The REDNESS of red

stuh505 wrote:

yes, it is certainly possible to have an impairment that causes this...but i am not talking about impairments.

stuh505 wrote:

of course it is possible to be borne with an impairment. i was talking about a normal healthy human...there will always be exceptions.

stuh505 wrote:

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

i am only talking about people who satisfy these 2 things. if you see colors differently than you used to, then to some slight degree, you must not quite satisfy condition #2

0 Replies

I apologize, I did skip some reading. I shouldn't have thrown that part in. Accept the other points as you will. I think it will be hard for you to convince anyone, no matter how hard you try. I've noticed a lot of points brought up that probably made you hit yourself in the head, and felt empathy for you... I find it ironic that I then contributed to your annoyance. Smile

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

stuh505 wrote:
yes, it is certainly possible to have an impairment that causes this...but i am not talking about impairments.

stuh505 wrote:
of course it is possible to be borne with an impairment. i was talking about a normal healthy human...there will always be exceptions.

stuh505 wrote:
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

i am only talking about people who satisfy these 2 things. if you see colors differently than you used to, then to some slight degree, you must not quite satisfy condition #2

Stuh,

I can see where you are going with this.

But, respectfully, as others have mentioned, in my mind, you have not "proven" that we see the same colors. Yes, we could both look at a color wheel, and I could agree with you that the hues on the color wheel are gradually changing, agree on the primary colors, etc.

Your assumption #1 above does not work. Just because we agree the hues are gradually changing doesn't mean we see the SAME hues.

Who is to say ALL of the hues in my mind are not simply a shift on the color wheel from what you see? Just because we both see gradually changing hues doesn't prove that we see the same hues.

I have no doubt you have proven this to yourself, in your mind.

But why is it that a group of us have a problem with your proof? We're all a little stupid and not able to follow your genius mind?

Or could it be you need to re-work the proof to enable us underlings to truly see?

Or, another possibility: your proof doesn't work.

I say this respectfully.

I have read a lot of your posts on other threads, and you come off as quite intellgent and logical. But, I must say: in my mind your proof on this one is not airtight. You might be right that we all see the same colors. But you have not proved it.

Have you ever taken Geometry classes or other mathematics classes where you must prove a theorem? It is one of the the most difficult tasks to do. Any little flaw in any part of the proof destroys the entire proof.

0 Replies

Oooo!!! Fight! Fight! Fight!

0 Replies

Why do we all have favorite colors?

I submit this:

If I say Blue is my favorite color.

And you say you hate blue, Green is your favorite color. But I hate Green.

I submit that the 2 of us actually "See" a bit of a different color, when we view Blue and Green.

Our brains are not simply a lense hooked up to a a light meter. A lot of things going on in there which "color" colors.

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

Oooo!!! Fight! Fight! Fight!

Thats right! Must.... not.... lose.... the color debate!

And you! Is the face of your avatar person peach or green? I say peach, my friend says green. Laughing

0 Replies

It's pink.... because I'm lovable. Duh.

0 Replies

extra medium wrote:

Why do we all have favorite colors?

I submit this:

If I say Blue is my favorite color.

And you say you hate blue, Green is your favorite color. But I hate Green.

I submit that the 2 of us actually "See" a bit of a different color, when we view Blue and Green.

Our brains are not simply a lense hooked up to a a light meter. A lot of things going on in there which "color" colors.

White is my favorite color.

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

White is my favorite color.

This is getting so tiring.

I already proved Blue is the Best color. Because it is my favorite. See above.

Read. Listen. Learn. Laughing

0 Replies

OOOH!!! I was just doing the first two.

0 Replies

I agree with JLNobody and others.

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.

And has been pointed out already, (dualistically speaking), each individual brain ?'creates its interpretation of color from the incoming photons which are always different. What is actually seen/experienced as color is an on going mentally constructed phenomena, and particular to each brain. So we cannot use the words, ?'same', ?'identical', or ?'exactly the same' as stuh505 keeps doing. We do not see the ?'same' color as an object, because color is not objective, is not shared.

