Object Recognition

[lemex]

Hoping we have a few science persons here.

Science tells us we don't actually see objects. What is seen is in the nature of how we see. What we see is energy and patterns of light, that bounce off things in front of us and flow through the many billions of intricate structures that form the eye. Objects themselves seem to have properties and are recognized for what we think they are and we seem to know what. This seems to be consistent with proprieties reality has.

Objects themselves aren't the whole picture because without say light which carry the patters (not the object) the object never leaves that point for another. However parts do and may be the hologram effect we talk about. I believe in real and I would say we look at and source object exist. Objects don't travel point to point, they are seen point to point. The object I see (I know) is the object you see. I don't think this is a paradigm.

How we see is conceptual. If it involves patterns (energy) we see is both wave and particle. It is a physical process in every person. When you see an object you see the entire object. I never realized this until told. IOW the pattern comes together as energy (wave/particle) put together. Of course SOL or it properties allow it. Reality works together and all it's many parts. I think of the famous physics double slit experiment still in debate today. I guess I want to add to it or know more about it.

The patterns scientist are uncertain about and what they mean is in what they hold, the same patterns the brain sees. Amazing if true. Waves and particles that paint themselves we see as objects from objects. Object recognition built into us. Energy pattern outside the environment of the brain looks entirely different. I do wonder then what the object itself looks like and would it be the same as the pattern I see.

As an experiment, does everyone see the yellow cup to the right. If I were to say in the 4th row, 3rd column would you correct me. Do I need to tell you the coffee in the cup is steaming. Just have to wonder if there's any objective truth here because this something that came to me. Wondering if there is any scientist with a similar type theory out there to read.

In any case I'm a believer of the (many parts) facets of Reality and willing to shift my views if it isn't real. This is a thought new to me so I am examining it. I describe the idea of reality trying not to assign any preferences above objective explanation. There is little more relationally but don't go further.

Absolutely no idea what your talking about, other than some white hippy zen dude in the movie '4:44 Last Day On Earth' He goes on and on, about the pen we see, but is not really there because it's only what our brain tells us what we see, relative to our position and how light passes through the anatomy of the eye. I think perspective may have been his point. Not sure really, because he started babbling on about another individual who responded to this statement by say why not just kill ourselves as then there is no point if we can not change anything.

Do you have a link of some sort to clarify what your saying and may I ask what is the point that you are trying to make. TY. (Not sure about all those abbreviations you use?) What relevance does it have. Please help me understand.

Forgive me, as I must of been sitting in an entirely different room. I can only work with what I see, and sure as hell, don't rely on what others tell me, unless I actively seek out to see for myself ... weather its worth the energy to do so, may depend on the point being delivered and how I see it. ??? I am interested, just having problems seeing with my state of mind is all. Sounds interesting, none the less.

[lemex]

Originally Posted by Search

Absolutely no idea what your talking about, other than some white hippy zen dude in the movie '4:44 Last Day On Earth' He goes on and on, about the pen we see, but is not really there because it's only what our brain tells us what we see, relative to our position and how light passes through the anatomy of the eye. I think perspective may have been his point. Not sure really, because he started babbling on about why not kill yourself as there is really no point to anything.

Do you have a link of some sort to clarify what your saying and may I ask what is the point that you are trying to make. TY. (Not sure about all those abbreviations you use?) What relevance does it have. Please help me understand.

I'm going to wait on this one .... wow Search, what is clear to the Zen dude is not to you but this is not the point. That is different topic. Let's see if anyone has a different approach. The abbreviations of basic and apologize thinking everyone had them early on. SoL is speed of light. As far as the double slit experiment this is a famous experiment that science say shows energy is made up of both prosperity of wave and particles. Science says it about quantum physics. The hologram effect is a newer theory that merely say the Universe is information and that the smallest part like a hologram has all the information of the whole in it. If you could zoom in the smallest part expanding it you will see the same complete thing. Hope the clarifies a little. Again, this is for my information and was not meant for you. I appreciate the input though. Sorry I have to go.... work calls.

Originally Posted by Search

Do you have a link of some sort to clarify what your saying and may I ask what is the point that you are trying to make.

I'm also a bit unsure of the main point of this thread. Can you perhaps clarify a bit, lemex? As a "science person", I could possibly offer some comments if I better understood what you mean.

Originally Posted by lemex

Hoping we have a few science persons here.

