Things in the word, and the people around us, also have a say in what colours we see. The brain is not the sole determiner colour. — Banno

Does a baby see color?

You tell me. I'm not arguing about the physiology.

You tell me. I'm not arguing about the physiology. — Banno

I assume babies can't see color because "Things in the word, and the people around us, also have a say in what colours we see." Since babies don't know words and words determine what we see, babies can't see, color or otherwise.

Ok.

I assume babies can't see color because "Things in the word, and the people around us, also have a say in what colours we see." Since babies don't know words and words determine what we see, babies can't see, color or otherwise. — Hanover

This seems like the same equivocation between determination and influence that Banno pointed out to begin the exchange.

The claim seems to be that things in the world influence what we see, and our linguistic community influences the names of what we see and the aspects we pay attention to. It does not follow from this that babies do not see.

Isn't one of the issues here now "What is to count as seeing?"

Kinda where we came in.

:up:

How would you know the image contains no red if red were nothing more than a percept?

How would you know the image contains no red if red were nothing more than a percept? — Janus

Because red was defined in the example as certain wavelengths.

It does not follow from this that babies do not see. — Leontiskos

Do they see red?

Do cats see red even without words?

- Ok. Whatever you say, Hanover.

I just asked a question.

- And should I answer your question with a different question?

You made an argument, I pointed out why it was a bad argument, and then instead of responding you asked a question. Was your argument a good argument or a bad argument? Does your conclusion follow?

We see colored things before learning the names of colors. We learn how to use "red" by picking out red things. Language is unnecessary for seeing red things.

The factual explanation is that the colours we see are determined by what the brain is doing.
— Michael

The bolded word is where Michael oversteps... — Banno

Yup. My reply was "in part"...

You made an argument, I pointed out why it was a bad argument, and then instead of responding you asked a question. Was your argument a good argument or a bad argument? Does your conclusion follow? — Leontiskos

You indicated language was a necessary element in the formulation of a perception and I offered an example of perception occurring without language.

You didn't relent with my example, so I asked why my example was inapplicable, and you said "whatever."

Is what you're saying simply that sometimes language affects our perception and sometimes it doesn't?

You indicated language was a necessary element in the formulation of a perception — Hanover

Where did I indicate that? This thread has been running on poor reasoning for dozens of pages, so I think it's time to address the reasoning itself. Where did I say or imply that language is a necessary element for perception? Where is your reasoning coming from?

so I asked why my example was inapplicable — Hanover

Where do you believe you did that?

The question here is how you interpreted Banno's claim in order to impute to Banno the conclusion that, "babies can't see, color or otherwise." What sort of strawman is intervening to produce such an incredible conclusion? If it doesn't follow from what Banno said, then what is happening, here?

Isn't one of the issues here now "What is to count as seeing?"

Kinda where we came in. — Banno

I thought that that 'issue' had been long since resolved. Seeing. Dreaming. Hallucinating. The former always includes some thing, whereas the latter two never do.

I thought that that 'issue' had been long since resolved. — creativesoul

But, with this thread, evidently not.

Edit: And it looks as if the conversation will continue. That's how threads such as this function, with folk who know the one, true answer talking past each other.

This past 30 minutes of conversation arose from this comment of Banno's:

'Things in the word, and the people around us, also have a say in what colours we see."

This past 30 minutes of conversation arose from this comment of Banno's:

'Things in the word, and the people around us, also have a say in what colours we see." — Hanover

Yes, and I gave my interpretation of Banno's statement here, which included a critique of your interpretation:

This seems like the same equivocation between determination and influence that Banno pointed out to begin the exchange.

The claim seems to be that things in the world influence what we see, and our linguistic community influences the names of what we see and the aspects we pay attention to. It does not follow from this that babies do not see. — Leontiskos

You responded with a question. Would it help if I added that it neither follows from this that babies do not see color?

How do you get from Banno's statement to your inference that, "babies can't see, color or otherwise"? What is your reasoning?

- Is this your argument?

1. The people around us have a say in what colors we see.
2. Therefore, language is necessary for perception.
3. Therefore, babies do not see, color or otherwise.

If that is not the reasoning that takes you from Banno's statement to your inference, then what is the reasoning that takes you from Banno's statement to your inference?

Then red is more than merely percepts.

Fair interpretation, which is why I then said, "Is what you're saying simply that sometimes language affects our perception and sometimes it doesn't?"

Is the dispute just over the word "necessary" in conclusion #2?

If it is, then that's sort of obvious. Why would I demand that language not be a factor in how we interpret the world? My position has always been that perceptions are indirect interpretations of reality, which would include how we rationally assess them. It's obvious sometimes we think linguistically. It's also obvious sometimes we don't.

Then red is more than merely percepts. — Janus

Define "precepts" how you're using it here. That's not a term I've used or argued for.

Fair interpretation — Hanover

Okay, well I have no idea how (2) is supposed to follow from (1).

Why would I demand that language not be a factor in how we interpret the world? — Hanover

No one has said you would. The question is why you think (2) follows from (1).

As to Banno's statement, you fully ignored the heart of it, "Things in the world [...] also have a say in what colours we see."

At this point it seems like you are trying to continue agreeing with Michael despite not agreeing with him on much of anything.

I thought that that 'issue' had been long since resolved. — creativesoul

I think the reason Michael's threads never get fully resolved is because Michael refuses the transparency that is a prerequisite for such resolution. In this thread the refusal was in place from the start: instead of making arguments for his position he would only ultimately make arguments from authority from "the science." He was never willing to try to explain how his conclusions followed from "the science." If you don't set out your argument you cannot be critiqued, and if you cannot be critiqued then you can never be wrong.

Okay, well I have no idea how (2) is supposed to follow from (1). — Leontiskos

You are not following what I've said. My point is only that perception is a mental construct.

At this point it seems like you are trying to continue agreeing with Michael despite not agreeing with him on much of anything. — Leontiskos

When did I adopt Michael's position? It seems you're conflating my position with his.

We specifically disagreed regarding the relevance of this discussion, with him clarifying his sole objective was in identifying the scientific position on perception.

It's 'percepts not 'precepts'. Michael has been arguing that colour is nothing but "mental percepts". I formed the impression you were supporting this claim. If I am mistaken then my bad.

When a shadow falls over a ball we do not say that the color of the ball has changed, because we differentiate our visual perception of the ball from the ball's color. — Leontiskos

The ball just has a surface layer of atoms with an electron configuration that absorbs and re-emits particular wavelengths of light; these wavelengths being causally responsible for the behaviour of the eye and in turn the brain and so the colour experienced.

Physics and neuroscience has been clear on this for a long time.

We might talk about the ball as having a colour but that's a fiction brought on by the brain's projection and the resulting (mistaken) naive colour realist view of the world.