And as fresco has said, we cannot even use the word ?'same' in reference to 'one' observer as mental phenomena are transient, impermanent, and are being created, constructed from moment to moment.

No two (or more) objects, colors, people, events, mental events, experiences, phenomena etc. are the same or identical in relation to material composition, and the space and time they occupy. Every observable ?'thing' changes from moment to moment. Every observation is different. The universe of (seemingly) observable things is in constant flux, a samsaric wave.

?'Same' is an illusion.

As a concept the word ?'same' is used for practical everyday purposes. To claim that two or more things, events, experiences are identical or the ?'same' in a philosophy forum is naïve.

And this is all ?'up stream' from the discussion of primary colors.

Why it is that we all appear to experience similar colors cannot be explained by material dualism. Nor can it be explained, or demonstrated or proven how the (so called) material phenomenon of light becomes a mental phenomena. There is a ?'gap' in the jump from the material to the mental, to experience, that I doubt can ever be crossed, because it does not exist, i.e. it is a false problem, Smile

I.e. If color (and all other percepts) is a mental construct then it follows that no ?'material' has ever been encountered. That a physical world exists is a belief not knowledge.

We are all each alone in our own awareness but most, most of the time do not recognize this. All the reports of experiences of others are ?'your' experiences, that is, the uttered reports are your experiences.

0 Replies

Quote:

I can see where you are going with this.

But, respectfully, as others have mentioned, in my mind, you have not "proven" that we see the same colors. Yes, we could both look at a color wheel, and I could agree with you that the hues on the color wheel are gradually changing, agree on the primary colors, etc.

Your assumption #1 above does not work. Just because we agree the hues are gradually changing doesn't mean we see the SAME hues.

what the hell are you talking about? the first assumption has nothign to do with people seeing the same hues...

Quote:

Who is to say ALL of the hues in my mind are not simply a shift on the color wheel from what you see? Just because we both see gradually changing hues doesn't prove that we see the same hues.

yeah...this was PART OF my proof...

Quote:

I have no doubt you have proven this to yourself, in your mind.

But why is it that a group of us have a problem with your proof? We're all a little stupid and not able to follow your genius mind?

Or could it be you need to re-work the proof to enable us underlings to truly see?

it is certainly possible that I have erred in my proof...which is exactly WHY i am so frustrated that NONE of you seem to understand the proof enough to analyze it for any flaws...

Quote:

Have you ever taken Geometry classes or other mathematics classes where you must prove a theorem? It is one of the the most difficult tasks to do. Any little flaw in any part of the proof destroys the entire proof.

have i taken geometry? chuckle...i have taken up through calculus 4. discrete math is where you find proofs though.

0 Replies

Ok, I tried rearranging the order, does it make more sense written like this?

1) The primary colors (red, yellow, and blue) are capable of mixing all other colors in the spectrum. If these colors are shifted, they can no longer be used to mix all other colors.

2) Most people accept that the primary colors do appear to be capable of mixing the other colors of the spectrum. Therefore, their mind's interpreation of these colors is the same (If someone's interpretation of color is slightly different, it might still appear that the colors are capable of mixing when they are not precisely...so we cannot be perfectly accurate but we can be close).

3) If a person can look at the color wheel and not see any repeat colors, and all of the colors seem to have a natural progression of hues, then any possible alterations to their color interpretation from the average person must be a uniform shift with more or less of any combination of the primary colors red blue green. In other words, if one color appeared slightly more red, all colors would appear slightly more red to that person.

4) Since the primary colors are not shifted, and all colors must be shifted if any are shifted, then none of their colors are shifted.