Science tells us we don't actually see objects. What is seen is in the nature of how we see. What we see is energy and patterns of light, that bounce off things in front of us and flow through the many billions of intricate structures that form the eye. Objects themselves seem to have properties and are recognized for what we think they are and we seem to know what. This seems to be consistent with proprieties reality has.

Objects themselves aren't the whole picture because without say light which carry the patters (not the object) the object never leaves that point for another. However parts do and may be the hologram effect we talk about. I believe in real and I would say we look at and source object exist. Objects don't travel point to point, they are seen point to point. The object I see (I know) is the object you see. I don't think this is a paradigm.

How we see is conceptual. If it involves patterns (energy) we see is both wave and particle. It is a physical process in every person. When you see an object you see the entire object. I never realized this until told. IOW the pattern comes together as energy (wave/particle) put together. Of course SOL or it properties allow it. Reality works together and all it's many parts. I think of the famous physics double slit experiment still in debate today. I guess I want to add to it or know more about it.

The patterns scientist are uncertain about and what they mean is in what they hold, the same patterns the brain sees. Amazing if true. Waves and particles that paint themselves we see as objects from objects. Object recognition built into us. Energy pattern outside the environment of the brain looks entirely different. I do wonder then what the object itself looks like and would it be the same as the pattern I see.

As an experiment, does everyone see the yellow cup to the right. If I were to say in the 4th row, 3rd column would you correct me. Do I need to tell you the coffee in the cup is steaming. Just have to wonder if there's any objective truth here because this something that came to me. Wondering if there is any scientist with a similar type theory out there to read.

In any case I'm a believer of the (many parts) facets of Reality and willing to shift my views if it isn't real. This is a thought new to me so I am examining it. I describe the idea of reality trying not to assign any preferences above objective explanation. There is little more relationally but don't go further.

so, i see a tree, touch it and it feels just as large and textured as i see, but it really isnt what i see? is this what you are saying?

Lemex ... Please except my apologies. I guess I am pretty confused. All the same I still find interesting. I do get confused easily as I attempt to join in such things.

[Sammy]

Interesting thoughts Ienex. Lets go with the yellow cup object. If I said for everyone reading this to think of a yellow coffee cup with steaming joe, an image of that reality would form in everyone's mind. However if these images were to become reality, there would be differences in the cup(I.E. designs, handle, shape), the type of coffee flavor, the way the steam moves, it would all be different.

Now lets flip this. Lets say there is just one yellow coffee cup, and many people observing it. If you told them to describe the cup on paper, they would more or less be the same but in a different order or description. Very few of those papers would match word for word. Our differences give us our individuality, and that individuality gives us the ability to compare or gain perspective. Like a theory it propels our advancements in areas unknown or questionable.

Isnt reality fun!?

[lemex]

Originally Posted by Gracey

so, i see a tree, touch it and it feels just as large and textured as i see, but it really isnt what i see? is this what you are saying?

Nice, absolutely correct. You do not separate from the idea. Great intuition ability in the science section. I say the tree exist and everyone sees it. Does anyone disagree objects exist. I'm seeing posts about reality, beginning to think I should have put this in the spiritual section then it would be taken differently.

Is what I see really isn't what I see is based on one's decision of reality. I would just like to keep to the point is reality real and we see it, yet there appears to be skepticism about reality. Is there any information out there saying I don't see reality.

Originally Posted by lemex

I say the tree exist and everyone sees it. Does anyone disagree objects exist.

This question reminds me a bit of solipsism, perhaps in the extreme case.



I don't mean to sound harsh but please, lemex, take your time when posting. Proof read, be careful of punctuation, etc. It will make it much easier for others to understand.

For example:

Originally Posted by lemex

Is what I see really isn't what I see is based on one's decision of reality.

What?

I only point this out in an attempt to move the discussion along.

[lemex]

Originally Posted by Search

Lemex ... Please except my apologies. I guess I am pretty confused. All the same I still find interesting. I do get confused easily as I attempt to join in such things.

I may have put this in the wrong section so my fault. One reason I wrote this is I saw a post on reality. I'm trying hard to see what is being seen by others.

My post is really a thought experiment, another perspective, it has no support can't argue that. My thought is we all hear the same information and as strong as it is still not good enough so I tried to give a perspective differently. I'm a firm believer of reality but open to giving up the concept of reality if it can be explained.

This is arguable but about questions of reality we must include the mind or brain as is not separate from reality. If I were taking a class, I would probably get a bad grade on this one.