3 ms·

Wouldn't that make the word "see" essentially useless since we cannot know what we've seen? "I saw a cow outside" - "No, you perceived a cow. You have no idea

• IncRnd 4y ago
  > Wouldn't that make the word "see" essentially useless since we cannot know what we've seen? Of course that's not true. > "I saw a cow outside" - "No, you perceived a cow. You have no idea what you saw because you cannot access that information." No. You both saw and perceived a cow. You also thought the cow outside was too skinny for being a Chianina. We perceive things through the use of the senses, and then we interpret, discern, and think. You perceived a cow through the senses of sight, smell, and maybe sound and touch but probably not through taste. Your sense of sight was used to see, making you aware of the cow in that way. Why so much discussion about the basic meanings of words that can be viewed in a dictionary? I find it odd that on HN people want to debate the meanings of words, when those words are already well defined.
  • bl0rg 4y ago
    Earlier you said: “You are confusing what we "see", with interpretations that don't occur in the eyes. That's even why you put the word "see" in quotes. You used the wrong word. The word "see" explicity refers to what is observed by the eyes, not our later interpretations.” Are you saying that the brain interpreting signals from the eyes (real-time) cannot be affected by past experiences (i.e. interpreted)? If that’s not what you’re saying then I’m not sure what your opinion is, feel free to re-state it if you want to have more pointless discussions ^^