Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Images exist only in our heads.

Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 11:24:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Please respond with yes or no and if you know your I.Q please put it next to your answer.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 3:39:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 11:24:33 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Please respond with yes or no and if you know your I.Q please put it next to your answer.

Well, depending how you want to play a semantics game, sure. Color is a good example of only existing as manufactured by sense. Regardless, it's only a game of how you want to define "image"

As to IQ, I know it. No good reason for ANYONE to post their IQ.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 3:52:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 3:39:26 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/1/2015 11:24:33 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Please respond with yes or no and if you know your I.Q please put it next to your answer.

Well, depending how you want to play a semantics game, sure. Color is a good example of only existing as manufactured by sense. Regardless, it's only a game of how you want to define "image"

As to IQ, I know it. No good reason for ANYONE to post their IQ.

You'd be surprised how many people would disagree with you and claim colors exist objectively. I'm trying to determine if its an intelligence issue, hence the request. I know it feels like you showing off by stating your I.Q but should I get more than 20 responses I would really appreciate it if you would respond. Even if you do so in private.

Please do not explain or debate the issue. In my experience people either grasp this immediately, or not at all.

Thanks
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 7:58:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 11:24:33 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Please respond with yes or no and if you know your I.Q please put it next to your answer.

You're not worthy to know my IQ.

You'd be surprised how many people would disagree with you and claim colors exist objectively.

The colours we see in our heads are subjective, but the photon wavelengths that they correlate with are not. We can analyse the chemical structure of a substance and tell whether it is blue, but your mental image of "blue" may be completely different than mine. It doesn't actually matter what we see in our heads, as long as we agree on what colour to call that photon wavelength.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 8:31:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 7:58:05 PM, SM2 wrote:
At 11/1/2015 11:24:33 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Please respond with yes or no and if you know your I.Q please put it next to your answer.

You're not worthy to know my IQ.

You'd be surprised how many people would disagree with you and claim colors exist objectively.

The colours we see in our heads are subjective, but the photon wavelengths that they correlate with are not. We can analyse the chemical structure of a substance and tell whether it is blue, but your mental image of "blue" may be completely different than mine. It doesn't actually matter what we see in our heads, as long as we agree on what colour to call that photon wavelength.

Ouch! What's with the personal attack? Did I offend you somehow?

I agree with everything you say. Thanks for confirming that we see things in our head.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 1:37:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
For what its worth on the IQ topic. My grandfather was a professor at the UW madison working in educational psychology in the 30's and 40's. He was very interested in IQ and wrote many test (and a number of textbooks). While he, my frandfather died before my birth, my father was interested by extension. He, my father, took MANY of the tests as a subject of my grandfathers.

As I kid, I played with a bunch of the test materials. At this point I realize that my father was just interested in me running the tests. So... I have a number of scores. Where it was most "clinical" was taken ~8 or 9 (fuzzy on the memory). Again I took a formal test ~12 or 13. Each of these are possibly skewed by my prior exposure to testing procedures, but are within points of one another. I have taken several tests since, and the scores were wildly off (one high, other low).

Point, overall, is. I think the test work great. The applicability of this sort of testing is debatable, but generally speaking - measuring works. Just how messed-up my own score might be is... a question.
tdansen
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 4:43:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 11:24:33 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Please respond with yes or no and if you know your I.Q please put it next to your answer. : :

No. Images do not exist in our heads. In fact, they don't exist as real images at all. They are only illusions that are perceived as real images. Images are formed from invisible wavelengths when combined and processed for an observer to observe. An observer is also created from these invisible wavelengths along with all his senses.

In other words, everything we experience is an illusion in a simulation called Eternal Life. We are not real people and we are not living in a real world as far as a solid physical world that is. Since we can't experience anything else but an illusion, we don't know what is outside this simulation we're involved in other than our Creator who spoke this simulation into existence.

Our Creator is the one who taught me that we're living in a simulation and that the characters that we experience with our senses are not real people or beasts.

Another way to describe our experiences is that we're living in dreams. Dreams seem real to us but they're created by our Creator within his mind first, then produced in a simulation.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 9:26:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Most people who have given the matter any though at all would accept that information about the world gets encoded into patterns of neural activity in the brain and it is that information that we are aware of.

Anecdotally, there are indications that the 'privacy' of experience - and such things as the possibility that people see colours differently - occurs to many people when they are pre-teen. I remember thinking about it in primary school, over the colour of the cover on a hymn book. Talking to people over the years it seems 'do people see colours differently' thing is something almost everybody seems to have wondered about at sometime in their life, until things like jobs and mortages became more pressing matters.

Perhaps people pick up on the privacy of of mentality when they realise that they can't tell what someone else is thinking, and other people can't tell what they are thinking - which makes lying possible.

I think the privacy of mentality is not something that only 'clever' people think up, although I don't suppose a literal (as opposed to it used as an insult!) moron would come up with the idea. But I don't think it is an unusual insight to have.

