Is black actually white?

Craven

Quote:

Can you please rephrase this.

A pair of binocculars sitting on a desk see nothing. Eyes without awareness see nothing.

Quote:

It's not at all circular twyvel, it starts with a phenomenon external to the mind and is not entirely mental.

No. It starts and ends in the mental realm.

Quote:

Light's existence is not contingient on awareness, it exists regardless.

Supposition.

Quote:

Light exists outside of imagination, and you have demonstrated no circular argument whatsoever.

Yes, I think I have.

Quote:

My contention to you is a simple one and in no way circular. It's based on the premise that light exists as a phenomenon even when it's not observed.

It is based on the premise that light is a phenomenon external to the brain.

Do you challenge that assertion or not? Because simply ignoring the gist of an argument in order to call it circular (when it is not) is not going to get myuch play from me.

What argument? The above is not an argument, it's an unsupposrted premise, an assertion based on belief.

Quote:

You say "All the while the whole thing is mental, one has never left the mental realm."

That's bullshit, like I said, the premise of my position starts outside the "mental realm". Light exists whether or not an "awareness" is around to observe it and mentally process it.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

A pair of binocculars sitting on a desk see nothing. Eyes without awareness see nothing.

Thanks, this is both more coherent and a better revision of your earlier argument.

You initially argued that light itself is a "mental construct".

That inanimate objects don't "see" (i.e. have the ability to form mental constructs based on the light) is a no-brainer.

But it does not in any way support the assertion that light itself is merely a mental construct.

Quote:

Quote:
It's not at all circular twyvel, it starts with a phenomenon external to the mind and is not entirely mental.

No. It starts and ends in the mental realm.

Light is not produced in the "mental realm" twyvel. Laughing

Quote:

Quote:
Light's existence is not contingient on awareness, it exists regardless.

Supposition.

No this is not supposition. This is demonstratable.

For example, through the use of photography you are able to see the existence of light in a situation in which no "awareness" was present to observe it.

When viewing the photographs you will indeed using your mind (i.e. "awareness") to process this data but through the use of photography you can document the phenomenon of light's existence in situations in which no "awareness" is present. Laughing

Quote:

Quote:
Light exists outside of imagination, and you have demonstrated no circular argument whatsoever.

Yes, I think I have.

Yes, but then again you have said elsewhere that everything is a "mental construct". I can think of no better compliment to you than to tell you that this too is merely your mental construct as well.

Quote:

What argument? The above is not an argument, it's an unsupposrted premise, an assertion based on belief.

No it's not based on belief, it's based on the observable existence of light in situations when no "awareness" was present to observe it.

You can document the existence of light in situations in which no awareness was observing it at tthetime of its presence.

Quote:

This is pseudo-philosobabble but worse yet it can't hide behind the mere murkiness of the words it's couched in to feign depth because it's logically flawed in obvious ways.

Light is not generated within the "mental realm" twyvel, it originates from without. The concept of light is processed within the mental realm based on this external phenomenon being captured through sensory input (i.e. the eyes).

If light were merely a "mental construct" contingent on awareness for its existence then any blind man can too assert that light does not exist, as opposed to the blind man simply being unable to observe it.

Your contention that light exists entirely within the mental realm is ludicrous. A perfect example of pseudo-philosobabble. Rolling Eyes

Remember what I said, it's just a murky pond, not a deep one.

0 Replies

twyvel I don't know why I bother, if you want to think light is a "mental construct" existing only within the "mental realm" feel free to do so.

I retract my exchanges with you and replace it for lil'k's much better one in which even her signature was appropriate.

lil'k wrote:

wah?

_________________
......what?

0 Replies

Here's how you do it:

1. Start with a premise (you want to prove:)
Black = White, or is reversed with white.

2. Add smarmy scientific facts:
Humans percieve color with the cones in their eyeballs
Different animals have different structural arrangements in their visual
perception, and view color differently than we do.
In light, white is all color and black is the absence thereof
In pigment, black is all color and white is the absence thereof.

3. Link 1 and 2 in a way that sounds plausable
you could make 2 arguments with this information:

a. Black and white are the same because -
The only things wer know about color are what our eyeballs are able to
percieve, and even then we are not concious of the perception of other
humans.

b. Black and white are the same because -
If in light, white is all color, and in pigment, black is all color, then
white and black are really the same thing outside of human perception.

