Is genuine altruism possible?

truth
C.I., please read the above again. I corrected a critical typo.

JLN, If there's a difference between color for light and pigment, can you please explain it to this layman what that is? It's somewhat confusing, because we're still the observer - as it were. Without light, there can be no difference in the pigment or light, because it would all look black. Are there any ways to remove the red, blue or green from the light source to show white is a combination of these colors?

Filters do that, CI. Put a red filter over one light, a blue filter over another, and a green one over a thrid, and shine all lights on a single spot, and you will have white. However, if you put all three filters over the same light, you won't get anything - because the filter doesn't create the colored light, it just blocks the light of other colors. The blue filter would block all but the blue light, and the blue light would be blocked by the other filters, for instance. The paint works the same way as the filters, except, rather than filter the light through it, it filters the light it reflects.

rufio



A wavelength is not an actual color…


"COLOR is a phenomenon of perception not an objective component or characteristic of a substance. Color is an aspect of vision; it is a psychophysical response consisting of the physical reaction of the eye and the automatic interpretive response of the brain to wavelength characteristics of light above a certain brightness level (at lower levels the eye senses brightness differences but is unable to make color discriminations). ( 1 )
That light is the source of color was first demonstrated in 1666 by Isaac Newton, who passed a beam of sunlight through a glass prism, producing the rainbow of hues of the visible spectrum. This phenomenon had often been observed before, but it had always been related to latent color that was said to exist in the glass of the prism. Newton, however, took this simple experiment a step further. He passed his miniature rainbow through a second prism that reconstituted the original white beam of light, His conclusion was revolutionary: color is in the light, not in the glass, and the light people see as white is a mixture of all the colors of the visible spectrum. ( 2 )
The reason rainbows appear colored is because the light is broken down into its constituent parts by passing through the water droplets in the air. (Sorry, no pot of gold. The perception of color in a rainbow is proportional to the viewer's perspective, you move, it moves.)
The theory of color has gone through some changes over time, and it is now an accepted fact that color is truly in the eye of the beholder. "This is due to the fact that, as sensed by man, color is a sensation and not a substance." ( 3 )

http://www.bway.net/~jscruggs/Color2.html

joefromchicago





Accidental.

A chance happening.

If one doesn't know what effect their actions will have, if they have no way of knowing, then it's a crapshoot. Equivalent to tossing a coin.

" don't you think you may be wasting your time?


I don't think one can waste time JLNobody,

truth
Of course you're right about wasting time, Twyvel.
C.I., yes, if you turn off the light all color (whether of the light or pigment types) disappear. This approximates the objectivist's model. And if you close your eyes the colors disappear just as well. This approximates the subjectivist's model. BOTH are essential for a rounded and balanced understanding of the situation.

twyvel, Can we extend that one step further and say that "all images" are in the eye of the beholder based on the psychophysical response?

rufio, Thanks for the precise example of how light works. Appreciate it. c.i.

cicerone, Yes.










We could also say "all images" are (in) the mind of the beholder.

Or in the brain of the beholder, i.e. the eye is considered (by some) as part of the brain.

Taken further we can say that (color), "all images" are …………………………..an aspect of the 'self'.

rufio...you don't seem to be catching my point and I wonder if you read my whole posts...

What about the posibility of helping someone when you don't want to and you get no benefit from it? EX, I have an ungreatful cousin that takes advantage of my selflessness as she quite often asks me for help and then sends me information to do the work for her? I have done it and it doesn't make me feel good. I believe you put too much emphasis on feelings, which I believe are unimportant byproducts of our environment or experiences or actions, etc... EX. - You may decide not to do something you know you must do because you don't "feel" like doing it. Obviously, if this is a time-sensitive operation, your feelings of not wanting to do something will get you in trouble. In such a case as this, you must do what you don't want to do anyway and either allow yourself to feel miserable or "suck it up" and be happy anyway.

Twyvel, colors differ objectively by their differing wavelengths. For all I know, we may all see different things when looking at red, or blue, or pink, but everyone can tell the difference between the different wavelengths.

Katuu - I'm sure you have a reason for helping out your cousin. I can't tell what it is, but you must have one. Only mistakes happen by accident.

rufio



Colors are not objectively "out there", the wavelengths are.




Perhaps, but have you ever seen a wavelength?

Rufio,

In the middle ages there were "three colors of the rainbow" (to reflect the trinity). In Newtons time there were "seven" (to reflect the musical scale as in music of the spheres) with the ad hoc inclusion of "indigo".

Telling the "difference" is functional and "cultural".
It involves social consensus on set boundaries, just like the categorization of our "physiology" into "neurons etc", or aspects of "energy" into "wavelengths" etc. These are passing nodes of agreement with the history of science in which the "humours of the body" also had temporary functionality. What we call "reality" is a snapshot of this changing "functionality".

"Colors are not objectively "out there", the wavelengths are."

That's what I'm saying. Good job.

"Perhaps, but have you ever seen a wavelength?"

I saw one drawn on a peice of paper once. Several times, actually.

But seriously, colors look different to people (unless they're colorblind, of course). The difference is objective. You have to see the wind to know it's there, and the fact that we can't see it directly doesn't mean it isn't. Unless you want to contest the fact that we see colors based on wavelengths of light, I don't see what point you have here.

rufio


You previously wrote:

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

I think you keep shifting your position and then pretending other wise.





My point was, counter to what Locke said, color is not inherent in objects, of which you appeared to be arguing against.

You don't agree that wavelength exists whether or not anything observes the effects of different wavelengths?

I agree that color isn't inherent in objects. But it does exist objectively, in terms of how light reacts to it.

rufio


If color isn't inherent in objects how does it exist objectively?

Light cannot react to color if color doesn't exist objectively.

Light doesn't react to color at all.

If color is not inherent in objects then it's a mental event. And we can say as cicerone said, " "all images" are in the eye of the beholder based on the psychophysical response?"

I think you're lost.

My view of the wavelengths is interpreted by my brain as a different color than everybody else sees, or most other people, because I have eye symptomatology that affects apprehension of yellows and blues. The wavelengths are what they are, despite the eyeballs geared to them.

I realize I am not speaking to altruism and its genuineness. I might pipe in on that later.

Color is a quality of the surface (not object) that is colored (or not, I suppose) that causes various wavelengths to either bounce off of it or get absorbed. Light DOES react to it - it gets bounced or absorbed. How many times do we have to go over that?