Does Light Actually Illuminate?

[Landon Caeli]

I was just curious if light actually "illuminates" anything in reality, or do our eyes just perceive photon reflections, off of objects and photon detection, as illumination.

IOW, are our eyes deceiving us, causing a mental picture of our surroundings by exploiting it's own unique ability to analyze photons?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would that be our eyes deceiving ourselves? That is just what light does. There is no deception involved.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I was just curious if light actually "illuminates" anything in reality, or do our eyes just perceive photon reflections, off of objects and photon detection, as illumination.

IOW, are our eyes deceiving us, causing a mental picture of our surroundings by exploiting it's own unique ability to analyze photons?

Illumination is the light falling on an object, from a light source or sources, causing the reflection of photons off the illuminated object.

Our eyes detect photons reflected from illuminated objects. Our eyes are imperfect detectors, but they don't deceive us - the photons really are reflected from the objects, and the image from the eyes, poor as it is, is sent to the visual centre of the brain for processing.

But our eyes don't have the resolution or bandwidth to produce the high-resolution, full-colour, ~210⁰ field of view we perceive; we really don't look at the world through them as if they were window-like cameras. The visual world that we perceive is a predictive construct, and input from the eyes is used for error correction, and is often misinterpreted. I suppose you could call it an illusion, but according to one leading neurologist, it's more like a controlled hallucination.

 

[Landon Caeli]

How would that be our eyes deceiving ourselves? That is just what light does. There is no deception involved.

We don't know what kind of image, or reaction a dolphin imagines when it uses echolocation for instance. But if it creates a kind of imagery in the dolphins mind, then is that image real..? In the same way, when humans detect light, by photons passing through our eyes, is the light *actually* as real as our minds perceive it to be?

IOW, perhaps the sun is *actually* very dark, and perhaps, the world is pitch black in reality... But we perceive it differently because of our brain's unique ability to interpret photons in a useful way.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Illumination is the light falling on an object, from a light source or sources, causing the reflection of photons off the illuminated object.

Our eyes detect photons reflected from illuminated objects. Our eyes are imperfect detectors, but they don't deceive us - the photons really are reflected from the objects, and the image from the eyes, poor as it is, is sent to the visual centre of the brain for processing.

But our eyes don't have the resolution or bandwidth to produce the high-resolution, full-colour, ~210⁰ field of view we perceive; we really don't look at the world through them as if they were window-like cameras. The visual world that we perceive is a predictive construct, and input from the eyes is used for error correction, and is often misinterpreted. I suppose you could call it an illusion, but according to one leading neurologist, it's more like a controlled hallucination.

Exactly. I think you understand what I'm saying.

 

[pescador]

We don't know what kind of image, or reaction a dolphin imagines when it uses echolocation for instance. But if it creates a kind of imagery in the dolphins mind, then is that image real..? In the same way, when humans detect light, by photons passing through our eyes, is the light *actually* as real as our minds perceive it to be?

IOW, perhaps the sun is *actually* very dark, and perhaps, the world is pitch black in reality... But we perceive it differently because of our brain's unique ability to interpret photons in a useful way.

It's not. Next...

 

[Landon Caeli]

It's not. Next...

Wait, hold on a second... Why not?

What makes you think our *perception* of light is any more real than a dolphins perception of sonar? Because while we know sonar is real, what goes on in a dolphins mind is strictly dolphin imagery, based on it's evolutionary benefits.

In the same way, while we know photons are real, our perception of light is likely just another evolutionary benefit that allows us to navigate in our natural environment.

 

[partinobodycular]

What makes you think our *perception* of light is any more real than a dolphins perception of sonar? Because while we know sonar is real, what goes on in a dolphins mind is strictly dolphin imagery, based on it's evolutionary benefits.

I very much tend to agree, they're both forms of information. There's no particular reason why photons can't be perceived as sounds instead of colors. If someone doesn't think so then Google "synesthesia".

 

[pescador]

Wait, hold on a second... Why not?

What makes you think our *perception* of light is any more real than a dolphins perception of sonar? Because while we know sonar is real, what goes on in a dolphins mind is strictly dolphin imagery, based on it's evolutionary benefits.

In the same way, while we know photons are real, our perception of light is likely just another evolutionary benefit that allows us to navigate in our natural environment.

You can go on and on about this but what's the point? Reality is ... real. It's not based on our perception of reality. Biblically, Genesis 1 makes the issue of light all very clear.

Genesis 1:3-5, "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

 

[partinobodycular]

You can go on and on about this but what's the point? Reality is ... real. It's not based on our perception of reality. Biblically, Genesis 1 makes the issue of light all very clear.

