[The Spoon]

Utter nonsense. Light is electromagnetic radiation. Are you denying that a light dependent resistor works because there are no rods and cones? What about a CCD or CMOS detector?

They do work and we can see that. Can a CCD or a CMOS see light do non living things see light NO we see light we have a brain I hope. The brain sees light by the means of our eyes and that is by the direct source or by the means of a monitor.

If you are using a monitor, how was the light detected? CCD, CMOS, LDRs all react to light without human intervention.

[Just thinking (OP)]

If you are using a monitor, how was the light detected? CCD, CMOS, LDRs all react to light without human intervention.

Photons are leaving the monitor screen and our eyes and brain make the light from that energy. Photons are energy receptive cells convert that energy into an image what we call light.

[BilboGrabbins]

If on-shell photons were not real, we'd have a hard time explaining many experiments. We'd also have general hard times explaining obvious phenomenon like the background radiation.

[The Spoon]

If you are using a monitor, how was the light detected? CCD, CMOS, LDRs all react to light without human intervention.

Photons are leaving the monitor screen and our eyes and brain make the light from that energy. Photons are energy receptive cells convert that energy into an image what we call light.

How on earth do you think they get to the monitor? You 'philosophy' is idiotic.

[Just thinking (OP)]

If on-shell photons were not real, we'd have a hard time explaining many experiments. We'd also have general hard times explaining obvious phenomenon like the background radiation.

There are many frequencies and wavelengths in the universe but not many of them are perceived as light to the eye.

[Kryptid]

Dictionary.com defines light as, "the natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible." The natural agent in question is photons. That makes photons light. Take note that "sight" and "light" are not synonyms.

[Just thinking (OP)]

How on earth do you think they get to the monitor? You 'philosophy' is idiotic.

First, what is they and second what gets to the monitor is electrons so is that light no. IDIOT/ FOOL.

[Kryptid]

No insults, people.

[Just thinking (OP)]

Dictionary.com defines light as, "the natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible." The natural agent in question is photons. That makes photons light. Take note that "sight" and "light" are not synonyms.

I'm not quite sure what that means is it true that without light receptive cells light is not light but only photons/energy.

[Kryptid]

is it true that without light receptive cells light is not light but only photons/energy.

No. Light is a physical phenomenon. Sight is (one of the possible) perceptions of that phenomenon.

[Just thinking (OP)]

    is it true that without light receptive cells light is not light but only photons/energy.


No. Light is a physical phenomenon. Sight is (one of the possible) perceptions of that phenomenon.

Plants live of photons the ones that we can not see there is a big spectrum of wavelength all of it is energy and we have the ability to convert a very small amount of that wavelength into vision called light. Without eyes or a brain, it will remain as energy not light.

[Kryptid]

Without eyes or a brain, it will remain as energy not light.

That contradicts the dictionary definition.

Or perhaps you'd like Britannica's definition? It defines light as, "electromagnetic radiation that can be detected by the human eye."

[Just thinking (OP)]

    Without eyes or a brain, it will remain as energy not light.


That contradicts the dictionary definition.

Photons are energy we can see a very small amount of that energy the very large part we can not see is not light but photons at a different frequency. So if we had no eyes the photons that we could have seen will remain as just energy and not light. It takes eyes to see without eyes and a brain all photons remain as energy and not light.

[Kryptid]

Photons are energy we can see a very small amount of that energy the very large part we can not see is not light but photons at a different frequency. So if we had no eyes the photons that we could have seen will remain as just energy and not light. It takes eyes to see without eyes and a brain all photons remain as energy and not light.

That, again, contradicts the definition of light. Supply a reputable source that backs up your stance if you disagree. I have Dictionary.com and Britannica on my side so far.

[Just thinking (OP)]

That, again, contradicts the definition of light. Supply a reputable source that backs up your stance if you disagree. I have Dictionary.com and Britannica on my side so far.

OK, I think I have a better way to explain this we can see infrared light with the aid of electronics and filters without that we have no way of seeing that light spectrum so it would remain as photons/ radiation that is not light. Now if we did not have the ability of converting the radiation wavelength that we see then it to would not be light only photons/radiation we only see light because we have the ability to convert that very small amount of frequency into light. The photon spectrum is very broad and we only can see a very small amount of that the rest is dark and it all is without eyes.

[The Spoon]

How on earth do you think they get to the monitor? You 'philosophy' is idiotic.

First, what is they and second what gets to the monitor is electrons so is that light no. IDIOT/ FOOL.

Yoy were referring to phhotons as you well know - dont obfuscate. The monitor is generating an image - in this example of something picked up by a camera. You seem very 'box' like.

[Just thinking (OP)]

Yoy were referring to phhotons as you well know - dont obfuscate. The monitor is generating an image - in this example of something picked up by a camera. You seem very 'box' like.

I have no understanding of what all that means it sounds like bla bla bla to me sorry.

[Bored chemist]

I guess we do need some research

Royal "we".

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

   I'm going to go in a different direction with this.

So to sum up photon + object + eye = light. Photon + object = energy no light. What do you think?

      If you (Just_thinking) want to define light in this way then there isn't much of a problem.  You're effectively saying that light is just a part of the e-m spectrum and we (human beings) wouldn't think it was all that special if our eyes hadn't evolved to react to this frequency.   That's OK.  It doesn't break science or cause anyone much problem.
     Regrettably, the modern English Language and the established specialist scientific lexicon have come to define light as being precisely that part of the e-m spectrum.  The thing that you (Just_thinking) are describing is more commonly given a different name like "Vision"  or  "visual perception".
     You are quite correct in that if light falls on an object and no one is there to catch the reflected light with their eyes then there is no visual perception of the object.   There was only some radiation that did something.

Best Wishes.

[Just thinking (OP)]

Royal "we".

The spectrum of photons that we can not see is photons not light if we take away the ability to see the light photons that we can see then they will become photons and not light so that would come to blackout no light at all. We can not have a bucket of water without a bucket we can not have light without eyes.