7:01 AM
@ZaneScheepers The primary mistake in your argument is very, very simple. You just plain old beg the question.
You very quickly touch on the definition of "to see". My first response to you in this forum was something you didn't take seriously at all; you used that to mistake me for being a "subconscious realist" of some sort, which completely missed the point
People who claim we see light aren't saying what you're saying they're saying
In fact, you in substance agreed with me that I'm able to detect that a light is on, with the specific reference to an example of semantic (not ontological) significance of being able to discern whether or not I need to change the bulb after flipping the switch
If I'm taking a driver's test, I might be instructed to look straight ahead. The instructor will then ask me a question like, "do you see the lights flashing (in your peripheral)"? She's not being a realist. She's not trying to ask me if my subjective experience is noumenal. She just wants to know if I can detect the flashing.
That's all it means to see
Also (I'm assuming that in this debate you're "Con") you get some basic biological details about vision wrong. Our cones do not have individual nerves going to the brain. The brain doesn't see raw cone signals.
Vision doesn't start by objects emitting 3 types of light. There's an entire spectrum of light from red to violet
We have three cone types, plus rods; each cone is sensitive to each frequency of light in different ways. But they don't work like RGB cameras.
If you're going to go into the details about how our eyes work, it would be nice to get those details right
"The three different types of cones on our retina, each contain a different type of rhodopsin" <- you mean photopsin. rhodopsin is the photopsin present in rods. Cones have chlorolabe, erythrolabe, and cyanolabe. Rods play no role in "color vision" (photopic vision); they're saturated and useless under photopic vision. Instead, they're active during scotopic vision ("night vision" as we call it).
"Objects (not the actual objects but visual representations of them) are seen (consciously perceived) as a result" <- Since you asked me to comment on this specifically, that's fair; except that it's debatable whether we perceive "consciously"