The REDNESS of red

Just for argument's sake, its worth noting this thread is in the Philosophy and Debate forum ... a circumstance from which one might reasonably infer that technical/physiologic approaches to the discussion topic, such as mine, miss the point Mr. Green

0 Replies

nonsense timber, philosophy and debate revolve around technicalities

0 Replies

Ahhh, yes, stuh ... they do revolve around technicalities. Philosophic debate consists of little beyond conjecture relating to technicalities ... but philosophical and epistemological techniclities far more than physical technicalities :wink:

Personally, I'm a "facts and figures" sort, fonder of "precision" than "perhaps". I happen to agree with the thrust of your "proof"; by physics and physiology, the preponderance of evidence supports the "all the same" contention overwhelmingly, and suffers no credible challenge. By Occam's Razor, the answer most congruent with the greatest number of observations and involving the least amount of conjecture has the highest probability of correctness. As regards the question driving this topic, there is no reason to suspect science gets it wrong. As regards the forum choice for the placement of the question, however, there is no reason to suspect science is the place to look for the answer :wink:

0 Replies

timber,

i specificaly did NOT go into a discussion of how our vision works scientificially, because althuogh this supposed we all see the same, it does not PROVE it...so i didnt even mentino it.

this is why i used a purely logical deductive proof, one where there is NO room for argument...that is the whole point of a deductive proof. if you find any possible way for the proof to be wrong, then the proof is not valid...but nobody has come up with any counterexamples yet.

0 Replies

I would submit, stuh, that the basis of your deductive proof lies in the science which supports your contention, science developed through inductive reasoning, or the practice of deriving conclusions through the consideration and correlation of observations. Don't chomp down too hard; that tail between your teeth is your own Twisted Evil

Inductively, I would say, judging from JLN's responses here, the question is not about what color in the absolute "is" to any individual, but more about what color in the abstract "does" to an individual. Of course, I should remember to be careful not to chomp too hard on my own tail Mr. Green

0 Replies

stuh; i would venture to point out that if an individual's perception of colour is 'displaced', then their appraisal of the primary colours, and the mixing of them would also be 'displaced' so reduction to that aspect of colour relationships as a proof is not universal.
[for example, i don't even spell the word colour, the same as most people here!]

one aspect of life, that it is important to come to terms with, is that 'nothing' is certain; you must be content to chose your 'universe', and reside in it.
That is why i am not enthusiastic about debate, and competition; they lead nowhere, and serve only to interfere with one's personal decision making process.

0 Replies

Now, BoGo ... a "displaced" perception would be subject to correction, either statistically or by actual physical remedial means, returning it to "The Norm". Even so much as employing the term "displacement" acknowledges a norm from which the displacement must be measured. Apart from which, a displacement of perception is by self definition abberant, a special case. How can it be said a special case makes the case?

0 Replies

As a displaced aberrant, i think i should be allowed to state my case; we'll just call it 'affirmative action'! Laughing

0 Replies

bogowo,

I anxiously await your formula to mix yellow from orange, brown, and purple....

0 Replies

it's rather simple; you drink a quart of orange juice; then add a quart of chocolate milk, and follow that down with a pound of purple grapes;

then look in a mirror, and you will appear rather "yellow"! Shocked

:wink:
[perhaps a little 'green' around the edges]

0 Replies

if any two people look at the color wheel and they see...

1) all colors seem to make a natural progression between hues, then we know that if these two people see any one color the same than they must see all colors the same

2) the three primary colors could be used to mix any of the other colors, then we know that they see all three primary colors the same

therefore, they see all colors the same.

nearly all people fulfull these 2 conditions.

i dont find your arguments "funny" i find it annoying that i have to keep re-explaining this

0 Replies

What if any two people look at the colour wheel and they see...

1) all colours don't seem to make a natural progression between hues;

then we wonder if these two people see any colour differently, must they see all colors differently?

2) the three primary colors couldn't be used to mix any of the other colors, then do we know that they see all three primary colors differently?

Your two people prove absolutely nothing; except, perhaps that assumptions lead nowhere.

