Prove it

[ratcharmer]

Then I will answer

As plainly seen by the human eye (using the retina and the bending of light to perceive the shape and form and the rod and cells to perceive the color) the images are from different files which are not exactly the same one has pixels arranged to make it appear to have four teeth while the other has the pixels arranged to appear to have one tooth.  The rest of the pixels however, remain the same.

Things that must be established for this to hold

-Prove that the human eye perceives the images accurately.
-Prove that the pixels will always keep the same arrangement.
-Prove that a different arrangement of pixels necessitates a different file.

[TheOwner]

Then I will answer

As plainly seen by the human eye (using the retina and the bending of light to perceive the shape and form and the rod and cells to perceive the color) the images are from different files which are not exactly the same one has pixels arranged to make it appear to have four teeth while the other has the pixels arranged to appear to have one tooth.  The rest of the pixels however, remain the same.

Things that must be established for this to hold

-Prove that the human eye perceives the images accurately.
-Prove that the pixels will always keep the same arrangement.
-Prove that a different arrangement of pixels necessitates a different file.

To do this I would need to extract your eye... I will do my best without blinding anyone.... As the light enters your eye it is bent by the concave lens that overlays the inner core of your eye it is upside down when transferred to your brain by means of electrical waves and your brain turns the image right side up.

Assuming that nobody rearranges the pixels my Computer Manual says: an image will keep the same arrangement of pixels until altered by a program (Photo Shop Draw)

For the files to be identical (the same) there pixels must be identical (the same) and as the human eye sees and the computers tell us the files do not have the same arrangement of pixels

[ratcharmer]

To do this I would need to extract your eye... I will do my best without blinding anyone.... As the light enters your eye it is bent by the concave lens that overlays the inner core of your eye it is upside down when transferred to your brain by means of electrical waves and your brain turns the image right side up.

Assuming that nobody rearranges the pixels my Computer Manual says: an image will keep the same arrangement of pixels until altered by a program (Photo Shop Draw)

For the files to be identical (the same) there pixels must be identical (the same) and as the human eye sees and the computers tell us the files do not have the same arrangement of pixels

Let's assume (for sake of argument) that you have removed my eye and used the lens to bend light right in front of me. You then produced a microscope and used it to show me the rod and cone cells at the back of my severed eye.
For this you still need to establish:
-That the human brain receives images picked up by the eye, and they aren't coming from somewhere else
-I don't think you've proven that the brain inverts the image.
-That the rod/cone cells actually do what you say they do.
-That a microscope actually shows an accurate image of objects to small to see.

As far as the pixels go, I have to point out that this image "  " has moving pixels, and no one is photoshopping it right now. So your computer manual has been proven false.

As far as identical files, it is possible for the same file to give multiple outputs. Therefore the two files could still be the same even if you successfully prove that they look different.

[TheOwner]

May I know extract your brain?  Here's the best I can do http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/vision_background.php yes I read it and double checked it its accurate

That is because the one with the teeth is an animation not an image but when frozen upon the point in time where they eyes are shut and mouth is fully open, just that is an image.

These files can be stored on separate computers without internet and no link with different pixel arrangements meaning they are not the same file, from the same file, or have the same pixels

[ratcharmer]

May I know extract your brain?  Here's the best I can do http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/vision_background.php yes I read it and double checked it its accurate

That is because the one with the teeth is an animation not an image but when frozen upon the point in time where they eyes are shut and mouth is fully open, just that is an image.

These files can be stored on separate computers without internet and no link with different pixel arrangements meaning they are not the same file, from the same file, or have the same pixels

For the sake of this thread, you have access to any resources you want, and any scientific equipment you want. Including a team of scientists to thoroughly dissect my corpse. Describe how you would use this to establish the brain's function in vision.

The original statement was " is not equal to  " thus we are looking at the original files, and not individual images taken from them. Thus it is possible that, for instance, both files are the same animation, but that animation happens to be 50 years long, and the two started at different points in that animation. Thus they would look different to the casual observer, but are actually the same file.

You must prove that being placed on a different computer could not have altered the original files, causing them to become different.

[TheOwner]

Did you read that entire article?  It talked about the brain function.  It said how there are electrical pulses sent through your brain.



I would go farther but I'm busy with the trials I'll come back when I can.

[implosion]

You must prove that being placed on a different computer could not have altered the original files, causing them to become different.

You can't prove that we need to prove that.

[ratcharmer]

You must prove that being placed on a different computer could not have altered the original files, causing them to become different.

You can't prove that we need to prove that.

*blinks several times*

I believe this thread has just become recursive. We . . . might have just created a black hole somewhere in Montana.

@TheOwner: I'm about halfway through the article. When I finish I'll post a reply as if you had performed all of the experiments listed in the article. It'll be a long post.

There's no time limits, so if you need to focus on something else for a while that's fine. At the moment my grad school habit is interfering with my duties to this forum as well, so I might disappear for a bit here and there,

[nerd1]

you can not prove this statement untrue

[teffy]

 

is not equal to

is equal to
Both objects are smilies, and both smilies grin.

Even if both objects were the - smiley, they would be equal and different. They were the same smiley,the -smiley , but they were shown on different places in your post. They were also stored in different places of the forum database.

You must say, how far equality and unequality goes, to prove they are not equal. Or I have to assume, which equality you meant.

[johannhowitzer]

This statement is false.

My proof: bacon.

[Ele124]

A slight hiccup here. Can anyone prove that our senses (which are clearly instrumental in determining whether these 2 "systems" are equal) are giving a true account of the evidence without using evidence obtained from our senses?