View Single Post
  #2   Report Post  
Old December 15th 08, 07:01 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
John Smith John Smith is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,915
Default Seeing is believing True or otherwise?

Art Unwin wrote:

...

Thus seeing is just a reflection of what the brain states you should
be seeing based on past experiences.
So... seeing is not believing!
Regards
Art


Yes, we already had that out, didn't we? You would have us NOT to
believe our eyes (actually, scientific experiment/observation with the
aid of visual rendering devices and very short bursts of light.)

And, you do seem to be suppling proof of what you claim, "... inherrent
brain power interpretes what is seen in term as to what it
should be seeing." Or, in other words, "defective functioning by the
processor--i.e., "the brain", is non-productive. Or, simply put, you
see what most would consider proof, as fraud ... interesting, but you
have demonstrated this previously ... and, there are indeed
conspiracies--however, I don't gage this to be one of them; And, I am
suspicious, yanno'?

And, your statement, "In the old days it was commonly thought that a
mirror image of an assailant was in the eyes of the dead ..." would now
be known as, "The memory of past visions, at least some of them, remain
recorded on the brains "hardware" until erased by decay/degradation."
But, you either fail or attempt to hide, "they" had it right; It is NOT
unfathomable that these images may one day be viewed for some purpose
(find a murderer, etc.) Yeah, they made a lucky guess ...

Now, I warned you, to pursue your present path invites us to think you
daft. However, I was wrong; Rather, it is now approaching the point
where you demand we think you daft! If there is purpose here, like
leading us "down the path" to a BIG WHAMMIE (or, in other words, a point
where an undeniable truth lies at the bottom and so, causes us to
re-think what we think we know)--then get on with it, my attention span
grows short ...

When there are errors in the logic which you attempt to use as
supporting evidence/proof/parable to prove yet another point, of yours,
which has been found to be in error--you do yourself NO favors. :-(

Once again, we have reached the end-of-another-story. But then, no one
enjoys a surprise more than me, go ahead--if you can.

Regards,
JS