16
   

If we were all color blind... ?

 
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2017 11:39 am
An interesting resurrection of this thread after 5 years !

The philosophical issue is, of course, not about 'colour' per se but about whether what we call 'reality' is a function of our species specific physiological limitations. A secondary issue is whether those 'limitations' are extendable to 'cognitive mechanisms' which have been a sourrce of artificial transducer production and 'data' generation, thereby modifying the very concept of 'limits'.

If anybody wishes to discuss these more general epistemological and ontological issues I would be pleased to hear from them.




izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2017 05:54 pm
@fresco,
Wouldn't we all be nocturnal? Then we'd all be white, a horrible pallid, greyish white like Gollum.
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2017 06:55 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Wouldn't we all be nocturnal? Then we'd all be white, a horrible pallid, greyish white like Gollum.


Why do you always include everyone in your self assessments?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2017 07:00 pm
This is an interesting topic. If we were all blind, I believe our other senses would have taken its place. I remember reading about some insects in a dark cave in TN or someplace where they survive in their environment.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2017 01:52 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Dark night, that from the eye his function takes,
The ear more quick of apprehension makes;
Wherein it doth impair the seeing sense,
It pays the hearing double recompense.

Shakespeare
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2017 02:24 am
@fresco,
Quote:
The philosophical issue is, of course, not about 'colour' per se but about whether what we call 'reality' is a function of our species specific physiological limitations.


Are you simply re-stating Kant's observation that our "knowledge" is conditioned on our "categories of understanding" and that, therefore, we can never know the "thing in itself?"

Old news. But it doesn't lead one to your brand of total subjectivism and solipsism, as you seem to think, eh, Fresky?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2017 03:45 am
@fresco,
I am glad you brought this up. Because in the case we're talking about losing something instead of adding something through mind...
By the way we sort of are color blind to most of the light wavelenght spectrum. Still reason allowed us to know it exists even if we cant experience it directly.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2017 03:47 am
@layman,
layman wrote:

Quote:
The philosophical issue is, of course, not about 'colour' per se but about whether what we call 'reality' is a function of our species specific physiological limitations.


Are you simply re-stating Kant's observation that our "knowledge" is conditioned on our "categories of understanding" and that, therefore, we can never know the "thing in itself?"

Old news. But it doesn't lead one to your brand of total subjectivism and solipsism, as you seem to think, eh, Fresky?
We often disagree but credit where credit is due mate... Wink
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2017 01:56 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
What if in reality, we see all the colors differently, but end up calling it the same color? What if what I call blue is really a different color from what you see as blue? Is that possible?
centrox
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2017 02:12 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
What if in reality, we see all the colors differently, but end up calling it the same color? What if what I call blue is really a different color from what you see as blue? Is that possible?

Surely nobody knows (or can possibly know) whether one person's perception of e.g. "yellow" is identical to another person's. I tend towards the belief that the very question is meaningless.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2017 02:14 pm
@centrox,
Philosophy was my minor. Wink
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2017 02:27 pm
@centrox,
The key phrase which may be meeaningless is 'in reality'. A philosophical pragmatist would argue that 'reality' is 'that which we agree is functional in a particular context'. In short , there is no such thing as a reality independent of social agreement. But since 'agreement can be negotiated, or may be relative to specific social needs, then related concepts related to 'reality' like 'truth' can never be 'absolute' or permanent, no matter how psychologically attractive such a fixed foundation may be.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2017 03:21 pm
@cicerone imposter,
There are two possibilities:

Either we see very similar colors and we agree

Or we see distinct colors in a synchronized perfect correlation such that we agree in mistake.

Either way, we refer to a phenomena that is not just bound to mind.
Moreover "mind" can be just as deceiving as the color blind phenomena we refer to once experiencing is all we have. The picture of mind we perceive does not necessarily correspond to what is there.

Mind problems are a loop hole that eats itself up...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2017 03:41 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
To put it simply:

We use concepts about "mind" to dissolve concepts on "reality"...
Nonsensical...
There is no denying experiencing is real.
Why ?
Because it refers to everything. (Including denials)
As for any other concept (including mind) which is more specific all we can do is related to its usefulness. Its essence is abstract and transcendental.
Grounding the denial of Reality as an absolute in the absolute of a concept of mind is self-refuting and lacks internal consistency.
Bluntly, such process thinking immediately categorizes an inferior reasoning ability from those to which this argument seems appealing.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2017 03:54 pm
In sum:

To speak on relatives you need at least one absolute.
(I consider this an irrefutable maxim)
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2017 03:55 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
...now then...that freaking whatever Absolute there is, IS SCARY !
(an Abstract monster)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/24/2017 at 02:51:16