You don't see them — Metaphysician Undercover
isn't it objective fact that seeing is interpretation? — Metaphysician Undercover
The strawberries therefore appear red and we can even explain why but they aren't red. — Benkei
"the desert appeared to have an oasis and we even know why but there wasn't an oasis." — Benkei
I'm willing to say: "oops, I was wrong to interpret that as red" and you continue to maintain it's red.
By that token the sun still revolves around the earth and the illusionary oasis is really there. The latter with deadly consequences. — Benkei
No, because that only tells us the wavelength of the light that is emitted/reflected by the object; it doesn't tell us anything about the object's appearance, and when I talk about the strawberries being red, I'm talking about their appearance. — Michael
Would it really make any sense if there were an object that no one saw as being red but some scientist told us was actually red? — Hanover
What would we then call that object that looked red but actually wasn't? — Hanover
Let us suppose we live in a color blind community and we see blue where the non-color blind see red. We are later informed by the outside community that there is this red color we didn't know about and what we've been calling blue often isn't blue, but it's red. I would suggest that as long as the outsiders remain outside our community, we will correctly be calling all such objects blue, despite that they're really not. — Hanover
I think you make a similar error: looks red, we call it red, so it is red. But it isn't. — Chief Owl Sapientia
You criticise others for what you claim is an equivocation, yet, once again, you do a similar thing by equating the meaning of "appearance" and "being". — Chief Owl Sapientia
I think you make a similar error: looks red, we call it red, so it is red. But it isn't. — Chief Owl Sapientia
Again, your criticism only works if the "red" in "it appears red" means/refers to the same thing as the red in "it isn't red". But you haven't provided an account of what this meaning/referent is. If, to use Benkei's suggestion, it means/refers to light with a particular wavelength, then the claim "it appears red" doesn't work, because when I say "I see red strawberries" I'm not saying anything about light of a particular wavelength (either explicitly or implicitly). — Michael
There's no distinction between something appearing tasting when I eat it and that something being tasty, so your continued assertion that appearance and reality are necessarily distinct doesn't work. There can be a distinction, but it isn't a given. In some cases, that thing being X just is that the perception of that thing has quality X. — Michael
It's still gray though, which you'll see by zooming in. We don't even need instruments to establish the mistake. — Benkei
The distinction is necessary to speak clearly and truthfully. Your use of language is common but misleading. To get to the truth of the matter, it is better to discuss things more clearly. This is metaphysics, not casual discourse. More precision is required. If you really want to talk about being, then you should make this important distinction. It's fine to say that a Big Mac is tasty in the context of McDonald's, but this discussion is not between two people having a casual chit chat in McDonald's, it is a serious discussion about the metaphysics of perception on a philosophy forum. — Chief Owl Sapientia
I am trying to be precise. — Michael
I'm trying to bring to light the fact that the thing referred to by "red" in "it appears red" is a property of appearances only. It doesn't refer to light, or an object's disposition to reflect light a certain way, or any other perception-independent thing. So if the "red" in "it is/isn't red" also refers to this appearance-property then it must be that appearing red and being red are the same thing. — Michael
Or if you want to insist that being red and appearing red are different things then it must be that the "red" in "it is/isn't red" refers to something other than what the "red" in "it appears red" refers to, so it would be a non sequitur to claim that the red-appearance is an error. — Michael
Can you just zoom in on the pixel? — Benkei
Sure. So how about you get the image into paint and zoom in on that apparent red pixel until that pixel fills your screen. Then get back to me with which colour it has.
EDIT: I'd like to point out that the colour of that faux-red pixel doesn't change because of the surrounding blue, we are not "mixing" them in our perception. We're quite capable of seeing individual pixels at these resolution (1080p, just stick your nose in the screen).