(or, if you were fresco, the immaterialist, you would say:
c. Reality does not exist because all we know for sure is our individual
perception, so constants within your perception of reality are just your
imagination)

4. You could argue against these views by finding a flaw in the argument
(somthing that contradicts the argument)

a. You can do testing to see if other humans and animals can see the
difference

b. Yes, but light is light and pigment is pigment. They are two distinct
areas that behave differently for scientific reasons (which are ____).

0 Replies

Hey Portal - ever taught a bunch of kids using a blackboard and chalk ? They quite happily accept the reversal re their paper and pencil without even noticing it.

The point is that what matters in that example is the perception of the binary polarity, not the "physical" details of the poles. Similarity and difference are always a function of the purposes of the observer.

"Reality" is the interaction of "inner" and "outer". Consider a "burn" from touching something very cold....etc. (Actually I think I am a "nominalist" - one who thinks classifications are pragmatic and that there is no such thing as objective material reality.)

0 Replies

Kicky

You started this thread with the words:

Quote:

I have never taken a class in debate, and I imagine this is probably a Debate 101 exercise, but I've noticed that people on this site are so good at debating (especially when it comes to politics) that I see equally compelling arguments no matter what the topic seems to be....

Well, since this thread is supposedly about "debate" rather than colors, I think it is appropriate to mention something about "debate" that might be worth exploring.

In response to Craven, you wrote:

Quote:

Okay, maybe I should have rephrased that. Prove to me that black is, in fact, white.

"Proving" something is not necessarily what debate is all about. In fact, probably it is a very rare occasion when "proving" something is the objective of debate.

Think about that. That may not need much more in the way of explanation.

Later you wrote:

Quote:

Okay, now that last one doesn't make any sense. That just proves that they have the common quality of not being colors. Am I right here, Craven?

Maybe we should try to prove that I am you.

Well, I doubt even Craven thinks he "proved" anything in that comment; I'll leave him to comment on that...

...but I've noticed in many of your comments in various threads that you throw this word "prove" around without really thinking it out.

If you truly want to expand your debating technique, I would suggest that putting a bit more thought into how and when to use that word might be an excellent place to start.

EDIT: Added that first paragraph that somehow got left out.

0 Replies

Actually he was not commenting on one of my posts, but yes, he is right.

0 Replies

Quote:

Is it possible that somebody could actually argue convincingly that black is, in fact, white?

NO, not ever.

Your question defies basic principles.

White is one aspect of the concept of colour, it's known to us via it's definition, and to argue it was NOT what it's definition was is effectively non-sense{no offense}.
OTOH, if a word's definition is imprecise, ie, it defied reality or logic, you could correct/enhance it, but in this case, white and black have definitions....it's the same as asking can someone argue that a horse is a boat for ex.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Quote:

Is it possible that somebody could actually argue convincingly that black is, in fact, white?

Yes.

David Henery wrote:

Quote:

NO, not ever.

Your question defies basic principles.

White is one aspect of the concept of colour, it's known to us via it's definition, and to argue it was NOT what it's definition was is effectively non-sense{no offense}.
OTOH, if a word's definition is imprecise, ie, it defied reality or logic, you could correct/enhance it, but in this case, white and black have definitions....it's the same as asking can someone argue that a horse is a boat for ex.

There's a broader perspective to consider:

****
Main Entry: 1white
Pronunciation: 'hwIt, 'wIt
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): whit·er; whit·est
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hwIt; akin to Old High German hwIz white and probably to Old Church Slavonic svetu light, Sanskrit sveta white, bright
Date: before 12th century
1 a : free from color b : of the color of new snow or milk; specifically : of the color white c : light or pallid in color <white hair> <lips white with fear> d : lustrous pale gray : SILVERY; also : made of silver
2 a : being a member of a group or race characterized by reduced pigmentation and usually specifically distinguished from persons belonging to groups marked by black, brown, yellow, or red skin coloration b : of, relating to, characteristic of, or consisting of white people c : marked by upright fairness
3 : free from spot or blemish: as a (1) : free from moral impurity : INNOCENT (2) : marked by the wearing of white by the woman as a symbol of purity <a white wedding> b : unmarked by writing or printing c : not intended to cause harm <a white lie> <white magic> d : FAVORABLE, FORTUNATE <one of the white days of his life -- Sir Walter Scott>
4 a : wearing or habited in white b : marked by the presence of snow : SNOWY <a white Christmas>
5 a : heated to the point of whiteness b : notably ardent : PASSIONATE <white fury>
6 a : conservative or reactionary in political outlook and action b : instigated or carried out by reactionary forces as a counterrevolutionary measure <a white terror>
7 : of, relating to, or constituting a musical tone quality characterized by a controlled pure sound, a lack of warmth and color, and a lack of resonance
8 : consisting of a wide range of frequencies -- used of light, sound, and electromagnetic radiation
- whit·ish /'hwI-tish, 'wI-/ adjective
****

