How can we be sure?

@kuvasz,

Quote:

Color is not akin to sound. No matter how you want to redefine these things to fit your argument...

Redefine things? Ha, I'm going by the general definitions of these things.

Quote:

. . .you don't need an observer to bring sound into existence, its phenomena is a priori to an observer; NOT so for color.

How is color not a phenomena a priori to an observer if it exists, in all of its forms, within the electromagnetic radiation spectrum which itself doesn't require an observer to exist?

Quote:

You are off base about your definition of light. . .

Mine is the general dictionary and encyclopedia definition of light, to wit:

The Free Dictionary: "Electromagnetic radiation that has a wavelength in the range from about 4,000 (violet) to about 7,700 (red) angstroms and may be perceived by the normal unaided human eye."

Wikipedia: "Light or visible light is electromagnetic radiation that is visible to the human eye, and is responsible for the sense of sight."

For your part you haven't defined light the way you're using the word, and for you to even begin to make assertions without having defined your terms is what is truly risible.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

It seems to me we are talking past one another. If we define sound and color as phenomena, neither exists without a perceiving organism, regardless of the complex objective precondtions for the organism's experience--this includes not only physics but also neurology.

1 Reply

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

It seems to me we are talking past one another.

Most indubitably. I'm merely trying to establish a definitional foundation to proceed by, but even that seems to be an untenable and futile effort. I am reminded more and more of fresco, Wittgenstein, word salads, and language on holiday.

Maybe that's what Lustig is getting at.

Quote:

If we define sound and color as phenomena, neither exists without a perceiving organism, regardless of the complex objective precondtions for the organism's experience--this includes not only physics but also neurology.

That's the point I'm trying to make at least in regard to the meaning of the words, "sound" "light" and "color." By their definitions, or at least their general definitions (maybe kuvasz is using "light" to mean electromagnetic energy in general, I don't know), they are things which are perceived.

Do the physical entities of these three things (i.e. their wavelengths) exist independently of perceiving organisms? Or in other words, If there were no perceiving organisms would there be wavelengths? Or to carry it further, if there were no perceiving organisms would anything at all exist?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Your perspective leans toward materialism and objectivism, mine toward idealism and subjectivism, but I hope neither one of us is skewed absolutely toward either extreme. I'm a "both-and" sort of chap.
I would like to acknowledge that material wave-lengths, air disturbances and neurological processes must ultimately translate into idealistic or experiential phenomena before they can be considered colors and sounds.
To answer your question: colors cannot exist without wave-lengths, but neither can wave-lengths and air-disturbances translate into colors and sounds without eyes and ears (among other things of course).

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Your perspective leans toward materialism and objectivism, mine toward idealism and subjectivism, but I hope neither one of us is skewed absolutely toward either extreme. I'm a "both-and" sort of chap.
I would like to acknowledge that material wave-lengths, air disturbances and neurological processes must ultimately translate into idealistic or experiential phenomena before they can be considered colors and sounds.

Quote:

To answer your question: colors cannot exist without wave-lengths, but neither can wave-lengths and air-disturbances translate into colors and sounds without eyes and ears (among other things of course)

to your last statement

I disagree

both the wave lengths of light and sound are there regardless if any living detects them

since both can interact with rocks etc. in the physical world

2 Replies

@north,

Your disagreement doesn't speak to the point JL raised.

2 Replies

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Thank you, Cyracuz. It's nice to have someone at least try to understand before they respond. I agree that wave-lengths exist in themselves, but not as "colors" (until they interact with organisms that translate them into phenomena). Disagree with that, but THAT, not a misinterpretation of it. When I do not understand an argument--like most of those presented by Fil Albuquerque--I most often try to pay it the courtesy of not responding to it.

