comment: >
  
  r/angryupvote
context: This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
  Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
  (For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
  Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. >
  
  Evander Holyfield and Vincent Van Gogh have entered the chat. 💇 >
  
  Mr Orange would like a word… >
  
  🎵Clowns to the left of me
  Jokers to the right🎶 >
  
  Elephants coming in. >
  
  Oh you wish that were true but everything can be cut of/out and shown to your eyeballs. >
  
  except the both of your eyeballs >
  
  Well pull one out and point it at the other. >
  
  but that’s your eye not your eyeballs >
  
  Then what r your eyeballs if not your eyes? >
  
  yh but eyeball is for when it’s out of the socket right? (im not english so sorry if im mistaken) >
  
  I think eyeballs can leave the socket and still be attached to the optic nerve in some cases, so it's technically possible. >
  
  Definetly possible and not so uncommon in medicine.
  For example it happens in some industries that people get metal splinters into their eyes and they can wander to the backside of the eyeball. In the hospital they then scoop out your eyeball and remove the splinter before putting it back in >
  
  I imagine it like a charging cable >
  
  i did not need to know this information in my life >
  
  I’d argue that things that are reflected are still “seen”.
  Everything you see day to day is refracted to some extent, and we still consider that we can see things properly.
  I don’t see why reflection should be treated differently. >
  
  Well... reflections are... 
  ... wait for it ...
  ... reflected through the plane of the reflecting surface, so it's not really the same as direct vision, with refraction. >
  
  Sure, but at the end of the day it’s all just redirecting the path of a photon - refracting is no more direct.  Let bouncing and bending live together in peace. >
  
  Photons work that way, but your eyes/brain really don't. 
  So I suppose it's all a semantic argument, except in this case it's "does 'seeing' mean the semantics or  mechanics" :-). >
  
  All we perseive is light reflecting so... >
  
  Except for actual light sources, it's true... adding a second reflection still adds a... reflection... though. >
  
  You better hope that remains true because otherwise you will have quite problem >
  
  Quiet problem