Fair enough, but that sound less like philosophy and more just basic neuroscience and physics. — Hanover
To quote Bertrand Russell "naive realism leads to physics, and physics, if true, shows that naive realism is false". — Michael
If we've established an unreliability of the mind as to how it correlates with reality, I just don't see how you can call an end to that unreliability at a certain level and then feel safe to claim that what you know about your perceptions are accurate and not blurred, manipulated, altered, and corrupted by the mind. — Hanover
Who, me? But I have been at pains to point out that colour is not mind-independent; nor is it all in the mind. The error here is in thinking things must be one or the other.But what should be noted is that those who claim that colours are mind-independent clearly believe that there is a mind-independent world with mind-independent properties, and that sometimes experience is "veridicial", i.e. presents to us the mind-independent nature of the world. Such people should be scientific realists, and accept what physics and neuroscience tell us about the world and perception – and physics and neuroscience tell us that colours are percepts like pain, not mind-independent properties of pens. — Michael
A pretty clear explanation, showing the underpinning assumption that there must be a "something" to which "red' refers. Why should this be so? Look to the use of the word, to pick out red pens and red faces. That's what counts.The word "red" can be used to refer to an object's disposition to cause certain colour experiences, but they ordinarily refer to those certain colour experiences. Those colour experiences are what we ordinarily understand by colours, especially before we have any understanding of an object having a surface layer of atoms that reflects certain wavelengths of light. — Michael
He doesn't conflate. ... — Michael
A pretty clear explanation, showing the underpinning assumption that there must be a "something" to which "red' refers. Why should this be so? Look to the use of the word, to pick out red pens and red faces. That's what counts. — Banno
Sure, and in the context of the paper that's fine. But the farther claim that what "red" refers to is a mental percept is fraught with issues."Visual percepts" is standard terminology in the neuroscience of perception. — Michael
If you wish to talk about something else, go right ahead. But don't presume to be talking for everybody.The language game approach fails to engage with what folk are actually interested in when it comes to perception. — apokrisis
This question is at least in part about the use of the word "red".Does the color “red” exist outside of the subjective mind that conceptually designates the concept of “red?” — Mp202020
Right. When "science" undermines realism it undermines itself, and those who do not notice this live in an alternate reality where their perceptions are good enough when it comes to "science" and untrustworthy otherwise.* — Leontiskos
This question is at least in part about the use of the word "red". — Banno
They do?Why for instance do people think redness speaks to a qualitative difference while roundness speaks to more a quantitative difference. — apokrisis
I'm not at all sure what that could mean. I, and I think most folks, do not attach numbers to roundness in any intrinsic way. — Banno
Touch, smell and taste are more "direct" than sight. — Banno
So far as we are addressing a philosophical question, it's not an issue of mere physiology. — Banno
But showing that the word "red" is public, not private, does show that there is more to "red" than what has here been called "mental percepts". — Banno
And once again, my question to you. Why might this need to be shown for redness as a quality and not ballness? — apokrisis
How have I not done so? — apokrisis
The red of a sports car and of a rose and of a face are all very different. — Banno
I've mentioned the implication that when you and I talk about something's being red, we would be talking about quite different things - you of your percept, and me of mine. — Banno
But moreover, if "red" refers to something purely mental, how could you be sure that you are using the word correctly? How could you ensure that your use of "red" now matched your use of "red" previously? How could you be sure that your memory is not deceiving you, and what you are now calling "red" is what you previously called "green"? — Banno
But I have been at pains to point out that colour is not mind-independent; nor is it all in the mind. — Banno
My point is only that when we ordinarily think about and talk about colours we are thinking about and talking about the mental percept, not a surface layer of atoms that reflects various wavelengths of light. — 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.