"Visual percepts" is again hollow. It means the patient discerned shapes. "Visual percepts" is hypostatisation. — Banno
That sometimes one person sees blue where the other sees gold does not change this. — Banno
The words "white and gold" and "blue and black" are referring to both, the light being emitted by the dress and perceived by the viewer. — creativesoul
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". — Banno
'Red' refers to an object's disposition to cause certain colour experiences. — jkop
There is a group of views about color, which come under one or all of the labels, Color Irrealism, Color Eliminativism, Color Fictionalism. These titles are a little misleading, since some theorists also talk of there being colors in the sense of being dispositions to cause experiences of a characteristic type, and/or being (attributes in/of) sensations. Following our earlier discussion, in section 1.2, we may take it that what the color-Eliminativist is denying is that material objects and lights have colors of a certain kind: colors that we ordinarily and unreflectingly take the bodies to have.
...
Color Primitivist Realism is the view that there are in nature colors, as ordinarily understood, i.e., colors are simple intrinsic, non-relational, non-reducible, qualitative properties. They are qualitative features of the sort that stand in the characteristic relations of similarity and difference that mark the colors; they are not micro-structural properties or reflectances, or anything of the sort.
He or she is saying that since this uncertainty exists, we have to conclude that color experiences are unique to each individual. — frank
it stands to reason that our colour experiences are broadly similar in most cases. — Michael
I don't understand what you mean. Is there a "standard" pain? A "standard" pleasure? A "standard" sour taste? — Michael
That depends on what you mean by know. If you mean certainty, then sure; we can't know what each person is experiencing. If you mean a true, justified belief, then we might know what each person is experiencing, e.g. if their experiences are in fact similar to our own. — Michael
If it's 1, then color language can refer to both subjective and objective accounts. — frank
I haven't denied this. I've only argued that our ordinary, everyday understanding of colours is an understanding of colour experiences, not an understanding of atoms absorbing and re-emitting various wavelengths of light, and that our ordinary, everyday use of colour words refers to these colour experiences. — Michael
How do we perceive a fire’s propensity to cause pain? By putting our hand in the fire and being hurt. In the case of colour, we look at the pen and see red. — Michael
I think it’s a little more than an assumption. Perhaps it’s the most rationally justified explanation. — Michael
Except that the concept of a mind independent chair is incoherent. The only thing I know about chairs are its subjectively imposed properties, and so I have no idea what a true chair is.I think it’s justified to claim that mind-independent chairs exist but that mind-independent pain doesn’t, and most would agree. — Michael
If you're going open the door to questioning inherent beliefs, then why arbitrarily limit it? — Hanover
The word "experiences" refers to experiences, so why can't the word "colours" refer to a subset of experiences? — Michael
And again, the use of the nouns "white", "gold", "black", and "blue" in the sentence "some see white and gold, others black and blue" when describing the photo of the dress is referring to differences in colour experiences, not differences in the computer screen's micro-structural properties or light emissions.
Do you agree or disagree? — Michael
Ugh... the "some see white, others see black" is philosophical spaghetti. — frank
Atoms are mind-independent objects with mind-independent properties; their electrons absorb and re-emit various wavelengths of light, this light stimulates the rods and cones in the eyes, the eyes send signals to the brain, the neurons in the visual cortex are activated, giving rise to visual percepts, including colour percepts. — Michael
We think of colour as being a fundamental property of objects in life: green trees, blue sky, red apples. But that’s not how it works.
“What colour is not is part of our world,” says neuroscientist Beau Lotto. “Every colour that people see is actually inside their head … and the stimulus of colour, of course, is light.”
As light pours down on us from the sun, or from a lightbulb in our home, objects and surfaces absorb some wavelengths of light and reflect others. “The ones that are reflected then land onto our retina,” says Lotto. There, those reflected wavelengths are transformed into electrical signals to be interpreted by our brain.
So we don’t really “see” colour, but reflected light, as interpreted in our brain. “It’s a useful perception of our world, but it’s not an accurate perception of our world,” says Lotto.
Your argument seems to be that if I claim that colours are mind-dependent then to be consistent I must claim that everything is mind-dependent. This is nonsensical reasoning. You might as well argue that if I claim that pain is mind-dependent then to be consistent I must claim that everything is mind-dependent. — Michael
I didn't enter this discussion to question scientific realism and argue for idealism or solipsism or nihilism. I am simply explaining what the science shows. I trust the science. — Michael
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.