Talk:Emission theory (vision)

message: "50 percent of American college students"? I know we're not the smartest lot, but I think most of us understand that our eyes do not illuminate the objects we look at.  This whole article seems a bit fishy, but I don't know enough to edit.  Anyone up to it?  Xyzzyva 15:56, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
*I couldn't find any reference for this assertion other than sites that mirror Wikipedia. Anyone else have any information on it? Edwardian 22:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 50 percent

message: :To convince such students of the error of assuming that light needs to be emitted from an optical device (such as the eye) to accomplish perception, once could say that it would be impossible for a camera to capture an image because the lens of a camera does not emit any light.
This isn't an obvious contradiction; it's perfectly consistent to assume that any image-forming object would emit rays, or that all objects emit rays and a camera simply records its perceptions of nearby objects. I removed the argument. -- Beland 16:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original argument? 

message: Errrm... I just know there's going to be a good answer to this, but if we were to see by light emitted from our eyes, why can't we see just as well in the dark? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Plato (Timaeus 45b–e) the light in our eyes is too weak to penetrate the darkness on its own and needs external light. In this respect the extramission theory always presupposes the external light. → Aethralis 09:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mind-bogglingly stupid 

message: The article is very dismissive about there being any evidence for perception by emission.  However, Tapetum lucidum describes some examples.  --Una Smith (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence for the theory

message: "Modern physics has confirmed that light is physically transmitted by photons, from a light source such as the sun, to visible objects, and finishing with the detector, such as a human eye or camera."
Shouldn't there be more here about modern physics and the wave function requirement for an observation? Physics has shown that the act of observation does something similar to putting out a wave of its own that mingles with the light wave to create a particle. 
Patsobest (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what classical physics tells us. Modern physics, or a certain interpretation thereof, tells us that an observation of a quantum state "causes" wave-function collapse. Maybe that's what Patsobest was obliquely referring to. Of course it's not fiery rays shining out of our eyes, but it calls the idea of observation being completely passive into question.--2.247.246.42 (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  That's all from modern physics? 

message: The paragraph
:Many common phrases in English, such as "bright eyes", "fiery eyes", or "twinkling of an eye" are consistent with the extramission theory of vision.
is based on https://oculistmd.wordpress.com/article/evolution-and-impact-of-eye-and-vision-terms-in-written-english/ which violates WP:RS. I'm removing it in addition to the irrelevant content on ray tracing I've already removed. 69.254.215.168 (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  questionable source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Emission theory (vision). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008073354/http://conference.nie.edu.sg/paper/Converted%20Pdf/ab00368.pdf to http://conference.nie.edu.sg/paper/Converted%20Pdf/ab00368.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The illustration is not from the cited book, but from:
update: it is the same book, but it does not have a german title.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivoihrke (talk • contribs) 18:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration  

message: There is some research suggesting this, here are a few references taken from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7884070/:
* Guterstam A, Kean HH, Webb TW, Kean FS, Graziano MSA. Implicit model of other people's visual attention as an invisible, force-carrying beam projecting from the eyes. PNAS. 2019;116:328–333. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1816581115. PMC free article PubMedCrossRef Google Scholar
* Guterstam A, Wilterson AI, Wachtell D, Graziano MSA. Other people's gaze encoded as implied motion in the human brain. PNAS. 2020;117:13162–13167. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2003110117. PMC free article PubMedCrossRef Google Scholar
* Guterstam A, Graziano MSA. Visual motion assists in social cognition. PNAS. 2020a;117:32165–32168. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2021325117. PMC free article PubMedCrossRef Google Scholar
* Guterstam A, Graziano MSA. Implied motion as a possible mechanism for encoding other people's attention. Progress in Neurobiology. 2020b;190:101797. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2020.101797. PubMedCrossRef Google Scholar
I also ran across some authors arguing against this conclusion, you can find a few of those here: https://psycnet.apa.org/search/citedBy/2020-43548-013
I've been sitting on this for a few months, so dropping these notes here in case someone wants to run with it. Mrienstra (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly rooted in how our brain models the gaze of others