The blue merely influences how we perceive it due to false signal it gives us that we ought to white balance the image for outdoor circumstances. Then our brains filter out blue from the grey, which makes the grey appear red. Taking a closer look (literally!) shows the error. — Benkei
No. Hence my argument, which you seem to evade. — jkop
If you consider that the coin consists of atoms and molecules, then ask yourself why do you see it as the presence of a single, coloured, shape, instead of individual molecules, or atoms. Interpretation is inherent within seeing.
I don't think you see the atoms and molecules...
The argument should be obvious: we don't see the atoms and molechules of a coin, so there is nothing to interpret as a coin prior seeing its coloured shape. Therefore, seeing precedes interpretation. — jkop
If I understand correctly, it is not the case that there are red pixels in the composition, there are none, and that prompts the claim that there is no red in the picture. However, I understand that there are grey pixels, and the grey pixels are composed of some red. So it is not really the case that there is no red wavelength in the picture, there is, but it is hidden within the grey. When our brains filter out the blue, as you suggest, if this is really what is happening, then the blue within the grey is also being filtered out, and this brings out the red in the grey.
You admit above, that there is grey in the picture. What wavelength do you think the grey is if there is no red in it? — Metaphysician Undercover
Since we know that it exists as molecules, and as atoms, then these are real possibilities, alternative ways, for how it could be sensed — Metaphysician Undercover
The principle surely is that our interpretation via sensory perception of external stimuli must by definition inescapably involve an interplay between such stimuli and our internal neural processes and so by reduction must necessarily be subjective. If the neural process by which distinct individuals perceive a given external stimuli - ‘colour’ in this example – happen to be similar then, in terms of their resulting experience, they will share a similar interpretation and so be able to attain to a consistent (and thereby utilitarian) agreement concerning the nature of their interpretation. If however there happens to exist between individuals some relative discrepancy regarding the neural processes relevant to the interpretation of some particular external stimuli then no such agreement of interpretation will be possible.
The term, ‘Colour Blind’, for example, surely then serves merely to refer to such an interpretational discrepancy as it exists on the one hand between a numerically dominant group happening to possess a similar relevant neural process and, on the other, a minority group happening to be characterised by differing neural processes – and thus can have no meaning objectively, other than, owing to neuralogical annomalies, perhaps meaning that in practice the sub-group may be characterised by a lack of consistency of interpretation even on an individual basis.
Of course however, regarding elements as they exist intrinsically, say for example the number of molecules that comprise the table laid before us - as opposed to our perception of its' shape which must in the case of any given observer derive from the sense of perspective produced by the location of the orbits in the scull – these do represent a set of values unrelated to the neural processes of the observer and so constitute an objective reality.
-The same argument of course applies generally to our perception of all external stimuli. — Robert Lockhart
How could the projection of an oval that you see be just an alternative way for how it could be seen? — jkop
-Ah yes, that!...Well, on reading it again, I think in retrospect that I have in fact answered the question - that it's all essentially a subjective matter and therefore just an arbitrary question of utility as to how we arrange a consistent agreement regarding our assignment of colour value, or any other sensorially perceived entity for that matter - important in practice but in principle inconsequential and, paradoxically, nothing to do with objective reality! The wave length of the light reflected by an object is an objective value. The colour of that light as this is perceived by any given observer results from an interplay between that objective value and the neural network of the particular observer's brain and accordingly is a subjective experience which will vary as the neural network of the particular observer varies. - Can't say much more! — Robert Lockhart
Instead of sensing the coin as one oval shaped object, it could be sensed as many individual molecules. — Metaphysician Undercover
You don't see them. — Metaphysician Undercover
Experience is subjective, not interpretation. What could be subjective about the use of public words?our interpretation via sensory perception of external stimuli must by definition inescapably involve an interplay between such stimuli and our internal neural processes and so by reduction must necessarily be subjective. — Robert Lockhart
. . you don't see the individual molecules, because your sensing system is interpreting what's there as one object. . . — Metaphysician Undercover
Clearly there are individual molecules, which could be sensed, but we didn't develop the means to do this. So our eyes interpret things in that particular way. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.