Would you take it? — darthbarracuda

No. Because soon or later everything ends. This is not supposed to be a negative feeling but a motivational one. We are limited creatures who works against time. I guess this is why it is so worthy. When we already accepted we were born to die I guess we are ready to focus in beautiful things. I will never change this criteria for being immortal I think that even being immortal is quite selfish. Imagine how painful could be live permanently while your family and friends are there dying near you... I wish I never experienced this situation.

.

It seems to me that life is much more enjoyable and less burdensome when one is not afraid of when it may end. — darthbarracuda

Agreed. Good quote :100: :cheer:

Then you're probably definitely in Bill Gates territory. Unless you're taking the Russian one? — frank

Spain is developing one vaccine but sadly it is slower than the rest because our authorities don’t invest that much as other countries...

Thanks for participating in my thread! :100:

There is not only Astra Zeneca, there are more vaccines...

Does this mean what Einstein was talking about was really not space and time independent of perception? Absolutely. — Constance

Agreed :100:

Bill Gates helped fund the development of the vaccines. I guess that's where the theory comes from. — frank

We are not from the same country. My vaccines come from the European Union and it is paid by our taxes not by Bill Gates.

What about the notion that the vaccine is a tool for extracting money from the population? How suspicious are you? — frank

The vaccine comes from our taxes so I am not suspicious at all. I guess vaccines are important because it prevents us from dying of COVID... I would even reinforce the laws just to provide the right of vaccination to everyone

In my view, construing colour as subjective in nature is a product of the "subjectivism industry" that characterises most of philosophy, religion, politics, the humanities, literature, culture.

Interesting quote. I will check out more deeply this topic because it appears to be pretty cool.
We all are agree that somehow colours are built from a hard subjectivism or as you explained "subjectivism industry" point of view. Nevertheless, you also explained that:

Yet art exists, and could not exist unless it were assumed that perception were objective in character, and similar to subsequent observers. Art is impossible to explain if reality is subjectively constructed.

I guess it is not about impossibilities but how further our imagination can go when our eyes perceive the reality itself. This is why colours are an interesting topic inside philosophy not only physics. I respect of course, the spectrum of light we talked previously because is literally science explaining the development of colours when light is surpassing it, thus, the pure objective view.
Also, I defend that once we already understand how our reality works, I guess it is the turn of subjectivism because we humans tend to be so abstract too.
For example, imagine the rainbow, objectively we can say that is a curved band of different colours that appears in the sky when the sun shines through rain (Rainbow meaning )
But at the same time, we can philosophy about primary and secondary attributes too. So I guess in this point, colour depends on both: Pure objective and subjectivism.


[img]http://







It is interesting how violet goes directly in our eyes cones. John Locke was somehow right:smile:

Where am I? Who am I? How came I here? What is this thing called the world? What does this world mean? — Constance

At least you made the effort of making those questions. There are people than don't even care about what's going on around us and I think is even scary to be honest...
Trying to answer this philosophical questions in my own personal view I would say: I live in Spain but furthermore in a planet called "Earth" that is a big galaxy where thanks to randomness we the humans developed.
I don't know who I am but I know sometimes I dont like myself.
We came here because is our path and we have to do it. It is impossible just staying in home and do not do it nothig.
What the world means is upon us. First, as you perfectly said, time is one of the most tough enemies of humans, something that the Earth doesn't have. So we can start saying humans always put a lot of meaningful stuff.

As @Mww said, I don't have a good background about this topic neither... But somehow I see so interesting this premises/logic.

The general form of transcendental arguments is that X occurs only if Y; X occurs; hence, Y. The case Grayling has in mind seems to be that doubt can occur only within a system of believe; but doubts occur; hence there must be a system of belief in which to doubt. — Banno

It is a good example of how we can have beliefs on something though. It remembers me about syllogisms of Aristotle.
It remembers me about DARII, if the minor premise is affirmative (doubt occurs) then the major premise must be universal (hence there must be a system of belief in which to doubt)


It is so interesting. Thanks for sharing it I going to read it closer and focus more in the main OP

I might include the Tao Te Ching on my list too. — T Clark

I can't explain it but I already expected you would probably leave behind TTC too :up:

news' providers resulted in people being more ignorant than say 10 or 20 years ago? — Tim3003