Main Entry: 1black
Pronunciation: 'blak
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English blak, from Old English blæc; akin to Old High German blah black, and probably to Latin flagrare to burn, Greek phlegein
Date: before 12th century
1 a : of the color black b (1) : very dark in color <his face was black with rage> (2) : having a very deep or low register <a bass with a black voice> (3) : HEAVY, SERIOUS <the play was a black intrigue>
2 a : having dark skin, hair, and eyes : SWARTHY <the black Irish> b (1) often capitalized : of or relating to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin <black Americans> (2) : of or relating to the Afro-American people or their culture <black literature> <a black college> <black pride> <black studies> (3) : typical or representative of the most readily attended parts of black culture <tried to play blacker jazz>
3 : dressed in black
4 : DIRTY, SOILED <hands black with grime>
5 a : characterized by the absence of light <a black night> b : reflecting or transmitting little or no light <black water> c : served without milk or cream <black coffee>
6 a : thoroughly sinister or evil : WICKED <a black deed> b : indicative of condemnation or discredit <got a black mark for being late>
7 : connected with or invoking the supernatural and especially the devil <black magic>
8 a : very sad, gloomy, or calamitous <black despair> b : marked by the occurrence of disaster <black Friday>
9 : characterized by hostility or angry discontent : SULLEN <black resentment filled his heart>
10 chiefly British : subject to boycott by trade-union members as employing or favoring nonunion workers or as operating under conditions considered unfair by the trade union
11 a of propaganda : conducted so as to appear to originate within an enemy country and designed to weaken enemy morale b : characterized by or connected with the use of black propaganda <black radio>
12 : characterized by grim, distorted, or grotesque satire <black humor>
13 : of or relating to covert intelligence operations <black government programs>
- black·ish /'bla-kish/ adjective
- black·ly adverb
- black·ness noun
****

We all here could probably come up with scenarios where the statement, Black is white.or. White is black.is correct,

The black iron was so hot it was white.
Mr. White is black.
Miss. Black is white.

0 Replies

Hi all,
I thought a made a pretty convincing case in my post above,
but it seems to have been buried in the other posts.
Just curious ... Can anyone find a flaw in my logic there,
that shows black and white ARE the same thing?

It basically comes down to what quantity of light we are talking about, and relative to what scale?
1) Would 10 lumens be considered white or black? 100 lumens? 1000 lumens?
2) Seems like any shade of gray can be considered white (or black) under the
right circumstances. Therefore they are interchangeable and equivalent.
3) Nothing in the universe is actually white, or actually black, just by themselves. These are relative terms, with sliding standards.

WHITE: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=white
"The achromatic color of maximum lightness; the color of objects that reflect nearly all light of all visible wavelengths; the complement or antagonist of black, the other extreme of the neutral gray series. Although typically a response to maximum stimulation of the retina, the perception of white appears always to depend on contrast."

BLACK: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=black
"Being of the color black, producing or reflecting comparatively little light and having no predominant hue."

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

kickycan wrote:

We all here could probably come up with scenarios where the statement, Black is white.or. White is black.is correct,

The black iron was so hot it was white.
Mr. White is black.
Miss. Black is white.

AFAIK, the purpose of the OP was an enquiry into certainty.
As usual, a layperson was bedazzled by the endless nonsense of those who claim to have philosophical knowledge, IOW, despite your efforts, you left him thinking there is no such thing as certainty.

I'm certain that when refering to the aspects of the concept "colour", you can NEVER call white black or vice versa, as it defies the indentity we have given to each of these words via their definitions.

Plus no-one of any lucidity will ever waste any mental energy trying to agrue that white snow is somehow similar to black asphalt as far as colour is concerned.

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

Well, in a sense, black is white and white is black because neither are colors.

What are they if not colours?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

(Actually I think I am a "nominalist" - one who thinks classifications are pragmatic and that there is no such thing as objective material reality.)

Classifications are necessary for knowledge.
Are you suggesting that there is NO enduring physical world, IOW, there was nothing until the emergence of human consciousness?

0 Replies

Smiley wrote:

I thought a made a pretty convincing case in my post above

You are mistaken.

Smiley wrote:

Just curious ... Can anyone find a flaw in my logic there,
that shows black and white ARE the same thing?

