logic as the rest of us :)
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Coming from a person who debates the morality of sticking bubblegum under a table? Lol! Like I said earlier, I'm curious to see how many people are intelligent enough to grasp the concepts. I have met a few, but not many. Unfortunately those who agreed, did so immediately after reading my theory. And those who didn't agree, never changed their mind. No matter how much I explained it. My conclusion is that some concepts are just beyond some people's mental abilities. But I'm hopeful I will find at least one during this debate.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
All I've said is that your debate doesn't carry any significance to real life. And they really don't. It doesn't matter if the image I see in my mirror objectively exists. I can still do my makeup and go on to live life. Unless you can explain why the debate carries significance to real life, then your assertion is completely unfounded. Even if you do prove its significance, that still doesn't mean I don't understand the concept. I can understand the concept without having any sort of personal application in my life.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Judging by your comments, you obviously don't. But don't feel bad. Not many people understand the physiology of the mind. To most people eyes are just holes in our head that our minds peep through. And words travel through the air and come out the little holes in our phones.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Lol thanks for the ad hominem. Got anymore logical fallacies to throw at me? The fact that I enjoy joking around on this site doesn't mean I'm incapable of understanding the difference between what is perceived and what actually is.
No votes have been placed for this debate.