I think yes because sadly our governments no longer invest in culture and knowledge development. We live in a junk culture and food era... nobody cares about thoughts, feelings, happiness, etc...
sometimes I think they want ignorant people just to reinforce their power

is, how does one apprehend the past? — Constance

Then, you perfectly said:

this is the existential crisis. — Constance

Time is one of the toughest challenges of human behaviour. We were born to die. Simple. Nevertheless, we the humans, are ready to fill this time making our lifespan worthy to live. I guess thinking so much about the past is not relatable because this is something we already live so we no longer need to remember this period. Also, past tend to be very dramatic and pessimistic because most of the times we don’t usually have good memories at all.
What the future holds is upon us. My opinion is trying to find something connected to happiness. This always been the main goal of humanity. We have to reinforce it.
We are lucky of speaking/debating about it because there are some people in this world that was born just with wars and violence so they do not have the right of think about future. I guess talking about time is like a privilege fortunately we can speak about.

some people on this forum will find the subject interesting; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_memory . — Don Wade

Thanks for sharing this article. It is so interesting. I will check out more about it. In my humble opinion, I guess when we talk about working memory is about the progress of our knowledge. Sometimes memoirist information is underrated but I defend it could be another example of increase the information we learned previously...
I am in a run where I have to study 350 law topics for just one hour so this is why this topic is important to me that I will read more about it.

Fruit undergoes a chemical change, that then eliminates different wavelengths of light reflected from its surface - that signals to the organism that the fruit is ripe and ready to eat. Colour is not subjective - nor made possible by nomenclature. It exists in reality, as is then described in increasingly literal terms. — counterpunch

Yes I did understand your point about evolutionary argument but somehow I stuck in Violet perception...
we are agree that obviously colours exist in reality, thus, are objectively patterns. But this situation goes forward in terms of vocabulary and words. As you explained, when the fruit eliminates some wavelengths, it shows us the fruit is going to be ready to eat. But this is literally a good example of how we interpreted this natural objective pattern. You say we name it in literal terms but previously we had to be taught basic vocabulary to do so or at least interpret abstract things in object which are around us. Thus, the colours.
I guess this is why John Locke referred Violet as imaginary colour, but no for not existing in realty but literally the opposite. This is why he criticises the color wheel, when obviously the reflection which surpasses upon our cones it is an interpretation that could make us mistaken from the truest object of colour.
So, despite that could be so poetic speak about “wine dark sea” it shows how humans are subjective inside the objective. Some are poetic like Homero, others are more specific and scientific and wants to explain colours themselves, as the truly form. I guess both interpretation are cool and respectable.
This is why I still defend physiological is also important in terms of colour :up:

[img]http://

When René Descartes said: cogito ergo sum he referred that if I have awareness, then I exist, doesn’t matter at all if everything around us cheat me or is lying to me. Our world could be a fantasy or created by pure interpretation of ourselves. This is the true essence I guess. The fact of doubting about external points but not about your own awareness.

Looking at the colour wheel (top) it does seem that the violet is blocked by the red but emphasised by the blue. — counterpunch

Interesting perception :100:

Otherwise - how could we explain the overwhelming uniformity of perceptions that we can speak meaningfully of a blue sky? — counterpunch

I guess this happens because of how we, the humans, always been tried of put an order or criteria. If most (not all) see the sea as blue due to the wavelengths from the sky, we established it as law of common reasoning because most of us literally see it that way. We cannot lead the people say it is “green” “white” or whatever because could be a chaos. Past thinkers used colours not only in art but as a way of showing how realty thus, physics, should work in our perceptions.
For example: you thought Violet is somehow emphasised by the blue, because this is how your eye told you. For me, as John Locke said, Violet is completely different pattern form the basics red/blue and this is why is important the cones of our eyes and how they interpret the reality itself.
Previously, this example was also shared:

so that a Greek will find it as natural
to call the sea ‘wine-looking’ as we to call it blue, and
a Roman will find it as natural to call a swan ‘scarlet’ —or the word we conventionally translate scarlet
— as we to call it white. It has been suggested that this
is because the Greeks and Romans were colour-blind.
But no sort of colour-blindness known to physiology
would account for the facts. In both languages there
are the rudiments of what we should call a true colour-
nomenclature ; and in both languages it happens
that there are words for red and green, the colours
that colour-blind persons cannot distinguish — An Essay On Metaphysics

your RGB monitor has three colors that are varied in intensity (and thus this diagram is only an approximation). An example of this can be found in the wiki SRGB article. — InPitzotl

Hello InPitzotl!
Thank you for answering in my thread. I will check it out this articles later on :up:

So, yes, we're trichromatic, but no, there aren't three primary colors... unless you pull tricks like CIE-1931 color space does, and make your primaries abstract. — InPitzotl

Understandable. But I think in the past these colours were primary because somehow you could mixed them and then getting another variants. I guess this is why some artists or thinkers thought the Color Wheel was “primary”.
In this point, it is interesting how John Locke, despite it was centuries ago, tried to criticise the primary colours because of the reflection of the eye. This is why he wrote about Violet and how our cones in the eyes see it, etc...
So, the study of the colours not necessarily are provided by the spectrum of light but from a physiological point of view.

