I think that you can and should say more, but not more of the same. That would save me the trouble of trying to work out the implications of what you've said. Some of us here think that the depicted strawberries are grey, and some of us here think that the depicted strawberries are red. What colour do you think that they are? And what do you think about what we think? Is the former group right and the latter group wrong, or is the latter group right and the former group wrong, or are both right, or are neither right? If your answer is implicit in what you've said, I think you should make it explicit.
When you look at the picture what you see is red. When you pull a pixel out what you see is grey-green. But since the picture is not the pixel it doesn't make much sense to say that the picture is really grey-green. — Moliere
The metal has a light-reflecting surface with recognizable properties. So we see a silver oval, because that's what there is for us to see, and which we then can interpret as a coin. — jkop
I would say that the picture is made of pixels, but to say that the picture simply is the pixels isn't quite right. For one, there is the arrangement of the pixels which makes the picture. So even in a very reduced sense you have to account for that, too.
But then, I'd say that The Starry Night is not just paint on canvas. The Starry Night is one particular painting made by one particular artist which regularly hangs in the Museum of Modern Art. It's more appropriate to just look at The Starry Night and describe how you feel and think when looking at it, and add to that various historical facts about The Starry Night and say that this what the painting is than to say it is this particular grouping of pigments on a canvas.
Granted, this image isn't a unique object in the same sense that The Starry Night is, so there may be room for making a distinction. I'm just trying to elucidate how I think about images and why, in general, I'd say they are different than what they are made up of. Our experience and perception of an image is sort of bound up in what said image is, if not entirely. — Moliere
elucidate how I think about images and why, in general, I'd say they are different than what they are made up of. Our experience and perception of an image is sort of bound up in what said image is, if not entirely. — Moliere
What does it mean to say [1] that an image is different from what it is made up of, and [2] that experience and perception are bound up in what an image is made of? Where does that leave the image we see? It makes no sense to me. — jkop
My problem with this approach is that the spectrometer doesn't see red. The spectrometer absorbs photons and spits out some data based upon this measurement. But the ruler doesn't feel length, even though it does basically the same thing at a much better accuracy and precision than our visual intuitions are able to pinpoint.
Defining 'red' as between this and that wavelength implicitly relies upon what we already call and see red. We just happened to draw a line somewhere based upon the colors we already perceive. We could just as easily say that the strawberries don't look red because they don't have this very particular wavelength of light which we happen to associate with red -- but that misses the point entirely.
When you look at the picture what you see is red. When you pull a pixel out what you see is grey-green. But since the picture is not the pixel it doesn't make much sense to say that the picture is really grey-green. — Moliere
Here grey is included as part of a picture that causes us to white balance it causing the grey to appear red. Nothing happened to the grey that it all of a sudden became red. It's the surrounding teal that causes us to perceive it as red. — Benkei
Yep. It seems that some people want to include our perception in the object that we're talking about, but under scrutiny that makes no sense, and that kind of talk is misleading. What makes sense is the distinction between perception and object, and between what it is to appear and to be. — Sapientia
1.Why must the perception of an object's colour and the [actual] object's colour be the same? Or, why can't I say the grey in that picture appears red to me? By insisting I cannot say this, are you saying I'm lying? — Benkei
2. Why shouldn't I incorporate what we scientifically know about "red" into the definition of "red"? — Benkei
3. Why shouldn't I apply a descriptive definition to "red" to my experience? — Benkei
4. Is this just a matter of definition/semantics? If I define red as what I experience as red unless it turns out that a spectrometer tells me it isn't because it does not have an emphasis of wavelengths between x and y, then by definition the strawberries aren't red. — Benkei
5. What is red? (e.g. what's your definition). — Benkei
Scientifically speaking, the world is without color or smell, except for creatures who see color and smell odors. Color is a secondary property, not a primary one, qua Locke. — Marchesk
Fair enough. How does the fact that we've imported primary qualities into the definition of secondary qualities affect this distinction? — Benkei
Fair enough. How does the fact that we've imported primary qualities into the definition of secondary qualities affect this distinction? — Benkei
Indeed the spectrometer doesn't see red, it measures wavelengths.
