The REDNESS of red

JLNobody wrote:

Nolanguage, do you agree with Nagel? What would you call a person who argues that there is no such thing as Truth itself, a nihilist, a mad man? This person may be arguing that human nature is able to develop the notion of Truth, but not to understand Reality on its own terms. Nagel's Skeptic only holds that we have technical limitations, that the skeptic's problem is methodological, not epistemological.

I don't truly agree with all of Nagel's points, however Relative's topic the redness of red is discussed by Nagel and many other philosophers. It's also similar to his "what's it like to be a bat" theory. Nagel was pointing out that there's the inability to reconcile subjective and objective points of view. And that is what Relative "did when he was 9 years old", and he "did it" with exactly the same example as many philosophers used. The "redness" of red. And yes I think Nagel's point is dismissable, I am not a fan of slipping in to the annoying realms of arguing solipsism. I am a materialist in the crude sence of the word.
:wink:

0 Replies

wow that is really weird... same with me, one eye sees things in a redder, warmer tones, and the other sees in bluer, cooler tones...
my left eye is the 'warm tone' one.

0 Replies

Tiaha wrote:

wow that is really weird... same with me, one eye sees things in a redder, warmer tones, and the other sees in bluer, cooler tones...
my left eye is the 'warm tone' one.

Hey! my left eye is the warm tone too! My right is like twilight-ish colour,and my left is like sunsett-ish colour.

0 Replies

1- We all can agree the on the colorwheel that opposite colors appear opposite from each other.

2- We are programmed to respond to red and yellow because in nature they are seen as warning colors. We all feel similar emotions when looking at similar colors. People can come to general conclusions about what colors look good together, or what colors look good on a person. Thus, for at least the bright colors, we see them the same.

----
Therefore, we see all colors the same.

0 Replies

Stuh, I see a logical non-sequitur in you argument. Don't you?

0 Replies

Yeah, the eye thing seems to be pretty common. My left eye also sees colours to be "warmer". Would be interested to hear if anyone actually has eyes that don't. From observation, it seems that my left eye sees more red and the right more blue, kind of like 3-D glasses.

Umm, stuh505? Well, er, did we develop to react to brightly coloured things or did things develop to display bright colours because of the way we reacted to them?

0 Replies

Quote:

Umm, stuh505? Well, er, did we develop to react to brightly coloured things or did things develop to display bright colours because of the way we reacted to them?

nice chicken and egg Razz

but it works either way for my point

JL, you dont see the logic? if we know that we can see the relationship between color values, then we only need to prove that ANY 1 color is seen the same to prove all of them are seen the same. if you have a problem with one of my premesis that is another thing but the logic is sound.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

1- We all can agree the on the colorwheel that opposite colors appear opposite from each other.

2- We are programmed to respond to red and yellow because in nature they are seen as warning colors. We all feel similar emotions when looking at similar colors. People can come to general conclusions about what colors look good together, or what colors look good on a person. Thus, for at least the bright colors, we see them the same.

----
Therefore, we see all colors the same.

i agree with your 'logic' behind the colour 'theory'; but the actual colours - the way the specific wavelengths of light produce a signal that is interpreted by the brain - is completely 'subjective'.
Therefore we will not be able to prove that different people do, or do not see colours differently, until we can 'plug into' our individual brains, and thus compare the readouts (even if they differ from the 'actual', we will be able to notice a 'difference, if one is present).
[and the fact that some people are colour blind, indicates, strongly to me, that there are fairly sizable differences in how individual brain/eye combinations 'translate' colour.]

0 Replies

That's it, BoGoWo. I was waiting for Stuh to see that himself. The whole question was the epistemological one of how we can objectively demonstrate the nature of others' subjective experience. The age-old philosophical Problem of Other Minds.

0 Replies

its an alright ques. i like the fact that you ques. things. but color is an illusion, life is an illusion, everything is made up of atoms right? color does not exits as you prob. know, the color red absorbs every color but red. and there is no way of reading minds to the extent of seeing the exact color you're seeing, all relative to your upbringing first off and most importantly everybrain is different even if there are levels of stimulation on your brain and two of you got tested and you were at the exact same stimulative level it still wouldn't mean that the color let say red that you see would necessarily match the red he sees, we all differ in what we find stimulating. does that make sense.

it kind of reminded me though of the ques. 'if a tree fell and know one heard it is there a noise, now i don't know why that ques. went beyond the first person who thought of it because its obvious that you do, i can't even comprehend how that ques is still a ques. but i like your ques. because it did require some sort of thinking.

0 Replies

When Dlowan and Fortune report that their two eyes provide slightly different color experiences when looking at the same stimulant this strongly suggests the fallacy of a rigidly positivistic/objectivist position. I take an interactionist, and fictionally/heuristicallly dualist, position when trying to "explain" the phenomenon of visual experience. I require both the objective stimulant (i.e, the wavelength pattern and the optical neurology) and the phenomenological dimension of actual experience. Ultimately, they are facets of a unitary Realty, but they must be analytical distinguished for intellectual explanatory purposes.

0 Replies

I think that when attempting to describe the relationships between the inner experiences of separate individuals, one must take a heuristic approach. I mean, you can explain down to the very minutiae the similarities/differences between people's biological responses to stimulation, but this does not necessarily equate to the way they feel about things.