Either way, color per se isn't so much about photons per se as it is about how human eyes measure them, so I wouldn't try to put too much stock into the "colors" (human-color-label-things) that aren't wavelengths. — InPitzotl

Yes! Colours are human-label-things but... what happens with colourblindness people? We teach to them they are wrong because they do not see the basic patterns as we do. Thus, supposedly, the primary colours... so who is wrong here in terms of how our eyes reflect the colours we see?

But the fact remains morality is demonstrably not made of it. And that applies to human laws too, I think. — Bartricks

Sure this is the most difficult aspect about morality. How can we prove it? Well it depends in the social context of this specific period of life. We can apply it to human laws but not as criticise but developing greater laws. I want to defend here that we can do it better and not depending about nature or God

Yes... but it could goes further than just a moral code. We can see it as a good tool to improve the security inside the State or between the citizens. Doesn’t matter at all if we say we have to respect each other because it is moral if we do not reinforce it. As Thomas Hobbes said Homo homini lupus... we have to be careful of each other and thus, reinforce the rule of law.

But unless a law says no more than 'do what is right and do not do what is wrong — Bartricks

Not necessarily. Law could be also useful of prevention. I understand your point that without laws immoral stuff as killing each other will still be immoral. Agree. But law goes further than this... the process of court, evidences, witnesses, etc... it is not easy as just believe in nature

Can rules of law be immoral?
Yes.
Therefore rules of law are not moral laws. — Bartricks

Interesting question. I think depends about history and circumstances. I am agree with you criteria that somehow law could be immoral. But I defend that the problem is not the law itself but the the totalitarian. These are the ones who sadly break the law. Nevertheless, rule of law is a necessity we have to improve

Morality is made of norms and values. A moral norm is a prescription or proscription. If an action is right then its being so is its being prescribed; if an action is wrong then it's being so is it's being proscribed. And if something is morally valuable, then it is morally good - these are equivalent statuses - and if something is morally devalued then it is morally bad. These are conceptual truths about morality and cannot seriously be disputed. — Bartricks

What about the concept of law by H.L.A Hart?

The Rule of Recognition, the rule by which any member of society may check to discover what the primary rules of the society are. In a simple society, Hart states, the recognition rule might only be what is written in a sacred book or what is said by a ruler. Hart claimed the concept of rule of recognition as an evolution from Hans Kelsen's "Grundnorm", or "basic norm".
The Rule of Change, the rule by which existing primary rules might be created, altered or deleted.
The Rule of Adjudication, the rule by which the society might determine when a rule has been violated and prescribe a remedy. Significance of Law.

I guess when you are speaking about God as mind which creates these laws is not fair. I want to believe more in ourselves and develop the rule of law because we can do it. We don’t necessarily depend in a subterfuge like God.

t (khak where kh is pronounced like the Spanish jota), — Olivier5

Yes I know! The concierge of my old school was called “Khalil” but we called him Jalil :smile:

It's interesting to compare our colour categories with those of other cultures. You might like this but I read recently: — Olivier5

I just read the text you shared with me. It was so interesting. Probably I would never name the sea as “wine-looking” until today instead of blue.
Sometimes I think that colours have been used somehow as laws or patterns just to make an order. I guess this happens to try not make a chaos. If we see yellow it is just yellow doesn’t matter the our philosophical debate. This is just secondary for some people but I guess is beautiful debating about colours and its significance for us

I think you might like this brief of John Locke related to colours too:

If we block a child in a room all of his childhood teaching him the green colour while is actually yellow. Will he name all of his life “green” when he would actually see yellow? In this topic John Locke answered this is a perfect empirical experiment so he put the following sentence:
What you are trying to say is that complex terms like colours are not innate because we can teach children to misunderstand mixing them. I guess this is the same example of fearness. You can feel the fear because previously someone taught you what is darkness, witches, demons, etc... — John Locke

we all see colours in exactly the same way generally, but this is probably an aspect which can be answered by neuroscientists. — Jack Cummins

To be honest with you I think not. All the pigments are so unique but at the same time different towards our perception. It is true I am not a neuroscientist but I think it is clear how interpretive they are. This is beautiful and I think this is why art is so abstract depending of the people’s eyes.

It is also questionable if black is an actual colour. — Jack Cummins

This is interesting. We can argue it couldn’t be a true colour due to light prism doesn’t pass through it. I think black is there just to eliminate or cancel the develop of colours. We can say it is important because creates the feeling of diaphanous. Also when black is used in paints more than other colours tend to make the paint another feeling: sadness, nihilism, uncertainty, injustice p, etc... are somehow represented by black.