"nearly all people fulfill these 2 conditions" according to what evidence?

i find your arguments "funny", but i am delighted to keep re-explaining this

0 Replies

if a person does not fulfull both of these requirements, then we can assume that they do not see all colors the same as someone who these conditions do apply to.

i think i have extremely good evidence that nearly all people fulfull both requirements. firstly, i have never heard of anyone saying "hey, aren't the primary colors supposed to be able to mix every color?" everyone seems to agree that red, yellow, and blue can be used to mix other colors. its in text books...so its obvious that this appears to be true for most people.

even if someone's vision is partially skewed towards a particular color (lets say red), I am assuming that they can still see every color. For instance, what would look a little bit green to us would look yellow to them. The only difference is it would be darker, but lightness darkness could adjust this to be exactly the same color.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

honestly what are you all discussing still, i already proved it...

Been away from this discussion for a while, and just came back to see this little gem. But seriously, I love it. Smile

0 Replies

SCoates perhaps I could point out to you another little gem from this thread:

Quote:

i would like to know how you disagree with my attempted proof because you keep disagreeing and then not pointing out any flaws. disagreeing is fine, but come on, if you're going to disagree show some respect and point out the specific reason why you disagree.

i would think that if you had a reason to disagree, you would state it instead of making sly insults without any evidence or counterexamples

0 Replies

Stuh, I think we all know that you are correct, in that we all generally see the same colors (by Thor, I HOPE everyone realizes you're right), but being correct does not mean you've proven your case. Subjectivity is a prune to prove. For example, if everyone sees the primary colors differently then they would see the mixtures of the colors differently, so it doesn't matter that they are defined as primary. Let me be more specific. How can you prove that my yellow is not your blue? Both colors satisfy the adjective "primary." And if I see a shifted spectrum BASED on shifted primary colors, then I don't think your "proof" works.

Again, I PRAY (for the sake of common sense) that everyone is just debating for fun.

0 Replies

And then there's this:

I know that when I see a deep red cherry today...

The red I see is not the same red I saw 20 years ago.

(I have no doubt it is the very same color. The same wavelenths of light are entering my eye.)

But I see it not quite as deep, not quite the same red. My mind translates that red just a bit differently.

Point: Over time, we don't even see the color precisely the same ourselves. How can we know if 2 different people see colors precisely the same?

0 Replies

Quote:

Stuh, I think we all know that you are correct, in that we all generally see the same colors (by Thor, I HOPE everyone realizes you're right), but being correct does not mean you've proven your case.

argh, you say that my point is correct, and then your next sentence shows that you have not the slightest idea what I am talking about...perhaps you agree with my conclusion, but you do not seem to understand WHY i have come to this conclusion.

Quote:

Subjectivity is a prune to prove. For example, if everyone sees the primary colors differently then they would see the mixtures of the colors differently, so it doesn't matter that they are defined as primary. Let me be more specific. How can you prove that my yellow is not your blue? Both colors satisfy the adjective "primary." And if I see a shifted spectrum BASED on shifted primary colors, then I don't think your "proof" works.

i must ask you to reread my posts because i have already talked about these specific issues in great detail.

the only possible way for 2 people to see different colors given the 2 preconditions i mentioend would be if their vision were shifted just enough so that each primary color looked like a different one. then my method wouldn't work. however, this is NOT ACTUALLY possible, because the primary colors are not evenly spaced apart in hue, you'll notice they do not divide the colorwheel into thirds.

0 Replies

Quote:

And then there's this:

I know that when I see a deep red cherry today...

The red I see is not the same red I saw 20 years ago.

(I have no doubt it is the very same color. The same wavelenths of light are entering my eye.)

But I see it not quite as deep, not quite the same red. My mind translates that red just a bit differently.

as i have already made clear, I am referring to color as what our brain interprets, NOT the wavelengths of light which are reflected and could be interpreteted differently...I am talking about the brain's INTERPRETATION of color.

Quote:

Point: Over time, we don't even see the color precisely the same ourselves. How can we know if 2 different people see colors precisely the same?

i dont know how i can make this any more clear, I have explained it 4 times already...

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Quote:
as i have already made clear, I am referring to color as what our brain interprets, NOT the wavelengths of light which are reflected and could be interpreteted differently...I am talking about the brain's INTERPRETATION of color.

Okay.

IMO, my brain interprets the same colors differently than it used to.
Over time, my interpretation of colors has changed. This is subtle, but it is there. So, this being the case, how could we ever say that 2 people "see" the same colors? I don't even see the same colors as me (former me).

0 Replies

The REDNESS of red

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know