Is genuine altruism possible?

Quantum mechanics is a bit too mystical to be science, I think.

So, without the observer, nothing really exists. hmmmmm......

art
Right Twyvel. I don't reject, in my idealiistic tendency, the existence of quarks, vibrating "strings", atoms, molecules, gravity, etc. etc., but I DO (like you) insist that OUR reality, that which we experience--such as sounds, sights and tastes) are the result of the INTERACTION between whatever is "out there" and our own neurological processes, cognitive operatons and cultural predispositions. And these latter processes are also "out there", and all of the "out theres" are also "in heres." In other words, the distinction is useless.

JL, if the world was blind, would light refract of surfaces any differently? the same wavelengths of light would be absorbed and reflected no matter if you could see them or not. color exists even if you cant see it. as does sound if you cant hear it

truth
O.K., it's obvious that we have totally opposed perspectives. There's is no need to talk further, because--as we have seen--we will only talk past each other.

Most flora require light to grow. Even if biological life forms were not present on earth, does the fact that there is flora prove light exists?

JL, twyvel - consider this.

All your life, you keep some sort of secret keepsake in a drawer somewhere. You never show it to anyone, only you know that it exists. When you, as the only one aware of the existence of it, die, does the item cease to exist? Do corpses in graves cease to exist because no one looks at them? What about artifacts that are dug up? Do people magically wish them into existence, because they couldn't possibly have existed before they were found? Empirical molecules and the behaviors thereof are just as objective as the above mentioned objects. Why do you think their existence would be determined by observation? I don't give a **** about quantum mechanics here, this is logic. You are the naive ones here - you can't just make thing disappear by pretending they don't exist.

Locke,




"The human eye and brain together translate light into color. Light receptors within the eye transmit messages to the brain, which produces the familiar sensations of color.
Newton observed that color is not inherent in objects. Rather, the surface of an object reflects some colors and absorbs all the others. We perceive only the reflected colors.
Thus, red is not "in" an apple. The surface of the apple is reflecting the wavelengths we see as red and absorbing all the rest. An object appears white when it reflects all wavelengths and black when it absorbs them all.
Red, green and blue are the additive primary colors of the color spectrum. Combining balanced amounts of red, green and blue lights also produces pure white. By varying the amount of red, green and blue light, all of the colors in the visible spectrum can be produced.
Considered to be part of the brain itself, the retina is covered by millions of light-sensitive cells, some shaped like rods and some like cones. These receptors process the light into nerve impulses and pass them along to the cortex of the brain via the optic nerve"……


http://pantone.com/products/products.asp?idArticle=111&idArea=16

twyvel, Thanks for the information on how we observe color. The one question I have is why is it that mixing a balance of oil paint of red, green and blue does not produce white?

I think you are naïve to say you don't give a **** about quantum mechanics.

But if QM (and Buddhism, nondualism etc.) prove to be correct it would mean that everything is create from moment to moment. Everything you see and observe is always a brand spanking new.

CI, paint colors are different than light colors. Red paint absorbs all but red light. Blue paint absorbs all but blue light. And so forth. When you mix primary paint colors together (which are actually red, yellow and blue - different againt from light) you don't get a mixture of those colors reflected - you get all the colors absorbed.

And if someone wants to tell me I'm being too didactic because I'm not a ******* art major, you can go screw yourself.

Twyvel, if that is true, than where do the artifacts come from? Some of them have been radically different from the truths that were originally believed.

cicerone imposter,

Good question, I think rufio answered it in part. Perhaps JLNobody will have a reply as well.

My point was color is a sensation not a substance.

rufio


Where does the universe come from?

OK everyone, recess is over, time to get back to the subject at hand. Anyone wanting to explore the issue of unattended trees falling in forests is encouraged to start a new thread. Otherwise, the topic is "altruism."


Recall my hypothetical with Rescuer pressing the button marked "press this button and save a human's life." Rescuer presses the button but has no way of knowing if his action had any effect. Since we don't know if the altruistic goal was achieved or not, how are we to characterize Rescuer's act?

Twyvel, color is wavelength, regardless of whether or not it is observed.

I don't know where the universe came form Twyvel. God? That's a far more likely explanation than one that states that people dreamt it up without even knowing about it.

c.i.

I'm just checking the forum to see if your issue on "light and the existence of flora" has been raised. If not I will instigate it with a comment of my own.

You mean, that plants count as "observers" of light because they use it?

rufio, That's the question.

truth
Twyvel, don't you think you may be wasting your time?
C.I., the principles underlying the physics of color for light and for pigment are different. But if the EXPERIENCE of color is to exist, there must also exist the operations of eyes and ocipital lobes of a brain. Do you agree?