Comparing the eye to a camera
Created | Updated Mar 29, 2002
Scientists have for many years said that the eye is comparable to a camera. But that depends on whether or not it is a living camera. If it is not then there is no way that the eye can be compared to such a thing. my argument is such as this: The eye is a biological device which is used by living thing with which to see the world with. Pictures are focused on a screen, which send signals to the brain and giving the creature an idea of the outside world. If damaged, the eye can mend its self. It is made of soft gooey stuff and can automatically adjust the light levels all by its self. It requires no external power source.
The camera on the otherhand is nothing like the eye. The camera is used by biological beings to take images of the outside world and capture them on rectangular peices of paper which are then sealed in a plastic envelope and displayed in a book, which only ever comes out at christmas or when you take your friends to meet your parents. It cannot mend its self. It cannot automatically adjust light levels (unless it is very adavanced) and i needs batteries to work. It is made of plastic and metal.
How can these things be compared at all? Well they cant, which is the whole point of this article.
The camera on the otherhand is nothing like the eye. The camera is used by biological beings to take images of the outside world and capture them on rectangular peices of paper which are then sealed in a plastic envelope and displayed in a book, which only ever comes out at christmas or when you take your friends to meet your parents. It cannot mend its self. It cannot automatically adjust light levels (unless it is very adavanced) and i needs batteries to work. It is made of plastic and metal.
How can these things be compared at all? Well they cant, which is the whole point of this article.