Genesis 1:3-5, "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

There's nothing like good old dogma to put a crimp in an otherwise open minded discussion.

 

[durangodawood]

Light is bouncing off my lunch and into my eyes. I see that. The visual form of my lunch is corroborated by my sense of touch. I'm not grasping how this is illusory.

At different scales, the lunch would be described differently. But why should I privilege those other scales as "more real"?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I was just curious if light actually "illuminates" anything in reality, or do our eyes just perceive photon reflections, off of objects and photon detection, as illumination.

IOW, are our eyes deceiving us, causing a mental picture of our surroundings by exploiting it's own unique ability to analyze photons?

'Since in most instances we have four other preceptors to verify what our eyes tell us, I would say the best course of action is to assume that, unless the other senses disagree with what we see, what we see is as valid as anything else one might consider to be a valid representation of reality. Now does it tell us the entirety of reality. Not likely. We seem to be blind to certain light, deaf to certain sounds, unable to smell certain odors or feel all that there is to feel or taste every flavor that exists. We might be so impaired in some other sense or senses that we are not even aware they exist, or we might be completely devoid of some other senses. That such senses might better illuminate reality for us is not out of the question.

 

[partinobodycular]

'Since in most instances we have four other preceptors to verify what our eyes tell us, I would say the best course of action is to assume that, unless the other senses disagree with what we see, what we see is as valid as anything else one might consider to be a valid representation of reality.

I think that you've missed the point of the OP. It's not questioning the existence of an external source, it's questioning whether our mental representation of that source must be in a visual form, rather than in some other form such as auditory.

From a purely physiological standpoint there doesn't seem to be any reason why photons must be represented visually. There are however, almost certainly practical reasons for why we're structured to perceive photons visually.

 

[sjastro]

A photon has the same wavelength irrespective of whether it is detected by the human eye, a CMOS or CCD detector.

Perhaps the confusion here lies in the sensitivity of the human eye or detector which can result in different colours.

This is an image of the Helix nebula I took with a black and white CCD sensor using colour filters and an exposure range to match what the human eye can discern with regards to star colours.

The colour of the nebula however is nothing like what the human eye perceives.
It should be completely greenish in colour but since the CCD is vastly more sensitive in the red part of the spectrum the outer envelope appears reddish despite the star colours being calibrated for human vision.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Light is bouncing off my lunch and into my eyes. I see that. The visual form of my lunch is corroborated by my sense of touch. I'm not grasping how this is illusory.

At different scales, the lunch would be described differently. But why should I privilege those other scales as "more real"?

Are you arguing that photons literally illuminate objects? Or that your human eyes capture reflected photons and sort of "paint" a mental picture of your surrounding environment in your brain?

...Because if you think photons illuminate objects, then show me the scientific evidence that photons actually do this.

 

[pescador]

There's nothing like good old dogma to put a crimp in an otherwise open minded discussion.

To you it's old dogma. To others, it's God's truth. It's too bad that you consider the Bible to be "old dogma".

 

[durangodawood]

Are you arguing that photons literally illuminate objects? Or that your human eyes capture reflected photons and sort of "paint" a mental picture of your surrounding environment in your brain?

...Because if you think photons illuminate objects, then show me the scientific evidence that photons actually do this.

Photons do illuminate objects. Thats what illumination means: to throw light on a scene.

But my argument is more that human perception tells us various real things about the world. Are these things less real because they dont make sense at other non-human scales?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Photons do illuminate objects. Thats what illumination means: to throw light on a scene.

But my argument is more that human perception tells us various real things about the world. Are these things less real because they dont make sense at other non-human scales?

Before we continue, I need to know if you understand my point of view, and are arguing against it? Or if you're unable to see what I'm saying.

 

[durangodawood]

Before we continue, I need to know if you understand ny point of view, and are arguing against it? Or if you're unable to see what I'm saying.

It seems like you completely misuse the word "illuminate" in the OP. That might be getting me off track. Or not. Hard to tell.

 

[SelfSim]

What I see from the OP (and subsequent posts) is an attempt to compare what other creatures perceive against what humans perceive, in order to draw conclusions about 'what reality really is'.

Unfortunately, we cannot ever really step into the body of a dolphin then move back into being a human whilst retaining that understanding .. therefore we cannot conclude anything much about 'what reality really is'.

Photons and acoustics are both models developed by humans. We have no idea whether we could ever agree with a dolphin on what those models actually mean. We might observe how a dolphin responds to a bright flash of light .. but that would end up being categorised, (by us), as being how a dolphin behaves under such conditions .. and so its more about us explaining to ourselves 'what a dolphin is' .. and never anything about some 'underlying reality'.