Yes.

Smiley wrote:

It basically comes down to what quantity of light we are talking about, and relative to what scale?
1) Would 10 lumens be considered white or black? 100 lumens? 1000 lumens?

"Lumens" measure light intensity, not color. If, however, you're suggesting that no objective measure of "color" can yield something either as "black" or "white," then of course there could be no objective measure of "grey" either.

Smiley wrote:

2) Seems like any shade of gray can be considered white (or black) under the right circumstances. Therefore they are interchangeable and equivalent.

Nonsense. If, as you suggested in your initial post, "white" and "black" can never be ascertained, then they share only one quality in common: their non-existence. In that sense, they are interchangeable, but then in that sense there's no point in talking about "white" and "black" at all, since they are mere phantoms. Furthermore, to say, as you do, that some existent color, such as grey, is equivalent to "white" or "black" is to say that something is equal to nothing, which simply defies logic.

Smiley wrote:

3) Nothing in the universe is actually white, or actually black, just by themselves. These are relative terms, with sliding standards.

Relative to whom?

0 Replies

Looking at the dictionary definitions, white and black share the qualities of
1) being achromatic, no predominant hue.
2) having comparatively different levels of light.

As example, the words "rich" and "poor" are also relative terms, that vary a huge amount in usage, and have no definite values assigned to them. But that doesn't mean there's no point in talking about them, since they are phantoms!

A more concrete example: On a computer screen you can display a mid-level gray color (#808080).
If you turn off all the lights in the room, and that's the only light visible anywhere, then the screen looks white in all that darkness.
But if you place it next to a bright halogen lightbulb, then it looks like the screen is turned off and is completely black.
The same image, on the same monitor, giving off the same color and amount of light, is seen as white and also as black.

As any painter can tell you, it's the contrast that makes white appear white, or black appear black.

I challenge you to find anything in the world that you believe is "white". Then stare directly into the sun or an electric arc lamp, and see if you still believe your item is "white". No matter what white thing you find, you can find something else that's whiter. It's relative. Nothing is absolutely white.

As long as the light is achromatic, then isn't black/white simply the intensity of such light? And wouldn't the number of lumens needed vary depending on the environment it's in?

I'm trying to understand your idea of "something equals nothing", because there is no objective measure of gray either. It's just a certain quantity of light, either more or less than another quantity somewhere else.

Pure white would be "absolute infinite" amount of light, while pure black would be "absolute zero" light. So 50% gray is what, 50% of infinity? How much is that?

0 Replies

David Henry wrote:

Quote:

AFAIK, the purpose of the OP was an enquiry into certainty.
As usual, a layperson was bedazzled by the endless nonsense of those who claim to have philosophical knowledge, IOW, despite your efforts, you left him thinking there is no such thing as certainty

I'm certain that when refering to the aspects of the concept "colour", you can NEVER call white black or vice versa, as it defies the indentity we have given to each of these words via their definitions.

Plus no-one of any lucidity will ever waste any mental energy trying to agrue that white snow is somehow similar to black asphalt as far as colour is concerned.

Smiley

0 Replies

Quote:

White and black are concepts; tools used as representations that are distinct from the perceptions they represent.

Twyvel

Our perceptions are the basis of our concepts, our concepts enable us to form knowledge, the alternative is to know nothing.

Quote:

A=A Tree=Tree.
You're using words, language and concepts to try and tell me we can't know anything.

Quote:

Is snow white or black in daylight?

Quote:

Everyone typically understands this.

Quote:

And I'm certain that each of these variations has a name.

Quote:

Yes but the topic was about certainty, and I'm still certain that white and black are words which symbolize aspects of the concept "colour".

Quote:

In the city, at street level, amongst the rush of traffic and pedestrians, a fresh snowfall quickly turns into varying shades of brown, gray, slush and ice. We could probably stand on a corner and point out many shades of colors all of which would be 'snow'

You seem certain you can label other colours with certainty, but you won't grant me that privilege.
If you're able to distinguish between colours, than you have certainty, IOW, if you can know what is gray, then I can know what white is.

Quote:

Perception is not based on certainty, it's based on comparisons of repeated observations, all of which are dsitinct.

Perception is the basis of knowledge, the outcome is symbols, words, concepts and language.

0 Replies

Quote:

challenge you to find anything in the world that you believe is "white". Then stare directly into the sun or an electric arc lamp, and see if you still believe your item is "white". No matter what white thing you find, you can find something else that's whiter. It's relative. Nothing is absolutely white.

