The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
insanestranger
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

rainbows dont exist to a person born blind

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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: 8/10/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 281 times Debate No: 94599
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)

 

insanestranger

Con

Lol it does in his imagination.. Coz like, nothing actually exists for blind man in that sense. A blind man's world is his imagination. And we all know imagination has no limits ;)
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

born blind entails he has never seen a rainbow
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

so to get even more obvius, i dont know the looks of a person i havnt seen
insanestranger

Con

Hmm.. if you haven't seen your great grandfather , he doesn't exist?
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
senses are physical
Posted by joshuroar 3 months ago
joshuroar
Sam, be careful with the statement that the rainbows are refracted light. Rainbows are *caused* by refracted light, among other things, but they *aren't* refracted light.

Consider a physical object in the universe. A ball. Light hits the ball, bounces off of the ball into your eye, and your brain takes that information and uses it to create a mental model of the actual ball object in space. We don't "see" the light rays, we "see" the ball. Seeing is a matter of perception. Seeing is the act of the physical structures in your eye and your brain taking in light-energy as information, and processing it to create the mental model of the ball.

What if I just beamed the light rays in the proper configuration right into your eyes? If I did this carefully, I could cause you to see a ball that isn't there. Would you be willing to say that you're seeing light rays in this case, but a ball in the previous case? That isn't correct. Your eye is working the same way in both cases, and you see the same thing in both cases. The *ONLY* question is: has this light ray bounced off of an object in space, or not? If it has, we're seeing an object, a physical thing in space. If it has not, we're seeing an "image", something that doesn't exist in physical space, but still goes through the same processing routine in our mind that's unable to distinguish between these two cases.

A rainbow fits this second category. There isn't anything in space that has the qualities that we think of when we consider what a rainbow is (a multicolored translucent arc in the sky). It's not very accurate to say that you're seeing light rays. That's hand-waving a critical component to this, that the visual processing system in your brain uses light rays for *all* incoming information, and there's no distinction between real objects and images at that level. It's more accurate to say that you're seeing an object that isn't there.

Rainbows are not light, just like the ball isn't light.
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
no zombie virus for me thanks
Posted by insanestranger 3 months ago
insanestranger
Btw bruh... Obv im insane. We're all a little mad here....
I cam be your insane stranger ;)
Posted by insanestranger 3 months ago
insanestranger
Aww! Is the little panda angry? 😂😂
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
is all
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
you are insane
Posted by insanestranger 3 months ago
insanestranger
Vi spex has a blind fetish
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
existence=reality+experience
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
i see that
No votes have been placed for this debate.