Strawberries are red, pixels are blue,
Indirect realism still isn't true — unenlightened
The illusion exploits a loophole in definitions of "red", which refer both to specific wavelengths of light and hues resembling those of blood/psychologically primary hues i.e. the definitions incorporate both non-cognitive and cognitive elements. — Baden
Strawberries are red, pixels are blue,
Indirect realism still isn't true. — unenlightened
Wrong. If I am looked at with red tinted sunglasses, I will look red, but I will not be red. — Sapientia
So I look at blue pixels and see red strawberries? — Michael
When I look at blue pixels I see that they are blue, that's how I know they are blue. — unenlightened
I don't know what a tetra-chromatic sees in these circumstances, but probably not something that isn't there, even if it's something I don't see.
I'm not saying I want to do the latter -- but if we perceive a whole, then the whole could be mind-independent and cause said perception, even while the constituent parts don't share its properties. — Moliere
That's added by our brain's processing. — Michael
Ah, the communal brain, what would we do without it? ;)
What is seeing? Is it something other than the brain's processing of the eye's sensation? Light does not enter the brain, therefore we see nothing. Does this make sense? — unenlightened
So I look at blue pixels and see red strawberries? Certainly does suggest that we can't reduce the objects of perception to the mind-independent things in front of us that causally explain the perception. — Michael
The blue pixels arranged in strawberry shapes are mind-independent things which conjoin with the act of perception in which hue adjustment takes place and that state of affairs just is the experience, the seeing, of red strawberries. (Didn't we do all this years ago?) — Baden
The object of perception is blue pixels arranged in strawberry shapes. You see red strawberries rather than blue ones because the act of seeing inheres that transformational aspect in this case. — Baden
The object of perception is blue pixels arranged in strawberry shapes. You see red strawberries rather than blue ones because the act of seeing inheres that transformational aspect in this case. — Baden
They're seeing the same thing in different ways.
Even the whole itself doesn't have all the properties we see it to have (the red hue). That's added by our brain's processing. As explained here, "You brain says, 'the light source that I'm viewing these strawberries under has some blue component to it, so I'm going to subtract that automatically from every pixel.' And when you take grey pixels and subtract out this blue bias, you end up with red." — Michael
Colors which set next to one another change the way said colors look. Similarly so with what surrounds some color. So it is with this picture. Why do you believe that the brain "adds" red to the strawberries? (and, for that matter, why doesn't the brain add gray? I imagine you believe that it does -- but then why is this picture different? What does it demonstrate?)
I tend to find "your brain did it" explanations of perception to be something of a black box -- only worse, because even the inputs aren't defined. (images? pixels? wavelengths? information?) The brain is clearly involved, but "your brain adds red to the image because of the blue surrounding it, like it always does in all environments with blue lighting to maintain the colors which objects are thought to have" just doesn't cut it for an explanation. It's no different from saying "red next to blue looks more red", but somehow a third actor -- the brain -- gets involved and does this. — Moliere
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.