What you visually see has no causal efficacy whatsoever

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by res_smoke, May 4, 2016.

  1. The argument as to why this is so, is very simple and short.

    The possibility of visually observing any external object is dependent upon reflected light. And therefore, any object that is visually seen by a given particular observer cannot be the external object which is acted upon or reflected by actual light. For the visible object, a something seen only after the reflection of light, cannot exist prior and external to that state of being something reflected, in order to be a cause of it (or in fact, anything).
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Is this basically an argument for an objective external reality?
  3. I think its saying what if i see something different than what you see. What if my red is your blue or vice versa. We would never know
  4. I mean, I can definitely see how it or you could take the OP to support that conclusion. Yet that wasn't the point of the OP. For it's an argument for what it's said to support; which is, that no visual object has any causal efficacy (either passively or actively) whatsoever.

    Although the OP makes no mention of colors, be it blue or red, I wouldn't deny that it calls into question the externality of visual objects all together, namely, causal potency, extensive form, a determinate situation in space, etc.,; rather than only one mere aspect of it (its perceived color).
  5. I don't know how you define "visual object" or "causal efficacy", but wouldn't the Sun itself challenge this?
  6. #6 res_smoke, May 4, 2016
    Last edited: May 4, 2016
    I define those terms as they're commonly understood. The former, (1), as that which can be designated by means of sensible vision. And the latter, (2), as the capability or ability to efficiently effect things external to itself.

    How does the reality of the sun challenge the OP? For surely its existence would only, it seems to me, support it. For I don't know how one could argue, let alone prove, that our sight of sun's emission of visible light can antecede the substantial processes granted to be causing it; yet do you ?
  7. Your definitions are equally vague.

    What is 'sensible vision'

    Why must the effect be efficient?

    I get the sense you are throwing around words capriciously to sound smart. That or English isn't your first language which is understandable.

    If you are familiar with formal logic, you should put your argument in such format.
  8. To put OP's words in layman's terms, as far as I understeand it...

    Everything we see is a reflection. What we see is light, not the object itself. Anything that is seen does not exist until it is seen?

    The last part messed me up. If it's simple keep it simple lol

    Sent from my SGH-I257M using Grasscity Forum mobile app
    • Like Like x 1
  9. If that is the point, I assume he is too young to be on here. I figured this out in 1st I can vividly remember
  10. Man, I used to get high and try and comprehend philosophy when I was 17 ish...every time it blew my mind...Descartes, Kant. I would flip through my philosophy textbook and look random shit up and be like wow, how am I in a Catholic school lol

    Sent from my SGH-I257M using Grasscity Forum mobile app
  11. All I can see in this thread is Boats and Hoes.. :/
  12. I thought the same thing, minus making sense.
  13. #14 res_smoke, May 5, 2016
    Last edited: May 5, 2016
    Wow; talk about someone trying to seem like they know what they're talking about. For example, you ask of me, what "sensible vision" is, I'm presuming with a straight face; and yet go on question my familiarity with the English language ?

    Lol, sensible vision is the sentient ability to see (don't go on overthinking this as well). But what does it mean, a novice mind would ask, to "see" (and so on and so on, with such nominal questions, to infinity); without realizing that words by themselves cannot per se express that which they are intended to denote, yet only are capable of referring to them (thus the answer as to what the word "sight" literally means, at some point, becomes axiomatic).

    Moreover, you further ask why must an effect be efficient? It doesn't, but what actually effects a change in another thing, as cause to an effect, does. 'Efficient causality' is actually quite a technical term, and not something I just "capriciously" made up in order to sound smart; and usually either the second or third connotation of the term "efficient" on any dictionary website (look for yourself). And so if the OP, and what follows after it, cannot be comprehended by you, this thus is not to be attributed to the supposed obscurity in the diction of the OP, yet rather to your understanding.

    Not exactly. An external object must exist prior to any reflection of it; but any object that we visually see is seen only in reflection. Thus, the latter is not the object that's external to the reflected vision of it, which is capable of efficiently effecting or being effected by other substantial things (such as light itself).
  14. Sight is a sense, so 'sensible vision' is redundant.

    I see no differentiation between causality and efficient causality.

    I wasn't trying to be a prick, I love philosophy and science so I was looking for clarification so I could engage with you.
  15. To my point earlier, the sun emits light it doesn't reflect it, so there you have a visible external object causally emitting light
  16. Yes, sight is a sense, but all sense is not of sight. Thus, the terms "visual sense" and "sensible vision" cannot be redundant words, when considering in contrast to them, the indiscriminate generality of the words "sense" and "sensibility".

    You see no semantical difference between the terms causality and efficient causality; well, that's becasue, quite commonly understood, there is none. A cause must be efficient in its effect upon other things; rather than the latter, as you originally mistakenly thought, having to be so.
  17. #18 res_smoke, May 5, 2016
    Last edited: May 5, 2016
    Re-read post #6. My question posed to you there does not use the word "reflect", but "emission"; so indeed, please feel free to try and answer it ?

  18. I countered by pointing some objects emit light, they don't reflect it.
  19. You were using sensible as an adjective to vision which didn't need to be there.

    Using 'visual sense' makes sense because 'visual' is the adjective to 'sense' which is adding useful information to "what kind of sense".

    As far as efficient causality, you could leave off efficient and the sentence would make the very same point. Unless one assumes a violation of the causality principle, it is a given that it is efficient.

Share This Page