About the warning colours thing? I was kind of pecking around the edges of an idea stimulated by your statement that, due to evolution, we are 'programmed' to respond a certain way to certain colours. I haven't fully formed an argument either way yet but if anyone would like to give their views on the matter it might help shed some light on the issue at hand. Cool

0 Replies

nn wrote:

it kind of reminded me though of the ques. 'if a tree fell and know one heard it is there a noise, now i don't know why that ques. went beyond the first person who thought of it because its obvious that you do, i can't even comprehend how that ques is still a ques. but i like your ques. because it did require some sort of thinking.

BTW, this question relates to whether or not a thing exists if it is not percieved. It supposes that no one can answer the question as observation would negate the experiment. See?

0 Replies

When nn asks if in the absence of human ears a falling tree will make a sound. We find our solution by paraphrasing the question: If a tree falls and there is no one to hear, do the airwaves created by the landing tree result in the experience of the sound of a falling tree? Of course not. Everything (e.g., a falling and landing tree and airwaves produced by the percussion of the landing) is present but a human hearing mechanism, the sine qua non of a hearing experience--which is what I understand by "sound".

0 Replies

Yeah, but the question was asked before people had knowledge of sound and vibrations. Of course the answer is obvious if you take the question at it's most literal, we know now that sound is merely vibrations and that the sense of hearing is the caused by those vibrations striking our eardrums. The point of the question is that scince no one was there to hear it, did it exist?

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

When nn asks if in the absence of human ears a falling tree will make a sound. We find our solution by paraphrasing the question: If a tree falls and there is no one to hear, do the airwaves created by the landing tree result in the experience of the sound of a falling tree? Of course not. Everything (e.g., a falling and landing tree and airwaves produced by the percussion of the landing) is present but a human hearing mechanism, the sine qua non of a hearing experience--which is what I understand by "sound".

It depends if you expand the human definition of sound (the hearing experience) to the animals that are "experiencing" the vibrations. And if you think that they consciously can experience sound as well.

So, I guess if a deaf person were present, at the action, then there would be no sound (according to the popular definition of sound). But the definition of sound experience is a whole other ball game.
... Deaf people have a vivid definition of sound as vibration. so... then it would be sound, but not heard sound. It would be experienced "sound".

0 Replies

Yer all missin' the dang point!

The question is NOT about "does a tree falling in the woods create vibrations which can be classified as sound"! The question is "If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there (animal or otherwise) to hear it, does it make a sound?" Not soundwaves or vibrations or anything like that.

This is not a question of physics people!

It is an example! An analogy! Whatever! It's all about not being able to prove something for which you have no evidence! If you can't see it, can't touch it, can't hear it, can't smell it, or in any other way sense it, how can you say that you know it exists?

Didn't anybody here ever see the Matrix?

0 Replies

first i would like to welcome nn and fortune to a2k; it looks like your comments will definitely add to the 'wisdom' of our dissertations.

fortune wrote:

.........About the warning colours thing? I was kind of pecking around the edges of an idea stimulated by your statement that, due to evolution, we are 'programmed' to respond a certain way to certain colours. I haven't fully formed an argument either way yet but if anyone would like to give their views on the matter it might help shed some light on the issue at hand.

you imply design here (programmed) where i would credit survival experience (cause and effect) and in this instance the actual details of the nature of the 'colour' are unimportant.

JLNobody wrote:

When nn asks if in the absence of human ears a falling tree will make a sound. We find our solution by paraphrasing the question: If a tree falls and there is no one to hear, do the airwaves created by the landing tree result in the experience of the sound of a falling tree? Of course not. Everything (e.g., a falling and landing tree and airwaves produced by the percussion of the landing) is present but a human hearing mechanism, the sine qua non of a hearing experience--which is what I understand by "sound".

i disagree; i think Berkley meant that all phenomena exist only for the experience of humanity, and therefore, only exist in the experiential field of an 'experiencer'. A rather foolish concept, totally anthropocentric, and tied to the historical timeframe, and religious 'bent' of the author.
Your take, however is more meaningful, but i feel you are simply stating the obvious, where Berkley's question was no better than 'mystical'.

0 Replies

Sound is a function/interpretation of a tympanic membrane. If there is no tympanic membrane/brain present there is no sound.

And to counter the dualist bend, there is no tree, forest, acoustic vibrations or any other observable (in and of themselves) if observables are a function, dependent on an observer; if the observer and observed cannot be separated, are one and the same. I think, in a sense sound hears itself. In a sense objects are self aware.

0 Replies

fortune wrote:

Yer all missin' the dang point!

The question is NOT about "does a tree falling in the woods create vibrations which can be classified as sound"! The question is "If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there (animal or otherwise) to hear it, does it make a sound?" Not soundwaves or vibrations or anything like that.

This is not a question of physics people!

It is an example! An analogy! Whatever! It's all about not being able to prove something for which you have no evidence! If you can't see it, can't touch it, can't hear it, can't smell it, or in any other way sense it, how can you say that you know it exists?

Didn't anybody here ever see the Matrix?

Just playin on the definition of sound man. Sound is a definition of a particular experience with an explination by physics. and yes, if no entity was there to experience that experience, would there be an experience? Hell, no! but there would be the physics behind the experience. However, since sound is the definition of the experience, one could produce a thought experiment in which the definition could stretch. which is what a deaf person would experience as sound. vibrations. So if a deaf person were there, yes there would be "sound".
aside, ...Ever read Unweaving the rainbow by Dawkins? :wink:

0 Replies

The REDNESS of red

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know