↪Pattern-chaser
Pattern-chaser said: "Redness is being used to describe the human experience of seeing something that is red."
In this statement lies the crux of the issue: At one and the same time you imply that "something is red" (i.e. the something I might see in the world around me) and on the other that the experience (of seeing something that is red) is red. Presumably you are using "red" in two distinct senses here... — jkg20
1) Having a mental image of a red snooker ball.
2) Having a dream of a red snooker ball.
3) Seeing a red snooker ball.
I am in no way shape or form denying that such phenomena as these exist: people engage in mental imagery, people dream and people see. The specific assumption (and an assumption is all that it is at the moment) I am bringing into the spotlight and challenging is that those three phenomena share a common factor over and above the bare fact that they are about a red snooker ball. You and Pattern-chaser appear to believe that there is such a common factor, but have provided no arguments for agreeing with you. — jkg20
↪Pattern-chaser
Pattern-chaser said: "I've been trying to understand this sub-thread by adopting the (scientific) perspective of an objectivist philosopher."
That is the source of your confusion I think - the scientific perspective you are trying to adopt is incoherent. It requires on the one hand that red actually be a visible surface property of objects in the world that provide the basis for all empirical evidence (how would a world of colourless objects provide us with any visual evidence for any scientific hypothesis?) and on the other that red is only a feature of electromagnetic radiation (and thus something that is not a visible feature of surfaces of objects). — jkg20
The points you make about human beings having a metaphorical use for the word "red" may well be true, but when I make a purely visual observation that a snooker ball is red, I'm not being metaphorical, and I am not talking about the frequency of electromagnetic radiation either. — jkg20
I think @jkg20's point is that whilst you might disagree with it, neither you nor Steve Klinko have given an argument that he/she is wrong about this. We might be able to get an argument on the basis of @jkg20's reply to my last question about whether he thinks there is representation going on in the case of veridical vision, but we'll have to wait and see. Just saying that it is wrong and that physics proves it won't cut the mustard because as far as I understand it, @jkg20's position is that modern physics is contaminated by conceptual confusion about what colour is and so proves nothing.Ah. <light-bulb emoji> You are trying to make the point that colour is a property of an object out there in the world, and not a consequence of looking at that object with human eyes. With that I must disagree.
But when you observe that something is red, you are talking about the frequency of electromagnetic radiation.
Ah. <light-bulb emoji> You are trying to make the point that colour is a property of an object out there in the world, and not a consequence of looking at that object with human eyes. With that I must disagree. Red does not exist in the Physical Universe. That which gives rise to red being seen by a human definitely does exist in the real world. I believe that beauty (or red, in this case :wink:) is in the eye of the beholder; you believe it is part of the thing you are looking at. It would've been easier if you'd just said that. :up: :grin: — Pattern-chaser
↪Pattern-chaser
I think jkg20's point is that whilst you might disagree with it, neither you nor Steve Klinko have given an argument that he/she is wrong about this. We might be able to get an argument on the basis of @jkg20's reply to my last question about whether he thinks there is representation going on in the case of veridical vision, but we'll have to wait and see. Just saying that it is wrong and that physics proves it won't cut the mustard because as far as I understand it, @jkg20's position is that modern physics is contaminated by conceptual confusion about what colour is and so proves nothing. — MetaphysicsNow
@Pattern-chaser You talk about the "world out there" - how do you think you arrived at that concept other than seeing things "out there", and how would you see things out there if they did not have colour? A colourless world cannot be compared to a blank screen. — jkg20
When I genuinely see a red snooker ball, there is an instantiation of the property red right out there in the world - consitutive of the visible surface of the snooker ball - and I see that instantiation of red. — jkg20
electromagnetic radiation is only derivately coloured — jkg20
And if I say, "Yes, red would remain in the absence of human beings" what is your argument to prove me wrong?The first and most obvious response that occurs to me is: if all humans are completely removed from the Physical Universe, does 'red' remain? I.e. is 'red' human-independent? It doesn't seem so to me.
