Reply to comment

No no no, i am still not convinced that we should be using the term "SEEING" to describe dreams, hallucinations, imaginary friends, etc. Our discussion today about the anatomy of the eye gave me the impression that to "see" a few things must factor into an equation: light, pixels, and matter for the light to bounce off of. i interpretted professor grobsteins explanation to mean that we can only see objects and that objects are created by pixels which in turn are visible because of light. this brings me to my question about whether or not we can see with our eyes closed (or see absent objects when are eyes are open). in a c ompletely dark room, we can close our eyes and imagine a dog, for example. there is no object involved, no pixels, no light. so what is happening here? we say people who are blind cannot see, correct? so if someone were to become blind in adult years, having been able to see beforehand, are we arguing that they can see if we ask them to look at an apple? is the image they conjure in their minds what we would consider VISIBLE? for those who argue yes, then why do we say blind people cannot see? in other words, is seeing above and beyond light detection possible? if so, is it just the fact that we havent been using the right vocabulary to explain this concept? i guess i do not understand our conclusion that we can "see" things without input. im not trying to be difficult or stubborn here guys, its just that i dont get it.