"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
Click to vote
18%14 Votes
Strongly Disagree
20%16 Votes
Disagree
15%12 Votes
Undecided
28%22 Votes
Agree
19%15 Votes
Strongly Agree
18%14 Votes
Strongly Disagree
20%16 Votes
Disagree
15%12 Votes
Undecided
28%22 Votes
Agree
19%15 Votes
Strongly Agree
Male
Female
13%7 Votes
Strongly Disagree
21%11 Votes
Disagree
23%12 Votes
Undecided
32%17 Votes
Agree
11%6 Votes
Strongly Agree
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Hahahah! Switched, sure. But given the Tags, I take this question to be about religion / the paranormal.
Nobody and nothing invisible exists which can possibly see us. Anything which can be said to be invisible (e.g. wind) does not absorb light. Because sight must involve the absorption (for interpretation) of light, an invisible thing could never see.
To put it simply, if our eyeballs never interrupted a beam of light, they wouldn't work.
[1 point]3 years ago by madmacReplyEdited 3 years ago by madmac
NOt quite, If photons in the right wavelengths never fell on the retina, you would not see. Or if the sight-interpreting part of the brain is damaged, you will not see even if your retinas are being impinged upon by correct-wavelength photons.
I quibble, but it is important. There is no 'beam' to intercept. That implies directionality, and photons are only emitted directionally under specific circumstances. Otherwise, they spread in a sphere around the source, unless intercepted--like when an eclipse happens, for example.
@dauguy: You seem to agree that anything which intercepts light must itself be detectable on account of that interception.
Whether you want to describe the traversal of light as beams, rays or spherical spreading, to confirm that it's all directional just look down at your shadow.
A loose example (with plenty more quibble room, if you like) is that bumper sticker warning sometimes sported by large trucks: "If you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you."
Be that as it may--and I did not really read your post in its entirety--the idea of a beam of light is uncomfortably close to the Aristotelian idea of the eye shooting out a beam. Photons are not directional.
We're talking physics, not philosophy. Receptors and interception, not projection. Light as we casually observe it, not a particle that is its own antiparticle.
So that we can give this banter some context (time is valuable), do you agree or disagree that anything which intercepts light (to see) must itself be visible on account of that interception?
[0 points]3 years ago by madmacReplyEdited 3 years ago by madmac
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
I used the word "vision" in its intangible context. Definitions of words other than "vision" fail to address the issue. You seem to assert "vision" always involves a retina. Take a particularly close look at #5:
"vision - n.
1a. The faculty of sight; eyesight: poor vision.
1b. Something that is or has been seen.
2. Unusual competence in discernment or perception; intelligent foresight: a leader of vision.
3. The manner in which one sees or conceives of something.
4. A mental image produced by the imagination.
5. The mystical experience of seeing as if with the eyes the supernatural or a supernatural being.
Indeed. The word was twisted to tie the painfully obvious meaning of 'invisible' in the question (to do with sight) to the 5th definition (to do with mystical experience).
[1 point]3 years ago by madmacReplyEdited 3 years ago by madmac
To quote you from your first comment on this page, "I take this question to be about religion / the paranormal." Have you changed your mind? If not, are you contradicting yourself?
I am not the one trying to redefine a word someone else used; I am defending my own phrase, "spiritually vision-impaired". The adjective you yourself commented on, "spiritually", clearly identifies which meaning of "vision" I intended, so my meaning was perfectly clear. In English, you can't assume one definition when the context clearly suggests another.
> "I call nonsense. You're pairing an adjective which is inVISIble by definition (spiritually) with the word vision."
So does the dictionary, as proven in my now-hidden post above.
[1 point]3 years ago by FeldReplyEdited 3 years ago by Feld
Yes, I believe the question is related to religion / the paranormal. No, I haven't contradicted myself.
That religious beings are nearly always said to have power to become invisible (to do with sight) is suspiciously convenient for those who claim by faith that they really, really exist.
We've seen consensus grow on this point many times before. Humankind has believed in a myriad invisible beings which have been taken less and less seriously, until the general consensus is they truly are non-existent.
Even you, Feld, likely doubt the existence of all invisible beings *except* those which fit your personally selected opinion (or the opinion of a collective to which you subscribe).
United Kingdom
Non-existent like the wind, and invisible like free will.
Hahahah! Switched, sure. But given the Tags, I take this question to be about religion / the paranormal.