5) We KNOW that people's brains can malfunction and their interpretion of color can change, or be different at birth, or some colors might not be represented or might be seen as repeats, or no color vision might be visisble at all...but as long as they can satisfy the few conditions above, we can then say that those people see colors the same

0 Replies

To add to the notion of sameness. There is a saying that "there are no identities in nature." But we do form categories in which we assume all the items belonging to the category (the elements of a set) are FORMALLY the same, but not actually identical. We assume an equivalency of elements. This is necessary for formal thinking. When we exercise our logic it is always about classes of things, conditions and events. We do not think so much about the formal relations between unique concrete events; our scientific assertions, for example, about the relationships between classes of formally equivalent things, conditions and events. Our assertions are matters of principle, not fact in the sense of concrete events. Now we also assume that the principles derived from formal thought (empirical or rational) subsume concrete events. We say of a concrete relationship, "Oh that's an example of.such and such a "covering law". (Hemple).

0 Replies

JLN

The only notion of "sameness" which makes sense to me is "functional equivalence".

As an aside to this I might have already related the anecdote about the "khaki" lining material I used to sell to clothing factories at one time. When viewed under e.g. fluorescent light lining and outer cloth may move "apart" or "together" in hue. So the factory owner who complained about "the match" would either be taken out to view in daylight, or would be told "but the shop customer buys this in fluorescent light" (whichever would close my sale !) Such is the nature of functionality.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

............1) The (actual, not perceived)primary colors (red, yellow, and blue) are capable of mixing all other colors in the spectrum. If these (actual, not perceived) colors are shifted, they can no longer be used to (mechanically, not mentally) mix all other colors.

2) Most people accept that the primary colors do appear to be capable of mixing the other colors of the spectrum. Therefore, their mind's enterpretation of these colors is the same (If someone's interpretation of color is slightly different, it might still appear that the colors are capable of mixing when they are not precisely... so we cannot be perfectly accurate but we can be close).

Most people on this planet are neither aware of the existence of a colour wheel, or the fact that the colours are a blend of electromagnetic signals from a mixture of primary colours blending in the eye to create a signal along the optic nerve creating the 'message' of a certain colour interpreted in the brain; a complicated process, which at any point could (probably does) vary in any subject.

stuh505 wrote:

3) If a person can look at the color wheel and not see any repeat colors, and all of the colors seem to have a natural progression of hues, then any possible alterations to their color interpretation from the average person must be a uniform shift with more or less of any combination of the primary colors red blue green. In other words, if one color appeared slightly more red, all colors would appear slightly more red to that person.

4) Since the primary colors are not shifted, and all colors must be shifted if any are shifted, (not necessarily at all!) then none of their colors are shifted.

5) We KNOW that people's brains can malfunction and their interpretion of color can change, or be different at birth, or some colors might not be represented or might be seen as repeats, or no color vision might be visisble at all...but as long as they can satisfy the few conditions above, we can then say that those people see colors the same

what you are doing here stuh, is presenting a 'religious' proof for colour sensation; all your supposedly logical positions, and claims are based upon nothing but your 'faith' in the fact that you alone understand the truth, and it should be evident to all others, by induction!

Totally not worthy of you, in light of your usual status here!

0 Replies

I think I may have made a mistaken assumption: that you cannot mix any shifted color using the shifted primary colors.

0 Replies

very few assumptions, made by anyone (including me, can you imagine)! are not mistaken. :wink:

0 Replies

I'm still not sure if the assumption is wrong or not...but it is key.

0 Replies

BoGoWo and Stuh, it seems to me that an assumption may be an arbitrary PRE-supposition to begin a line of argument or inquiry OR it may be an already "established" proposition that has the function of an assumption, because it is used to begin another line of inquiry. But if we go back far enough we will acknowledge that all thought rests ultimately on unstated or tacit metaphysical presumptions. In the sense that these are assumed, consciously or not, they are "wrong" in that they are arbitrary cultural fabrications. But that does not mean that they are in fact wrong; it just means that we do not know that they are right.

Yes, Fresco. There may be no identities in nature, but in addition to the FORMAL (i.e., artificial) equivalencies I mentioned above, there are functional equivalents. These are only "the same" in terms of their use value. Their actual differences are, in the famous words of the pragmatist, differences that--for the purpose at hand--make no difference.

0 Replies

The REDNESS of red

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know