Thought you'd like it. :smile: — Olivier5

I did Oliver! :up: :100:

Hello Oliver!

Thank you so much for sharing that example. I really like it. Fits completely what I was asking in the OP.

Khaki is another example of a composite color that does not feature in the light spectrum, — Olivier5

This is why is so interesting for sensations. Our eyes somehow, by the cones, receive the information of this colour but at the same time it doesn’t be part of the color wheel. so this why I guess we have to focus the attributes in a physiological path. But, I don’t want to criticise color wheel patters I guess it is important to at least put an order in terms of art.

In Iran and Afghanistan, where Persian is spoken, there aren't many trees and greenery, often, so khaki is the dominant colour in the environment, the colour of the earth around you, and it deserves a name.

Blue in Persian is "abi", the colour of water (ab or aw). — Olivier5

Probably Khaki is the primary colour in this specific zone of the Earth. It is interesting because it follows what I type previously about how important green due to nature, well better said, Khaki in Afganistán or Iran.

Again, thanks for sharing this example I will keep it in mind.

So not real enough? — bongo fury

It is real enough :cheer:

On this analogy, purple is like a musical chord. A light beam with more than one spectral peak in frequency. Real enough, then? — bongo fury

I understand your point and this metaphor you used is even beautiful in my opinion. It is literally like a musical chord. The light beam goes in the prism and then creates , as a frequency, the spectrum of light. Nevertheless, pointing out true purple or Violet, like you did, it is amazing how our eyes catch this reflection so I guess this is why is pure sensation or physiology because it creates an imaginary colour which is not related to the color wheel itself due to the lack of dependence for red and blue.
So... I guess we have also to focus in how light interferes in this shadows of colours.

I am totally interested in the physiology of imagination. Oliver Sacks is relevant for this topic I guess because of all his researches about in his book awakenings but I am not so specialised in his works yet.

Hello Jack!

I really like your answer and thanks for replying. I didn't think about art but you are right. This topic is important in this debate. It is interesting how you recommended to me focus more in the colour itself (pigments) rather than how looks like in the paper. It is true and I am somehow agree that we have to purify the attributes of objects as empiricists said back in the day.
Also, I guess it is important to point out why the primary colours are cyan, magenta and yellow. Nevertheless, it blows my mind why is not green too. I think this pigment is so important and it is the main color of photosynthesis in plants...
Colours, as you said, are an interesting topic about philosophy, art, physics, physiology, etc...

Verse IX

Getting a full glass, without nothing spilling out, is impossible. It would have been better not fill it.
Getting a sharp blade, without the edge dulling, is impossible. It would have been better not dull it.
Conserve a living room full of Gold and minerals, without been robbed, is impossible. It would have been better not control that wealth.
You cannot control an extreme for long term. Any apogee has their own decay. Like the men...
Anyone who is showing off their power or richness, is preparing his ruin.
The retirement from the apogee and reputation, is the way to the sky.

Another example of equilibrium/balance from TTC!

Research in my country says that about one third of the people believe in something. We call it 'somethingi — TaySan

Interesting! I will check out more information about it.

Interesting! Exactly as you remember is full of castles. Fun fact: Spain in the Middle Age was called “Castilla” which it comes from literally for the big number of castles built in the country :smile:
Here is another one I like:

It is called Buitrago de Lozoya.

[img]http://


[img]http://

It could be so random but I want to share with you friends this beautiful castle near in my hometown: Madrid.

The castle is called Manzanares el Real.

[img]http://

Yes. For example: The concept of time. When we are living a period of uncertainty we have nihilistic feelings or thoughts about what the future could holds. This symptom of vagueness make us feel so uncertain about us. Nevertheless, vagueness, itself, it is already absorbed previously by nihilism because this is the main premise or thought about uncertainty.

So, is vagueness itself a philosophy? — Don Wade

It could be but I guess vagueness can be absorbed by two big branches of philosophy: scepticism and nihilism because when we have vague thoughts sometimes depends in our uncertainty so vagueness, itself, could be more developed inside these two.

Why do we then, not support the extreme hatred of fat people, but support the extreme hatred of "Hitler" for example?

Is it because all the fat people claim, "It's wrong to hate fat people,". Is this the case? — Cobra

There are different concepts and situations. You cannot compare fatness with a dictator who was responsible for a World War and millions of deaths. Also, nobody teaches you to hate Hitler... their ideas are still there, someone doesn’t like it others support them.
If we want to remove obesity we have to promote healthy programs to avoid it not hating obese people because it is not healthy.

I would say perseverance. We all have that period in lifetime where we everything looks like impossible or against us. I think all of them who are strong enough to fight against the circumstances can conquer whatever they propose. For this reason, I guess perseverance is an important skill too