A little more vivid, perhaps. You can discuss a punch in the nose all day long. I would argue that you learn something from being punched in the nose that cannot otherwise be learned. Do you argue against? — tim wood
You get used to it. I don't even see the code. All I see is blond, brunette, redhead. — Cypher
Red is 750 nm (wavelength of red light). It's (750 nm) what red actually is. The color red is what 750 is in eye language. We can translate red (750 nm) into sound, a note that has a frequency of 750 Hz and this can be done for the other senses too. — TheMadFool
Not in the same sense that we learn math. To say Mary learns anything we first need to broaden our concept of learning.Does Mary learn anything new when she actually sees red? — TheMadFool
Red happens to be quantifiable to that wavelength. But a quantity is not a quality. — Manuel
Not in the same sense that we learn math. If Mary does actually learn anything, we need to broaden our concept of learning. — Wheatley
Can your prove that?What is red? It's the eye's way of perceiving 750 (nm). — TheMadFool
Can your prove that? — Wheatley
A child knows what red is.How do we know red is 750 (nm)? Isn't that a bridge we've already crossed? — TheMadFool
What is red? It's the eye's way of perceiving 750 (nm). It's like a way of looking at something, a perspective if you will. The ears perceive of 750 (Hz) differently. Translations, back and forth, between languages (of the senses). — TheMadFool
A child knows what red is. — Wheatley
That's the wave length of red.
That's not the answer you get if you ask any person to point to you to something red.
If you ask a scientist, then they'll speak of wavelengths.
Red is the colour of blood, or certain apples or of fire hydrants. — Manuel
It's the eye's, child's or adult's, way of translating 750 (nm) for the brain. — TheMadFool
Are these two statements equivalent?red is 750 (nm — TheMadFool
Because it seems like describing red scientifically is different than perceiving red. The word "learning" is thrown into the conversation, and I think it's entirely unnecessary. :chin:Why do you ask? — TheMadFool
Because it seems like describing red scientifically is different that perceiving red. The word "learning" is thrown into the conversation and I don't know why. :chin: — Wheatley
Hmm.. I bet that's controversial and an oversimplification.The perception of red is merely the eye translating 750 (nm) for the brain. — TheMadFool
Hmm.. I bet that's controversial and an oversimplification. — Wheatley
If it were that simple we wouldn't be spending so much money researching consciousness. The reality is, we don't really know what perceiving "red" means. Not yet, at least.Explain why? — TheMadFool
If it were that simple we wouldn't be spending so much money researching consciousness. — Wheatley
A reason for what? — Wheatley
Hmm.. I bet that's controversial and an oversimplification.
— Wheatley
Explain why? — TheMadFool
How do you know? I don't trust the YouTube video.The perception of red is merely the eye translating 750 (nm) for the brain — TheMadFool
What about biology? How does my brain perceive red? — Wheatley
So physics and biology answer Mary's room. Brilliant. — Wheatley
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.