Thread 24600477

So I knew Epicurus' theory of how eyesight works from Lucretius and Laertius but I didn't find out the justification he uses for it until recently when I read through Sextus Empiricus.

So when someone someone would ask Epicurus to prove that the eidola(images) travel to people's eyes he would just show them their own reflection then ask them to look inside their eyes. They would then be able to make out the image of what they were seeing inside of their own cornea.

What is crazier is that this didn't stick. The Greeks and Romans were just like "nah eyelasers sound more plausible" so we didn't get full intromission theory until Alhazen in 1000 AD.

>>24600477 (OP)
Thats good philosophy right there

Very interesting anon, you got me to look into this. It’s amazing how close Epicurus actually was to having a more or less accurate explanation of vision. Eidola have some pretty obvious limitations but for being a pre-photon atomist you have to give him credit.

Its always these type of deductions that impress me more than science, makes me think that theres a way to get away from the arrogance and conceit of science, and arrive at things more "naturally" but thats likely not possible.

>>24600708
How is what Epicurus did in this anecdote not science?

>>24600477 (OP)
>eyelasers
They never argued this.

>>24600955
>How is what Epicurus did in this anecdote not science?
Science is a discipline invented by Karl Popper in the 20th century.

>>24600708
>more than science,
Look at the stupid faggot. Science is your religion. Just accept that. New theories replace older theories all the time. """Science""" is not "progressive". All of it's axioms are based on belief.

>>24600477 (OP)
>Sextus Empiricus
And how he refuted Epicurus? What have you got from his book?

>>24600477 (OP)
Isn't eyelasers still possible if the eyelasers are reflected back having taken on the appearance of what's seen. So yes you can see the image in your own pupil but that's the eyelaser altered by what it encountered. Can't imagine how you explain what brightness and darkness are in this system though.

>>24600477 (OP)
Wait that works?

>>24601218
Yeah but unlike Cicero or Plutarch he actually does a really good job at presenting Epicurus' points in an unbiased manner.

>>24601216
GPTjeet or actual christcuck reading comprehension

>>24600477 (OP)
books about the evolution of this concept?

>>24603288
the fact that it annoyed you enough to reply is telling

>>24600477 (OP)
It's actually Democritus that first did this. Or maybe Leucippus.
But it definitely wasn't Epicurus that first came up with it.

>>24603342
Same about my post to you thoughever.

>>24603427
Which sourcebook is this?

>>24600477 (OP)
Thats true. Underneath the cornea (film) you have a blackness named the pupil. It's not the pupil that reflects the image because blackness doesn't reflect anything, but the cornea that reflects a visible image because of its slippery sleek surface. If you look into a mirror with the blackness of the eyes you are looking into six blacknesses with four distinct images, all of which are robed into the blackness of the eyes in the real image combined with two eyes in either space, the blackness of the eyes in the real man, the blackness of the eyes in the mirrored man, the blackness underneath the surface of the mirror, and the blackness in front of the surface of the mirror according to the mirrored man. The image across the two eyes combines to form a single image, while the image reflected off the mirror adds no information about depth but only size (as decided by relative position). The angle of incidence is the same as the angle of reflection. So if you imagine a line from your pupil to the image and another line from the mirror to the image, they converge at one point. That point is the position of the real object whose light is being cannibalized by the eye baal.

The real confusion in this situation is the fact that there are not two but four images to consider: the two sets of real images, and the two imaginary mirrored images. We use our eyes to see light coming from objects, yet we can't see light itself because it tries to pass through us as though we were transparent and it gets eaten by the rods and cones to make shape. In a mythical sense as the Greeks/Romans would understand it, the eye is a deadly laser, but working in reverse, like a tractor beam.