Smiley.

Is your statement about nothing being absolute...absolute?
Context is absolute.

When I buy a new car, do I tell the salesman I want that one, but I'm not absolutely certain of it's colour?, NO, I just ask for the white one....if it isn't considered white, it will have a description, and that description will have characteristics that distinguish it from white.

0 Replies

Smiley wrote:

Looking at the dictionary definitions, white and black share the qualities of
1) being achromatic, no predominant hue.
2) having comparatively different levels of light.

A couple of things to note here:
(1) Citing to the dictionary is a form of an argument ad verecundiam, i.e. an appeal to authority. Such an argument is only as good as the authority. In the case of philosophical disputes, however, the dictionary is no more authoritative than any other source. You need to demonstrate why the dictionary definition is preferable to any other.
(2) Just because two things share certain characteristics does not mean that they are identical. Twins may look alike, but that doesn't make them the same person.

Smiley wrote:

As example, the words "rich" and "poor" are also relative terms, that vary a huge amount in usage, and have no definite values assigned to them.

You seem to have confused the terms "lighter" and "darker," which are indeed relative terms, with "white" and "black," which are not.

Smiley wrote:

But that doesn't mean there's no point in talking about them, since they are phantoms!

It appears you have misunderstood my previous comments. Since you suggested that neither black nor white could ever be ascertained, I noted, in that case, that black and white would share only one characteristic in common: their non-existence (presuming that unascertainable colors cannot be said to exist, and that non-existent things have no other characteristics but their non-existence). As such, it is pointless to talk about the similarities among non-existent things, just as it would be pointless to ask "are unicorns bigger than dragons?"

Smiley wrote:

A more concrete example: On a computer screen you can display a mid-level gray color (#808080).

This actually is another type of argument ad verecundiam: in this case, the authority is the computer monitor. Presumably, this unimpeachable source can give us an unambiguous "grey," but it somehow is incapable of providing us with an equally unambiguous "white" or "black." I can only say that I'm not very impressed with your monitor; mine can show black and white, in addition to greys. In any event, you are free to rely upon this authority, Smiley: I, however, will not.

Smiley wrote:

If you turn off all the lights in the room, and that's the only light visible anywhere, then the screen looks white in all that darkness.
But if you place it next to a bright halogen lightbulb, then it looks like the screen is turned off and is completely black.
The same image, on the same monitor, giving off the same color and amount of light, is seen as white and also as black.

And your point is?

Smiley wrote:

As any painter can tell you, it's the contrast that makes white appear white, or black appear black.

This is merely apparent color. Are you suggesting, then, that there are "true" colors?

Smiley wrote:

I challenge you to find anything in the world that you believe is "white". Then stare directly into the sun or an electric arc lamp, and see if you still believe your item is "white". No matter what white thing you find, you can find something else that's whiter. It's relative. Nothing is absolutely white.

I look at a tree from a distance of 100 yards. To me, the tree appears to be about three inches tall. If I stand next to that tree, however, it appears to be over twenty feet tall. Now, Smiley, if I understand you correctly, you'd say that the tree is of some indeterminate height: even if we measured it precisely from the ground to the top, you'd still say that it was of "some" height, maybe twenty feet and maybe three inches, but no one could tell because "it's all relative." Right?

Smiley wrote:

As long as the light is achromatic, then isn't black/white simply the intensity of such light? And wouldn't the number of lumens needed vary depending on the environment it's in?

Light is achromatic? Then how does a prism refract light into a spectrum?

Smiley wrote:

I'm trying to understand your idea of "something equals nothing", because there is no objective measure of gray either. It's just a certain quantity of light, either more or less than another quantity somewhere else.

If neither "black" nor "white" can be measured, then there is no reason to suppose that some intermediate hue, such as grey, could be measured either. Thus if, as you said earlier, "grey can be considered white (or black) under the right circumstances," then you are asserting that something (i.e. "grey") can be considered equal to nothing (i.e. black or white, for reasons that I have set forth above).

Smiley wrote:

Pure white would be "absolute infinite" amount of light, while pure black would be "absolute zero" light. So 50% gray is what, 50% of infinity? How much is that?

Despite the well-established tropes of playground one-upsmanship, "infinity plus one" is not a greater number than "infinity." Instead, they are identical. For the same reasons, half of infinity is identical to infinity.

0 Replies

Smiley,

You've had some very good arguments. If I have time I'll join in later on.

0 Replies

Is black actually white?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know