So as a piece of informal research, how many posters here have pondered whether people see colours the same way, (or some similar aspect of mentality) as a youngster?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 11:41:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 9:26:59 AM, kp98 wrote:
Most people who have given the matter any though at all would accept that information about the world gets encoded into patterns of neural activity in the brain and it is that information that we are aware of.

Anecdotally, there are indications that the 'privacy' of experience - and such things as the possibility that people see colours differently - occurs to many people when they are pre-teen. I remember thinking about it in primary school, over the colour of the cover on a hymn book. Talking to people over the years it seems 'do people see colours differently' thing is something almost everybody seems to have wondered about at sometime in their life, until things like jobs and mortages became more pressing matters.

Perhaps people pick up on the privacy of of mentality when they realise that they can't tell what someone else is thinking, and other people can't tell what they are thinking - which makes lying possible.

I think the privacy of mentality is not something that only 'clever' people think up, although I don't suppose a literal (as opposed to it used as an insult!) moron would come up with the idea. But I don't think it is an unusual insight to have.

So as a piece of informal research, how many posters here have pondered whether people see colours the same way, (or some similar aspect of mentality) as a youngster?

Lol I have and sometimes still do. I imagine how beautiful a sunset would look if my mind saw blue as purple and green as orange. Fluffy turquoise clouds floating in a purple sky as a green sun sets over a red mountain.

Yeah OK, I'm weird. I know.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 8:24:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 11:24:33 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Please respond with yes or no and if you know your I.Q please put it next to your answer.

Yes, 107
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 9:38:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 8:24:19 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/1/2015 11:24:33 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Please respond with yes or no and if you know your I.Q please put it next to your answer.

Yes, 107

Thanks.
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 11:10:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I assume this post came as a result of our "reflections" debate.

The issue of 'images' existing in your head totally depends on how you define image, as others have said. Just as the statement "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it makes a sound," can be true or false depending upon what your definition of "sound" is.

If an image is something that must be translated by our brains, then images are obviously only in our head. If an image is anything that emits photons, then images exist in reality. Sound is a similar case to this.

And never ask to people to disclose IQ. Most people don't actually know it (barring bad online tests). My parents have taken me to have quite a few IQ tests over the years and nearly all of them just test pattern recognition (which is important, but not some master variable that is a fantastic predictor of intelligence.) A few tested vocabulary and basic math, but that, again, is not a good predictor of intellect.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 4:05:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 11:10:33 AM, Cobalt wrote:
I assume this post came as a result of our "reflections" debate.

The issue of 'images' existing in your head totally depends on how you define image, as others have said. Just as the statement "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it makes a sound," can be true or false depending upon what your definition of "sound" is.

If an image is something that must be translated by our brains, then images are obviously only in our head. If an image is anything that emits photons, then images exist in reality. Sound is a similar case to this.

^ this
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 7:52:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
how beautiful a sunset would look if my mind saw blue as purple and green as orange.
Would a sunset be beautiful if there was no one to see it?
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 9:53:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 11:10:33 AM, Cobalt wrote:
I assume this post came as a result of our "reflections" debate.

The issue of 'images' existing in your head totally depends on how you define image, as others have said. Just as the statement "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it makes a sound," can be true or false depending upon what your definition of "sound" is.

If an image is something that must be translated by our brains, then images are obviously only in our head. If an image is anything that emits photons, then images exist in reality. Sound is a similar case to this.

A small correction. Objects, unless they are light sources, don't emit photons. We see objects by reflected light.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 5:06:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 11:24:33 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Please respond with yes or no and if you know your I.Q please put it next to your answer.

Yes. Images are created after our eyes perceive the real world. They do not really exist. (I don't know my IQ.)

With that said, I doubt IQ causes one to slant one way or the other. You may find a correlation, but causation? I doubt it. Most likely, the people's responses will depend on how much and what sort of literature from the fields of philosophy, psychology and cognitive science they have read.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 5:09:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 3:52:35 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 11/1/2015 3:39:26 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/1/2015 11:24:33 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Please respond with yes or no and if you know your I.Q please put it next to your answer.

Well, depending how you want to play a semantics game, sure. Color is a good example of only existing as manufactured by sense. Regardless, it's only a game of how you want to define "image"

As to IQ, I know it. No good reason for ANYONE to post their IQ.

You'd be surprised how many people would disagree with you and claim colors exist objectively.

There's a study about colour identification in a tribe whose language partition the colours in a different way than most the major world languages. They could easily differentiate between colours that belong in different lexical categories in their language, even if they look roughly the same to speakers of major languages. By contrast, they had great difficulty differentiating between colours that belong to the same lexical category in their language, even though those colours are very easy to distinguish for speakers of major languages. That should be enough to show that colours exist only in our heads.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 3:09:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 3:05:02 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
I have 233 images in my Nokia 1115 .
I Q I quote

They also exist in other people's heads
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 1:30:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 11:24:33 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Please respond with yes or no and if you know your I.Q please put it next to your answer.

Yes images can exist outside our heads/minds.

http://www.cbc.ca...

A teen was charged with sharing "images" of girls. He was sharing static physical replications of a moment in time in the form of photographs. The photographs are an image which can be distributed outside of the mind. Although they are useless without the proper hardware(brain) to reconstruct, they are non the less "images".

