# Object and Image

How do we know when an image is an accurate representation of its object?

And what can we compare the object and its image to, to make sure that they match?

Compare them to one another in terms of logical order. Of course that isn’t full proof, but I can’t fathom a method that is.

Since the question is so general and vague, it deserves a general and vague answer: the image is accurate when it ‘looks’ the same as the object.

And what does the object look like?

If an image is the object we see, then the image will always be the same size as the object. But this means that we cannot compare the image with the object. The object will be an unknown.

You measure the quantifiable aspects of it.

Depends on the object. Say it’s an apple. You could use a whole slew of different description schemes. We could describe the apple in terms of its colors, shape, size, position, etc. We could describe it in terms of what other objects it resembles. We could describe it in terms of its physical construction (i.e. skin, white interior, core and seeds at the center). Which description scheme we use depends on the structure of the ‘image’ we mean to compare it to. If it’s literally an image (i.e. a 2D picture), we might use the first scheme. If it’s a clay model, we might use the second. If it’s a concept in the head, we might use the third.

You say that the way the object looks depends on the object?
Is the way an object “looks” its image or is it not its image?

We might also ask, what is the object of the image? Or we might object to the image itself.

Also, some might wonder: how many images of the images will it take before we don’t recognize the object at all?

Quite so. And very clever.

If you’re Kant, it’s its image. If you’re more of a (naive) realist, it’s a feature of the object itself. An image is any copy or duplicate of an object whose function it is to mimic its feature/structure to human observers.

Let me reiterate once again …. There were, at one time in your young existence, no objects out there until you were made aware that you are a discrete entity surrounded by other things, which in essence you are not. Yet, the knowledge you were given of those things allowed you to see yourself as the one that projects the knowledge. The senses do not say anything about the objects out there; they do not ‘know.’ Without knowledge, you cannot ‘see’ (in the sense that you cannot capture it within a frame of knowledge) the object. So ‘knowing’ becomes an important functional matter. And in my estimation the only thing we can do is assume that to the best of our knowledge that what is out there being reflected on the retina is a representation of some thing in the real world. And that by virtue of the act of ‘knowing,’ we also are a real entity that acknowledges itself as a possessor of memory and, by projecting the world we have created inside of us, we thereby do recognize many things.