...
We don't have a problem trusting a ruler over our own sense of distance but somehow colour is an issue for some. — Benkei
Here grey is included as part of a picture that causes us to white balance it causing the grey to appear red. Nothing happened to the grey that it all of a sudden became red. It's the surrounding teal that causes us to perceive it as red. — Benkei
The colour of the object is perspective dependent. From one perspective it is points of different colours, but from another perspective, it is mixed wavelengths. — Metaphysician Undercover
How can we objectively say what color something is if it's relative to how we're viewing it, and the kind of visual system we possess? — Marchesk
We can do so in accordance with an objective categorisation of colour. If it is so-and-so, then it is red. You just reject this categorisation, as it seems you must in order to conclude that objects do not have colour and that colour isn't real. — Sapientia
You can do so if anti-realism is fine with you. Also, science "paints" a rather colorless picture. Afterall, where is the color? Is it in the photon? Does that get transferred to the electrical signal travelling to your visual cortex? — Marchesk
If the strawberry tastes sweet, then objectively, it's sweet, right? — Marchesk
I agree, but not to the extent that the strawberries in the picture are red, if that is what you're suggesting, or if that is what you conclude from this. I don't see how the arrangement of the pixels makes anything we've referred to thus far red, whether the pixels, the pixels in a certain arrangement, the strawberries, or the picture. — Sapientia
Unless you mean something other than what I mean when I talk about the picture. The strawberries appear red under certain circumstances, but I don't see how the circumstances would make the strawberries red. If what I see is red, it seems to me that it must be something else that I see. Perhaps some kind of distinction would be helpful here, like that between what I see and what I perceive: I see grey pixels in a certain arrangement, under certain circumstances, and I perceive them as an image of red strawberries.
What does it mean to say [1] that an image is different from what it is made up of, and [2] that experience and perception are bound up in what an image is made of? Where does that leave the image we see? It makes no sense to me. — jkop
Indeed the spectrometer doesn't see red, it measures wavelengths. I don't see this as a problem. What's the problem that this implicitly relies on what we call red? — Benkei
To get back to my example of the banana. The yellow of the banana does not change from one second to the next and I know this when I put it on the dark blue blanket. I will still experience the yellow as more vibrant and bright. Following your line of thinking the banana got more vibrant and bright yellow. But we know nothing about the banana changed.
Here grey is included as part of a picture that causes us to white balance it causing the grey to appear red. Nothing happened to the grey that it all of a sudden became red. It's the surrounding teal that causes us to perceive it as red.
So, yes, I'm suggesting the image of strawberries in the original picture are red. — Moliere
Seems to me that this is the same distinction as appearance vs. reality. But I think that this distinction rests on a compositional fallacy. The tiny bits of things are not what a whole is -- what a whole is or what properties it has can have different properties or even be different than what composes said whole. — Moliere
No atoms are alive. Therefore, nothing made of atoms is alive.
All cells are aquatic. All organisms are composed of cells. Therefore, all organisms are aquatic.
If someone stands up out of their seat at a cricket match, they can see better. Therefore, if everyone stands up, they can all see better.
And we can see this is so because we can look at both the picture and the pixel in isolation. — Moliere
In this case, the quality pertains to both parts and whole. — Sapientia
I suppose I would say the way we determine what color quality something has is we look at it -- full stop. — Moliere
I don't think there's a more accurate method, such as designating wavelengths of light, since the designation of the wavelengths depends upon what we perceive in the first place. — Moliere
By what means would you say the gray quality -- or perhaps we could say "not-red", if we don't get too picky about what we mean by 'quality' ? -- applies to both the parts and the whole? — Moliere
Maybe I'm just dense, but it seems to me that the argument is that since the pixels are gray the image of the strawberries are gray. No? — 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.