It's not similar at all. The emulsion on the film reacts to light, that is all. The eyes are similar to a pair of binoculars; without them one cannot see the distance hill, and with no one (awareness) looking out the eyes see nothing.
Can you please rephrase this.
Here's your circular argument:
- The eyes send the information onto the brain.
- The brain creates an image which is seen by the awareness.
- All the while the whole thing is mental, one has never left the mental realm.
It's not at all circular twyvel, it starts with a phenomenon external to the mind and is not entirely mental.
Light's existence is not contingient on awareness, it exists regardless.
When an external phenomenon is exclusively a "mental construct" it's called imagination.
Light exists outside of imagination, and you have demonstrated no circular argument whatsoever. Pseudo-philosobabble can be held at levels abstract and non-sensical enough to discourage being debunked. But logic on teh other hand is very straightforward.
My contention to you is a simple one and in no way circular. It's based on the premise that light exists as a phenomenon even when it's not observed.
It is based on the premise that light is a phenomenon external to the brain.
Do you challenge that assertion or not? Because simply ignoring the gist of an argument in order to call it circular (when it is not) is not going to get myuch play from me.
You say "All the while the whole thing is mental, one has never left the mental realm."
That's bullshit, like I said, the premise of my position starts
outside the "mental realm". Light exists whether or not an "awareness" is around to observe it and mentally process it.
Edit: added last sentence and corrected a phrase.