The Instigator
ChokingChlorine
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MrJosh
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

seeing "invisible" things

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 1 vote the winner is...
MrJosh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 503 times Debate No: 76921
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

ChokingChlorine

Pro

Suppose that you are looking at something without really knowing it. Suppose that there is someone out there that blends perfectly with the wall so well that you couldn't determine that you were looking at the person. Well, you would be unknowingly if we thought of this guy to be somewhat of a chameleon projecting the image of what is behind him.
MrJosh

Con

I would like to thank PRO for instigating this debate; it sounds interesting. I will begin with a single piece of housekeeping:

See: to notice, perceive, or become aware of by using your eyes [1][2][3].

The Resolution

PRO's resolution is unclear, but what is perfectly clear is that it is impossible to "see" something that is perfectly camouflaged. Even if your eyes were viewing photons that either bounced off of, or were projected by, this camouflaged individual or object, if there is no recognition that it is different than the background, if there is no perception, than by definition, it is not seen. I look forward to whatever direction PRO feels like taking this debate.

Sources

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ChokingChlorine

Pro

Okay, say that there is a vase behind a person, but the vase that you see happens to be part of someone that is projected for you to see while the person is camouflaged. When you look at the vase, what you are actually seeing is part of the person's body. It would kind of be like looking at those naked people that have paint on themselves.
MrJosh

Con

PRO has presented a very interesting example.

In this example, an individual "sees" a vase, which is really just camouflage. However, the vase itself has not been perceived. The individual is perceiving the image of a vase, not the vase itself. That the image happens to accurately depict the reality behind the camouflage is irrelevant. Its like doing the math wrong, and getting the right answer by accident (or in this case, because you were mislead). The actual reality is that the person's eyes are seeing light that bounced off of a picture of a vase; they saw a picture of a vase, not the vase itself. The vase behind the camouflage has not been seen.
Debate Round No. 2
ChokingChlorine

Pro

It is definitely camouflage, but suppose that the invisible man that we determine to be in the movies was actually just camouflaged. Under that, he can definitely be seen as the one in front of the objects without being noticed. You are seeing whatever he projects.
MrJosh

Con

I'm not sure what you mean by, "under that," but again, in the case of any kind of camouflage, you are not seeing the thing you think you are seeing. Take the well known jungle camouflage like that used by many militaries around the globe [1]. If there was a soldier hiding in the woods, you would think you are seeing leaves, dirt, and shadows, but you aren't. You are seeing an enemy soldier, but you don't know it. Similar to the previous vase situation before, you are not seeing the dirt and shadows that are no doubt behind the enemy fighter; you are seeing the camouflaged uniform.

Source

[1] http://7-themes.com...
Debate Round No. 3
ChokingChlorine

Pro

ChokingChlorine forfeited this round.
MrJosh

Con

I see that PRO has chosen not to make arguments this round. I will sit tight and wait for his final round comments.
Debate Round No. 4
ChokingChlorine

Pro

ChokingChlorine forfeited this round.
MrJosh

Con

Sadly, PRO has again chosen not to post arguments. Not only has he failed to demonstrate that anything "invisible" can be seen, he has failed to demonstrate that, in the case of camouflage, we are seeing the item behind the camouflage. Thank you for this most interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
That sounds like a good topic for the philosophy discussion forum. This doesn't look like a debate either.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
ChokingChlorineMrJoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: double forfeit