An instantiation is created dynamically, which would seem to support the notion of 'red' being a human thing, existing only in human minds
Yes, because red derives from humans and the way we see and perceive things.
insofar as so-called visible light is electromagnetic radiation, nobody sees light. The so-called visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum is based on the idea that when we see colour on the surface of an object, it is because that surface is reflecting electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength falling within a certain band. [...] Electromagnetic radiation - if it exists as anything other than a theoretical device - exists only in the spaces between us and the things we see. — jkg20
you would still owe me an argument to show that red nevertheless is a human-dependent property. — jkg20
It depends what you mean by that question. Are you asking me whether I am a metaphysical realist about photons? If that is the question then the answer is "no". However, even if I were a metaphysical realist about photons and I accepted that they played a causal role in seeing things in the world, it would not be relevant to the issue since the things that one ends up seeing under that causal account could still be instances of redness out there on the surface of objects - nothing other than those surfaces need be red.So you do not accept that photons impinging on a human retina give rise to seeing things? :chin:
Not really - right from the beginning my use of the word "red" corresponds precisely to the way it is used by the position known as direct realism in the philosophy of perception, and direct realism is supposed to be the default position of common sense - nothing particularly sophisticated or clever about that.you have been much cleverer than I first thought. You have crafted an alternative definition for "red" that defines it as an intrinsic property of objects out there in the real world.
you have been much cleverer than I first thought. You have crafted an alternative definition for "red" that defines it as an intrinsic property of objects out there in the real world. — Pattern-chaser
Not really - right from the beginning my use of the word "red" corresponds precisely to the way it is used by the position known as direct realism — jkg20
You have changed the word to suit your needs. Unless I change it back to suit mine, we have reached an impasse. — Pattern-chaser
My experience of a Red snooker ball, or any Red object, in a Dream is that it is just as Red as my experience of Red in awake Consciousness. You might be someone that does not Dream in color in which case the Redness of things in your Dreams might seem less than in awake Consciousness. If I try to remember what the Red looked like after Dreaming I can not produce in my Mind a photographic reconstruction of the Dream experience. But it is also true that if I try to remember any Red experiences that I might have had while awake I can not produce a photographic reconstruction of the awake experience.The vividness of the Redness is just as intense whether Dreaming or Awake, for me. So it seems clear that the process that produces the Red in the two different cases must be the same.You still have to convince your opponent that in cases (1) or (2) that there is any occurent instance of redness that a person is aware of when a person has a mental image of a red snooker ball or dreams about a red snooker ball. In both cases the person imagining/dreaming might be thought of as representing the existence of a red snooker ball, but representation of a red snooker ball can be accomplished without the vehicle of representation actually being red. After all, I can represent a red snooker ball with the words "red snooker ball" but those words are not red. In case (3), of course, there very definitely is an occurent instance of redness of which the person is aware and it is the redness of the very snooker ball that the person sees.
From this kind of perspective you are just inventing pseudo problems. — jkg20
But the direct realist usage conforms precisely to the main dictionary definition under which (in the example given on the link you gave) lips are red... — jkg20
The definition you use for "red" is unusual, and does not include many or most of the shades of meaning used by humans when they say "red". — Pattern-chaser
Humans are part of the physical universe, so this suggests redness (that thing we perceive and contemplate) is part of the physical world. — Relativist
(2) the human physical capacity to see, and remember, this aspect of physical objects
I assume you're claiming there to be something about #2 that is non-physical. Is that correct? — Relativist
The definition you use for "red" is unusual, and does not include many or most of the shades of meaning used by humans when they say "red". — Pattern-chaser
My view is broader, and tries to embrace all of the meanings that humans conventionally use "red" for. — Pattern-chaser
But this is precisely the claim that needs arguing for, not assuming. You are telling a story about vision that may or may not lead to a hard problem, but you have provided no argument that your account of vision that leads to that problem is correct - including, by the way, the pretty brute realism that underlies it.There never is any kind of Seeing in the sense that we think we understand it. There is always only Detection.
Again, just assumptions. What if I insist that in the one case what is produced is the seeing of something red and in the other the mere representation of something red? In that case the processes are different.So it seems clear that the process that produces the Red in the two different cases must be the same.
↪SteveKlinko
There never is any kind of Seeing in the sense that we think we understand it. There is always only Detection.
But this is precisely the claim that needs arguing for, not assuming. You are telling a story about vision that may or may not lead to a hard problem, but you have provided no argument that your account of vision that leads to that problem is correct - including, by the way, the pretty brute realism that underlies it.
So it seems clear that the process that produces the Red in the two different cases must be the same.
Again, just assumptions. What if I insist that in the one case what is produced is the seeing of something red and in the other the mere representation of something red? In that case the processes are different. — jkg20
Choose any Color that you want to study. People with colorblindness can think about the shade of White. Pick a Sound to study. Take the Standard A Tone.↪Pattern-chaser "Red" is perhaps giving too much leeway to veer off the metaphysical point that Klinko is trying to hammer home. Let's go with "cadmium orange" instead. — jkg20
And what about my observation that "red" is as ambiguous as most English words, and your approach ignores all but one of its possible meanings?
so I ignore those other uses — jkg20
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.