Nobody and nothing invisible exists which can possibly see us. Anything which can be said to be invisible (e.g. wind) does not absorb light. Because sight must involve the absorption (for interpretation) of light, an invisible thing could never see.
To put it simply, if our eyeballs never interrupted a beam of light, they wouldn't work.
NOt quite, If photons in the right wavelengths never fell on the retina, you would not see. Or if the sight-interpreting part of the brain is damaged, you will not see even if your retinas are being impinged upon by correct-wavelength photons.
I quibble, but it is important. There is no 'beam' to intercept. That implies directionality, and photons are only emitted directionally under specific circumstances. Otherwise, they spread in a sphere around the source, unless intercepted--like when an eclipse happens, for example.
@dauguy: You seem to agree that anything which intercepts light must itself be detectable on account of that interception.
Whether you want to describe the traversal of light as beams, rays or spherical spreading, to confirm that it's all directional just look down at your shadow.
A loose example (with plenty more quibble room, if you like) is that bumper sticker warning sometimes sported by large trucks: "If you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you."
Be that as it may--and I did not really read your post in its entirety--the idea of a beam of light is uncomfortably close to the Aristotelian idea of the eye shooting out a beam. Photons are not directional.
We're talking physics, not philosophy. Receptors and interception, not projection. Light as we casually observe it, not a particle that is its own antiparticle.
That is exactly my point. Talking about 'beams of light' is more like philosophy than physics, You see by reflected and scattered light as well.
So that we can give this banter some context (time is valuable), do you agree or disagree that anything which intercepts light (to see) must itself be visible on account of that interception?
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThe word "invisible" defines itself with it's roots in "vision".
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user Reply"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." ... to the spiritually vision-impaired.
I call nonsense. You're pairing an adjective which is inVISIble by definition (spiritually) with the word vision.
Don't confuse vision with visibility. Many visionaries wear glasses and indistinct clothing.
Don't consider visionaries the antithesis of invisibility.
* (n) visionary (a person given to fanciful speculations and enthusiasms with little regard for what is actually possible)
* (n) visionary, illusionist, seer (a person with unusual powers of foresight)
* (adj) airy, impractical, visionary, Laputan, windy (not practical or realizable; speculative) "airy theories about socioeconomic improvement"; "visionary schemes for getting rich
From: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=visionary
Synonyms: impractical, impracticable. fancied, illusory, chimerical. unrealistic.
Antonyms: practical.
From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/visionary
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
I used the word "vision" in its intangible context. Definitions of words other than "vision" fail to address the issue. You seem to assert "vision" always involves a retina. Take a particularly close look at #5:
"vision - n.
1a. The faculty of sight; eyesight: poor vision.
1b. Something that is or has been seen.
2. Unusual competence in discernment or perception; intelligent foresight: a leader of vision.
3. The manner in which one sees or conceives of something.
4. A mental image produced by the imagination.
5. The mystical experience of seeing as if with the eyes the supernatural or a supernatural being.
6. A person or thing of extraordinary beauty."
http://www.answers.com/vision
The first two relevant definitions of "visionary" from your own link convey what I intended:
"Visionary - n.
* a person of unusually keen foresight.
* a person who sees visions."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/visionary
If this is a word-twisting debate, I will respectfully withdraw from it now; I don't usually find them very productive.
Indeed. The word was twisted to tie the painfully obvious meaning of 'invisible' in the question (to do with sight) to the 5th definition (to do with mystical experience).
To quote you from your first comment on this page, "I take this question to be about religion / the paranormal." Have you changed your mind? If not, are you contradicting yourself?
I am not the one trying to redefine a word someone else used; I am defending my own phrase, "spiritually vision-impaired". The adjective you yourself commented on, "spiritually", clearly identifies which meaning of "vision" I intended, so my meaning was perfectly clear. In English, you can't assume one definition when the context clearly suggests another.
> "I call nonsense. You're pairing an adjective which is inVISIble by definition (spiritually) with the word vision."
So does the dictionary, as proven in my now-hidden post above.
Yes, I believe the question is related to religion / the paranormal. No, I haven't contradicted myself.
That religious beings are nearly always said to have power to become invisible (to do with sight) is suspiciously convenient for those who claim by faith that they really, really exist.
We've seen consensus grow on this point many times before. Humankind has believed in a myriad invisible beings which have been taken less and less seriously, until the general consensus is they truly are non-existent.
Even you, Feld, likely doubt the existence of all invisible beings *except* those which fit your personally selected opinion (or the opinion of a collective to which you subscribe).