No. Nothing like a camera does.
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human...
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human...
Dictionaries:
merriam webster: to perceive by the eye [1]
dictionary.com: to perceive with the eyes; look at [2]
cambridge: to be conscious of what is around you by
using your eyes: [3]
eymonline: Middle English sēn, from Old English seon (Anglian sean)
"be or become aware of by means of the eye; look, behold;"
and
It is attested by late Old English as "be able to see with the
eyes, have the faculty of sight, not be blind." [4]
[2] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/see
[3] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/see
Where does this "perceive" happen?
> merriam webster: to perceive by the eye [1]
> perceived ... attained awareness
Perception is part of the definition you provided. How do you come to call it not relevant now?
Does the eye of a dead person see anything? Is it like a camera that clicks in a forrest with no-one to hear?
The notion of eye mentioned in the definitions you quoted is to distinguish "see" from other senses such as "hear" or "taste." Even at a physical level, the eye alone is little like a camera. It has an uneven distribution of light sensors with spaces without coverage (optical nerve).
"The retina is actually a piece of the brain that has grown into the eye and processes neural signals when it detects light. Ganglion cells carry information from the retina to the higher brain centers; other nerve cells within the retina perform the first stages of analysis of the visual world. The axons of the retinal ganglion cells, with the support of other types of cells, form the optic nerve and carry these signals to the brain."
"Investigators have known for decades that there are 10 to 15 ganglion cell types in the retina that are adapted for picking up different movements and then work together to send a full picture to the brain. The study estimated the amount of information that is carried to the brain by seven of these ganglion cell types."
I was providing an answer to your question. The location of perception isn't relevant to the definition of the word "see". This conversation was about the word "see" applying to the eyes.
"I saw a cow outside" - "No, you perceived a cow. You have no idea what you saw because you cannot access that information."
Does this seem like a good definition of "see" according to you?
Of course that's not true.
> "I saw a cow outside" - "No, you perceived a cow. You have no idea what you saw because you cannot access that information."
No. You both saw and perceived a cow. You also thought the cow outside was too skinny for being a Chianina. We perceive things through the use of the senses, and then we interpret, discern, and think.
You perceived a cow through the senses of sight, smell, and maybe sound and touch but probably not through taste. Your sense of sight was used to see, making you aware of the cow in that way.
Why so much discussion about the basic meanings of words that can be viewed in a dictionary? I find it odd that on HN people want to debate the meanings of words, when those words are already well defined.
Are you saying that the brain interpreting signals from the eyes (real-time) cannot be affected by past experiences (i.e. interpreted)?
If that’s not what you’re saying then I’m not sure what your opinion is, feel free to re-state it if you want to have more pointless discussions ^^