Does Color Exist Without Light

I don't. I am it. So are you.

You are all wasting your time. Go watch TV instead.

Val, did not Berkeley claim that our senses really do not tell us anything since it could all be false?

Whereas Hume noted that we must be careful in what our senses tell us, Berkeley thought that we don't know if what we sense is real?

Kant's philosophy suggests that while we also have to sense things in order to have knowledge, there is also a precondition inside us, that is our reason, and the "ability" to sense. This two conditions are necessary for anyone to have knowledge.

Cyracuz

What do you mean? You are the world like a rock or a lake?

Ray



Yes he did. The conditions that make experience possible are, in Kant's perspective, time and space.
But, Ray, I didn't say I accepted Berkeley's solipsism. I just said it was the logical conclusion of empiricism.
As I said I am not an empiricist.

Val, you asked me how I reach that world.

Yes, I am the world, like a rock or a lake. But not precicely. I am a much more complex creature than either, yet I am still the same. I have existence in this place same as the rock or the lake.

When you frame the question "how I we reach the world" there is an assumption there that the world ends where I begin, and that from there I have to take it into me. (At least, I see the assumption. I do not know if you think of it that way).

Anyway, we humans are in the world as much as the world is in us. We are not complete individuals totally detatched from everything. All our knowledge comes from the world, wether in the form of sensorial material or in the form of capacity for thought. This capacity is granted us by the total evolution. You might say it is the accumulated experience of the entire human race.

I believe that is what Kant talks about in the quote you wrote to Ray.
"...there is also a precondition inside us, that is our reason, and the "ability" to sense..."

As I understand it he is talking about humanity's accumulated experience.

When it comes to Kant's copernican twist, that the frames of our perception are attributes of us rather than the world, I must say that I feel this is only half the truth. They are part of us AND the world, and since we have grown from mud to men and women, all the while in this world, our senses have grown too, in order to adapt us better to the environment. We haven't always been able to percieve four dimensions, but the world has had them and more all along.

I agree with that. We are in the world. But not passive. We interact with things, and part of that interaction is in us, not in things.

I agree. I am not saying that we are empty shells mirroring whatever is around us. But we are made up of the same material as everything else, so our activity is in a way an extension of the worlds activity. It is evolution raised up to a new level. By way of humans nature now has a way of percieveing itself. It has also moved on to become something spiritual, intentions can be known to it now, through us. The fact that I am the one thinking the thought, or anyone else for that matter, does not negate the fact that it is still evolution, same as everything else.

So in a way, we are the stones that see.

So, I think you are right in saying that part of the interaction is in us. But that doesn't mean it is not of the world, since we are of the world.

Okay then.

Quotes from Cryacuz:

"By way of humans nature now has a way of percieveing itself. It has also moved on to become something spiritual, intentions can be known to it now, through us. "

"So, I think you are right in saying that part of the interaction is in us. But that doesn't mean it is not of the world, since we are of the world."

"Yes, I am the world, like a rock or a lake. But not precicely. I am a much more complex creature than either, yet I am still the same."

Cyracuz, I GREATLY appreciate your understanding.

JLN

Quotes from Cryacuz:

"By way of humans nature now has a way of percieveing itself. It has also moved on to become something spiritual, intentions can be known to it now, through us. "

"So, I think you are right in saying that part of the interaction is in us. But that doesn't mean it is not of the world, since we are of the world."

"Yes, I am the world, like a rock or a lake. But not precicely. I am a much more complex creature than either, yet I am still the same."

Cyracuz, I GREATLY appreciate your understanding.

JLN

I guess it was worth repeating.

Thank you JLNobody.
But you should know that you play a great part in that as well. I have learned much reading your posts, and thought of things I might not have considered had you not brought them up. So the appreciation is mutual.

This type stuff really interest me, how can I learn more about this type of info? Is this physics? Or would this be medical(sight)? Thanks for your insight and knowledge. Hopefully one day I will be able to pass it along, after a lifetime of study. [email protected]

To extend this question; do blind people see color?

Colour only exists when seen, once colour refers to that that the eyes can see...now if you ask me if wave lengths of light can cause the seeing of colour when eyes and brains are there naturally I agree, but not because brains are special...you could forgo the specificity of the subject at hand and make a more fundamental question, meanwhile forget observers altogether as they come as a distraction, mind this, what is it that makes X + X become Y or 1+ 1 become 2 ? Certainly it is not my will as I amaze at it...

Is the experience of the color red just the word "red", if hearing or reading that word causes a patch of red to appear in one's visual imagination? Why would this topic even need to be asked? That is, is this evidence that everyone in the world except me experiences dreams that are always in Black and White? Is everyone except me incapable of imagining, while awake, a visual scene that is at least based on something other than grayscale? When did eyes become equipped with fiber-optic cables for allowing the visible light spectrum to pass directly to the brain without having to instead be converted to electrochemical impulses? The situation is more akin to a video camera than a film camera.

What would be better to ask instead is "Can color be manifested without electromagnetism?" since that's the force available in one's skull for binding scattered neural activity together at such a macroscopic level, or enabling it to begin with. The visible range of light is merely a small part of the varied array of EM occurrences and properties, including the electricity a computer must rely on. Develop a conventional computer that has phenomenal experiences and you're definitely backed into a corner in regard to what is dynamically occupying the complex relational framework that said computer's manifestations of images, sounds, odors, etc, are supervening on or correlating to.

Yes precisely because the experience of red is not direct, and "seeing" red results of this electrochemical conversion done in the brain that the subsequent question on how phenomena come about emerges as they are the result of complex causal inner and outer interactions...I am not at all certain that people already born blind can dream images less alone colour, although it is true that you don't need a direct exposure to light to experience colour...

My best possible question on this regard and going far beyond electromagnetism and other isms alike would be on trying to understand how is it that a pile of data, a coupling of what is best described as geometrical mathematical patterns results in any experience we have...on mathematics itself how come there is any correspondence between "events" ?