3 Replies

@JLNobody,

I don´t know if it is the case that you don´t understand my argument against "minds" as you portrait it, or if you just don´t like it...minds to me amount to computing capacity, and that my friend even a rock has it on a lower language level or how else would it change its state of affairs when affected by gravity for instance ? how would it be possibly affected by other things ?
...what is funny is that the disagreement in here is not even on a deep level...you call it mind I call it computers you think is strictly human and I think it concerns minimum discrete systems of information and its everywhere...but the phenomena its more or less the same.
Conscience on a very varied number of levels...(the previous then the above video, the John Hagelin video seems to very much agree with me although you and Cyr may have miss it on why he does...the above video also clarify´s it but I did not aim initially to give it as an example)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Maybe PART of my problem is that I never watch your videos; they crash my computer. I do, however, find your very broad conception of "language levels" interesting, as metaphor I hope, for discussion of relations between inanimate objects or forces of Nature (e.g., rocks and gravity). But that has never been a part of any argument you've made so far--as far as I could tell at least.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Maybe PART of my problem is that I never watch your videos; they crash my computer. I do, however, find your very broad conception of "language levels" interesting, as metaphor I hope, for discussion of relations between inanimate objects or forces of Nature (e.g., rocks and gravity). But that has never been a part of any argument you've made so far--as far as I could tell at least.

Did n´t I ? I think I haven´t done other thing since long time ago...what do you think it happens every time I kick a rock ? Yeah, guess what, I am having a very low level very simple and linear "conversation" with it (the "rocky" kind of talk Laughing

) ...I transmit information to it when I kick it regarding the state of affairs on my foot in the kicking, the angle, the direction, the speed, the force, and energy involved, and the rock in turn processes that information according to its own state of affairs, its mass, its form, and its position, in relation to me, thus rolling one way or another and describing a self specific different path shape from any other different rock under the same conditions, or under the same information of a similar kick, which corresponds to the shape of the function resulting from such input and output...finally laws of nature have also an active role on it in manifesting the rules and the bounded complex algorithms by witch such process can mechanically happen...you say I meant a relation of laws and things, but I in turn say its a relation of "things" with other "things" in an ever evolving, ever more layer complex, progressing field of levels of language build upon other smaller levels of language in those systemic "things"...it can be said its a "conversation" alright, you bet I believe it is ! (not only a conversation but an orchestra at work)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

(edited above)
...more, it can be said when I kick it that I am also similarly informed on its state of affairs...it is the case that if I hurt my foot and start jumping around cursing it, I was all to well informed ! Laughing

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...do you want yet a better more eloquent and brilliant, shall I dare, metaphor ? (its poetry alright)
...THE "EYES" OF A ROCK ARE GRAVITY AT WORK !...(they "see" at a distance !)

PS (whoever thumb that down its making a mockery of himself)

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

I think that the vantage point from which you approach this kind of issue is very esoteric to many people. I think you understand and appreciate the role we play in our reality as observers. I think you realize the key role we play in all our understanding of it, be it naming it or describing it. It is a step further than the materialist will go, a step that requires the one taking it to call into question the beliefs and dogmas (for lack of a better word) that precede our understanding. I think that the mere knowledge of this, as it appears to you, is beyond the capacity of a few words to describe. I would welcome the opportunity to just sit with you. But I feel that our interaction here is almost as good.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

...I for one believe the opposite...without knowing the base you don´t get to know the top...wisdom is hard work not day dreaming...anthropic self praising thoughts won´t make it any more real...but then you already know what I think...

0 Replies

About colors, magenta is a color that doesn't have a band of wavelengths. It's an interpretation by the brain of the interaction of wavelengths that correspond to what humans perceive as the colors red and blue.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Your disagreement doesn't speak to the point JL raised.

why exactly ?

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

...still is well worth reminding that only that with has a solid ground can be cause and concur for interpretation, just as that interpretation itself, must be the result of a well justified cause...

...one does n´t see colours out of volition, or creativity, nor does one control what comes about in them...one sees the phenomena ! which is real...precisely because their causes are also real ! (and we are part of it)

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Thank you, Cyracuz. It's nice to have someone at least try to understand before they respond. I agree that wave-lengths exist in themselves, but not as "colors" (until they interact with organisms that translate them into phenomena). Disagree with that, but THAT, not a misinterpretation of it. When I do not understand an argument--like most of those presented by Fil Albuquerque--I most often try to pay it the courtesy of not responding to it.

hmm I see

so your saying that the only way that a wave length of of light becomes a colour is if we , Humans , absorb this wave length via neurology

yet the wave length of light obviously has that colour as a nature unto itself

does it not ?

inotherwords in order to see this colour , it has to be within this certain wave lengths nature in the first place , so that it was always there in the first place

2 Replies

How can we be sure?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know