How can we be sure?

Where you get the reading that I "define reality as that which can be perceived by the sense organs" I have no idea. I am saying that both of these phenomena, the wavelengths we call "sound" and "color" occur independently of observation.

What you are getting hung up on is the semantics of the words "sound" and "color." "Sound," by definition, is those wave frequencies that are perceivable by human ears. If there were no human ears to perceive those wavelengths there would be, by definition, no "sound." Those wavelengths would certainly exist, but they could not be called, by its definition, "sound." Likewise, "color," by definition, is those wavelengths within light that are perceivable by human eyes. If there were no human eyes to perceive those wavelengths there would be, by definition, no "color." Those wavelengths would certainly exist, but they could not be called, by their definition, "color."

For that matter, "light," by definition, is that range of wavelengths that can be perceived by the human eye. If there were no human eyes there would be, by its very definition, no "light." Those wavelengths would certainly exist, but they could not be called, by its very definition, "light."

Yeah, I get what fresco is saying. He's also gone on about Wittgenstein and word salads and language on holiday.

By it's very definition, I agree.


And even then they do make for a certain amount of uncertainty.

As far as I can tell, that is the concensus.

I have experienced sound. I have yet to experience angels dancing on the head of a pin.

Aren't there differences between 1+1 and 2 that can have relevance in certain situations? If someone is buying milk for you for instance. You say you want 2 liters, and he comes back with one carton of 2 liters. If you say 1+1 he comes back with 2 cartons of 1 liter each.

...an original reply finally I was starting to get bored around this thread !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Bostrom#Simulation_hypothesis

...my derivative argument upon the Simulation Argument focus on the non existence of a bottom level "real world" but rather on the computational nature of the world itself which in the entirety of all possible simulations is itself the reality...in this view simulations are natural compelled developments of alternative conditions to our own state of affairs and Multiverse the sum of all possibles with no appeal for an infinite regress since there would ultimately exist a discrete limit of potential world block variations...further such assumption elegantly presupposes a binary information based immaterial instance for reality as a whole which closely resembles Plato´s metaphysical mathematical and geometrical conception of say, "real reality"... for last the need for adding fractal geometry to the classical conception seems to be the missing ingredient fitting the picture...

Just for the sake of entertaining conceptual diversity do experiment with changing the over used and over charged word consciousness, by terms like, computation or measurement, they eventually mean the same on a close look, although to where I stand on this regard some certainly seem less biased then others...anyway s, enjoy it !

I find John Hagelin's view of consciousness to be very interesting, particularly since he is one of the leading experts in the world in quantum physics and one of a few working on the completion of Einstein's long sought after Unified Field Theory.
His views are those of a materialist coming full circle, the way I see it.

Good response, Cyracuz. Yes, a moment of relief from the boredom.

You're wrong. Color is not akin to sound. No matter how you want to redefine these things to fit your argument, you don't need an observer to bring sound into existence, its phenomena is a priori to an observer; NOT so for color.

You are off base about your definition of light, viz., that any physical scientist, myself included, would laugh in your face, because you are defining "color," not light.

I voted for John Hagelin twice for president while I was working for the Natural Law Party the '90s.

I suppose your scientific background is as raw as the unfiltered data you speak off...

...I like his view on this issue...it very much reconciles with my own perspective once minds here are brought up in a very loose sense...measurement or computation can fit the bill just as well...

...still you are not right on insisting that sound and colour have a differentiated processing treatment in the brain...the sound you can speak of is not the sound wave on air but an interpretation of its effect, in fact the word sound was not meant for the wave itself once we don´t have any direct contact with it...( I am sorry for the tone used above but your "wrong" up there was completely misplaced)

...to prevent further confusion let me just clarify that by not having differentiated treatment I only meant that both senses are subjected to the filtering of interpretation...other then that it is pretty much obvious they are captured and treated differently...

Define "experienced." Define "sound."

Here's from wiki on "sound":



Note the parts composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and sufficiently strong to be heard.

I guess that if we want to be precise we have to say that sound is the experience of being in the way of mechanical waves of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid or gas substance.
But we cannot escape the fact that these waves of pressure are not sounds until they are heard.

You are right of course and he is right to to some extent...people are just not willing to compromise middle ground because often associate the other opinion with a culture of opinions that they disagree with and disprove...the case being that we value truth for instance, relations of cause and effect were information may be processed and transformed but is not lost while other groups tend to have a magical grasp of the mechanical processes involved thus indulging in things like imagining sound and creative thinking and similar crap...that´s what we want to prevent, and I can see were he is coming from to avoid anarchist explanations and hippie talk...I am sure you can understand that Cyr !

...above twice, meant to write (where not were, my apology´s for being careless)

I apparently did not address the observer versus object approach to knowledge employed by philosophers. Still, from a philosophy standpoint, can we say that certain knowledge is never attainable and that we can only hope for a high degree of corroboration?