I believe my IQ to be somewhere in the range of 2,000 rpm as my argument of semantics just dropped the mic.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 2:14:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 5:06:20 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 11/1/2015 11:24:33 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Please respond with yes or no and if you know your I.Q please put it next to your answer.

Yes. Images are created after our eyes perceive the real world. They do not really exist. (I don't know my IQ.)

With that said, I doubt IQ causes one to slant one way or the other. You may find a correlation, but causation? I doubt it. Most likely, the people's responses will depend on how much and what sort of literature from the fields of philosophy, psychology and cognitive science they have read.

Actually there is a trend I'm picking up. Call it arrogance for lack of a better word. This leads me to the belief that EQ as apposed to IQ definitely plays a part in grasping intricate concepts. I have always held the belief that preconceptions are our own worst enemy. Combined with arrogance on the part of the person severly restricts their ability to learn anything new. That would require admitting they were mistaken in the first place. There is a difference between being uninformed and being stupid.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 2:18:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 1:30:27 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/1/2015 11:24:33 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Please respond with yes or no and if you know your I.Q please put it next to your answer.

Yes images can exist outside our heads/minds.

http://www.cbc.ca...

A teen was charged with sharing "images" of girls. He was sharing static physical replications of a moment in time in the form of photographs. The photographs are an image which can be distributed outside of the mind. Although they are useless without the proper hardware(brain) to reconstruct, they are non the less "images".

I believe my IQ to be somewhere in the range of 2,000 rpm as my argument of semantics just dropped the mic.

Thanks, but we are specifically referring to the images we see in our mind and not photos.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 6:59:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 2:18:47 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 12/9/2015 1:30:27 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/1/2015 11:24:33 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Please respond with yes or no and if you know your I.Q please put it next to your answer.

Yes images can exist outside our heads/minds.

http://www.cbc.ca...

A teen was charged with sharing "images" of girls. He was sharing static physical replications of a moment in time in the form of photographs. The photographs are an image which can be distributed outside of the mind. Although they are useless without the proper hardware(brain) to reconstruct, they are non the less "images".

I believe my IQ to be somewhere in the range of 2,000 rpm as my argument of semantics just dropped the mic.

Thanks, but we are specifically referring to the images we see in our mind and not photos.

Well then I guess my iq is really 20 as I missed the boat, although with that said there is indeed a real image in your brain, as it is a defined set of electro chemical reactions as an interpreter from the light waves hitting the back of the eye. It is a real physical thing and your "perception" of it is merely a representation of that physical condition and the two can not be separated thus they can be considered as one in the same. Phantom pain is a good example.

It is a physical condition in the brain which is a real valid thing eventhough the limb does not exist. It makes no sense differentiating the pain felt from the physical condition or state the brain is which causes the pain.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:34:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2015 6:59:58 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/9/2015 2:18:47 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 12/9/2015 1:30:27 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/1/2015 11:24:33 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Please respond with yes or no and if you know your I.Q please put it next to your answer.

Yes images can exist outside our heads/minds.

http://www.cbc.ca...

A teen was charged with sharing "images" of girls. He was sharing static physical replications of a moment in time in the form of photographs. The photographs are an image which can be distributed outside of the mind. Although they are useless without the proper hardware(brain) to reconstruct, they are non the less "images".

I believe my IQ to be somewhere in the range of 2,000 rpm as my argument of semantics just dropped the mic.

Thanks, but we are specifically referring to the images we see in our mind and not photos.

Well then I guess my iq is really 20 as I missed the boat, although with that said there is indeed a real image in your brain, as it is a defined set of electro chemical reactions as an interpreter from the light waves hitting the back of the eye. It is a real physical thing and your "perception" of it is merely a representation of that physical condition and the two can not be separated thus they can be considered as one in the same. Phantom pain is a good example.

It is a physical condition in the brain which is a real valid thing eventhough the limb does not exist. It makes no sense differentiating the pain felt from the physical condition or state the brain is which causes the pain.

Nice answer. It is my belief that the creation of the image is a subconscious brain function but perception of it is a conscious brain function. That explains why things viewed in our peripheral vision are not easily remembered but can be recalled under hypnosis. Everything we ever see is saved somewhere in our subconscious, even if we never focused on it at the time.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2015 6:52:24 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
I'm sceptical of that - especially in realation to 'memories' recovered under hypnosis, eg.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...

I don't remember X because X happened but because X is stored in my brain. I don't think that brains store every detail of every moment of our lives. Indeed, speaking as an over 50 year of my brain - storing (and retaining) any detail of any moment is not guaranteed!

I am also fairly sure it is possible to 'remember' things that were dreamed as being real events - because in either case what is recalled is information stored, not how that information got there. Memories can be induced that are not related to real experience.

btw - I think that view of memory is clearly consisent with the notion of sensations being purely mental constructs.
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 5:53:15 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
True -- IQ 105 very slightly above average.
I reasoned thus when heads are removed no images are seen.