None of which is to deny the physics of colour. The scientistic view that "there is no colour in the world" is inept, failing to recognise that humans create and maintain a shared world of language and belief. — Banno
Imagine we discover an unknown tribe of humans from some remote island. [...] — Richard B
The mental phenomena is not the cause of us seeing the colors of the fruit, the cause is the addition of the contact lenses. — Richard B
The colours in the photograph are susceptible to blend and interfere with changing light conditions on different screens and environments where the photo is displayed. Basically we don't just see the colours of the dress, but a blend of its colours with the colours from different environments or screens, and that's why different observers tend to see different colours. — jkop
That's plainly false. Red paint really reflects wavelengths of 700 nm, and to experience it as red is to have a veridical experience of it (unlike experiencing 700 nm as gray (if colorblind) or as any colour, sound, smell etc. (if hallucinating). — jkop
Six months later, Michale is still here to argue that he is most probably a Boltzmann brain — Banno
When one has an experience, it is an experience of something. When there is no "something", it's an hallucination. — Banno
Experience refers to conscious events in general, more specifically to perceptions, or to the practical knowledge and familiarity that is produced by these processes. Understood as a conscious event in the widest sense, experience involves a subject to which various items are presented. In this sense, seeing a yellow bird on a branch presents the subject with the objects "bird" and "branch", the relation between them and the property "yellow". Unreal items may be included as well, which happens when experiencing hallucinations or dreams.
When I look at the photo of the dress and describe its colours as white and gold, the words “white” and “gold” are referring to colour percepts, not the pixels on the screen emitting certain wavelengths of light
So questions about perception are best first addressed in ecological terms. What is a “mind” even for?
If there is anything “philosophical” left unaddressed after that, at least the discussion will be usefully focused. And not another re-run of idealism vs realism. — apokrisis
We look at the same distal object (the pixels on the screen), our eyes react to the same proximal stimulus (the light), and yet we see different colours. — Michael
Banno, I think I see what you are saying. :grimace: *inserts Lionino's image of the dur dur dur emoji*So, yes, apparently brains can generate experiences in the vacuum of space. All that is required is the appropriate neural activity, regardless of what causes and maintains it. — Michael
When one has an experience, it is an experience of something. When there is no "something", it's an hallucination. — Banno
This one :point: :flower: the flower and the onlooker are both a part of (or "in") the world, by "being-in-the-world" (see Heidegger, "What is Called Thinking" A Translation of Was Heisst Denken by Fred D. Wieck and J. Glenn Gray) our experience interacting with flowers in our environment through our bodies sensory organs and/or a shared use of language or gestures that was "taken in" during the experience or interaction. By using both our vision and basic language in a shared world with another, we are asserting and verifying, THAT flower over there is the most vibrant red in the whole garden of roses.Hmm... So, there's the experience (the perception, qualia), the perceived (the fruit), and whatever is involved in the interaction (including the contact lenses). Could "mental phenomena" and "seeing the colors" be deflated, so they're the same thing? Or, well, for the mental phenomena to occur in this case, we'd first have to see with our eyes, right?
Could we say that the rose and the car have the property of being red since they can elicit/cause that (format of) experience/perception to most onlookers under common circumstances?
The experience/perception isn't "in the" rose, it's part of the onlooker when occurring. And the rose isn't part of (or "in") the onlooker. What "red" are we talking about anyway? :) — jorndoe
Hm, lion...nino...What is that, little lion boy? — Kizzy
You had to reduplicate the -n- there to make the joke work. But not too far anyway. — Lionino
Your explanation of what causes variations in colour perception is not relevant to the claim I am making. — Michael
Perhaps. If you want a word for both experiences and hallucinations you might try "sensation" or "impression". That way we can usefully distinguish between experiencing things in the world and sensations with no such connection. I supose it suits your purpose not to do so.You seem to be using "experience" to mean "veridical experience". You're welcome to, but that's not what is meant when discussing Boltzmann brains. — Michael
Then why is it contentious?The Boltzmann brain thought experiment shows that such a scenario is both coherent and consistent with current scientific theories. — Michael
The presumption is that "gold" is a noun, therefore there must be something for it to refer to. But there are all sorts of nouns that refer to multiple things, or do not refer at all. "Mental percept" here is quite empty - "the thing referred to by a colour word". There are colour words, and colours, because we can use them to pick out to each other different things around us. That sometimes one person sees blue where the other sees gold does not change this.When looking at the photo of the dress, some see white and gold, some black and blue. This is a fact. What are the words "white", "gold", "black", and "blue" referring to in that sentence?
I say mental percepts. — Michael
Yep.The nouns "white" and "gold" in the preceding sentence do not refer to the screen's "disposition" to emit the wavelengths of light typically associated with white and gold... — Michael
Nah. When someone says the dress is blue, that is a statement about the dress, not about their mind....they refer to the types of mental percepts that I have and that those who see black and blue don't have. — Michael
"Visual percepts" is again hollow. It means the patient discerned shapes. "Visual percepts" is hypostatisation.It's not even a philosophical issue; it's a scientific issue. And the neuroscience shows us that visual percepts exist when there is neural activity in the visual cortex. — Michael
I don't think there is any disagreement here concerning the neurobiology of perception. The issue is:Somehow the neurobiology of perception has gone missing here. — apokrisis
That's a question about the way the word "red" is used.Does the color “red” exist outside of the subjective mind that conceptually designates the concept of “red?” — Mp202020
That's a question about the way the word "red" is used. — Banno
Seems a little unwoke and culturally oppressive for you. — apokrisis
Maybe quote the rest of the sentence:
When I look at the photo of the dress and describe its colours as white and gold, the words “white” and “gold” are referring to colour percepts, not the pixels on the screen emitting certain wavelengths of light
Do you agree or disagree with this? — Michael
When looking at the photo of the dress, some see white and gold, some black and blue. This is a fact. What are the words "white", "gold", "black", and "blue" referring to in that sentence?
I say mental percepts. — Michael
Yep. Folk assume that colour words must refer, and that there must be a thing to which they refer, then get themselves all befuddled inventing things for them to refer to - "mental percepts" or "frequencies".I say claiming that colours are "mental percepts" confines the scope to inside the brain. — creativesoul
This one :point: :flower: the flower and the onlooker are both a part of (or "in") the world, by "being-in-the-world" (see Heidegger, [...] — Kizzy
Thanks for the long response, which I will take as you thinking out loud. So many good questions, I'm not going to approach them all. There's a bunch of words relating to these topics. Consider also illusion, delusion, misapprehension, dream, see, perceive, glimpse, notice, and so on. Each with a particular take on what might be happening.Banno, I think I see what you are saying. — Kizzy
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.