The bolded word is where Michael oversteps. Things in the word, and the people around us, also have a say in what colours we see. — Banno
[Michael] was never willing to try to explain how his conclusions followed from "the science." — Leontiskos
Colour is a sensation. — James Clerk Maxwell
For the Rays to speak properly are not coloured. In them there is nothing else than a certain power and disposition to stir up a sensation of this or that Colour. — Isaac Newton
Color is a psychological property of our visual experiences when we look at objects and lights, not a physical property of those objects or lights. — Stephen Palmer
One of the major problems with color has to do with fitting what we seem to know about colors into what science (not only physics but the science of color vision) tells us about physical bodies and their qualities. It is this problem that historically has led the major physicists who have thought about color, to hold the view that physical objects do not actually have the colors we ordinarily and naturally take objects to possess.
instead of making arguments for his position he would only ultimately make arguments from authority from "the science." — Leontiskos
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. — Janus
Does the color “red” exist outside of the subjective mind that conceptually designates the concept of “red?” — Mp202020
That Michael might allow interpretation of the external object by the sense organs alone and not allow it to also be interpreted by language just seems an odd limitation (if that's at all what he's even saying, as that doesn't seem correct). — Hanover
All I am saying is that a deaf illiterate mute can see the difference between a red box and a blue box. That visual distinction has nothing to do with language and everything to do with what the brain does (in response to what the eyes do in response to what the light does in response to what the box does). — Michael
That is, if I see a cardinal, I don't just see the red of the bird, but I see the whole bird and I also have all sorts of thoughts about what that thing can do and what it is at the same time. I don't just get a raw feed of red. — Hanover
Sure, but I don't think all that other stuff has anything to do with the colour, and the discussion is about colour. — Michael
We see a red box and a blue box. The colour is the relevant visual difference between the two. I don't think that this visual difference has anything to do with language. The difference is entirely in how the boxes reflect light and then how our body responds to that light. — Michael
I'm trying to understand why it matters in this discussion whether our neuronal response to light is altered by our language skills. — Hanover
Maybe that's true, but I'm more arguing against those who seem to be saying that because we say such things as "the box is red" then it must be that the colour red is a property of the box and not a property of our bodies. — Michael
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. — Michael
We might talk about the ball as having a colour but that's a fiction... — Michael
We say the sun rises in the east when it's really that the earth is spinning. — frank
If everything is the product of the brain, then what simulates the brain is the product of the brain. Your narrative leaves you unable to interact with the world. But of course for you the world is just a product of the brain.Everything is the product of the brain. The question is what stimulates the brain to cause that perception — Hanover
Well, yes. It is true that the sun rises in the East; and we say it is true that the ball is red. What is "really" doing there? Prioritising one narrative over another? — Banno
Everything is the product of the brain. The question is what stimulates the brain to cause that perception
— Hanover
If everything is the product of the brain, then what simulates the brain is the product of the brain. Your narrative leaves you unable to interact with the world. But of course for you the world is just a product of the brain.
You built yourself a self-consistent self deception. Solipsism. — Banno
Yep. Although the two are not exactly analogous. We can agree the fork is on my right while still maintaining that it is on your left. We can agree that the statue is beautiful for you while I find it only curious. If we swap places, we will swap what we say about the forks, but not what we say about the statue. If subjective and objective mean anything, this is a case in point.Yes. And you can say the statue is beautiful while knowing that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. — frank
Language games do not involve only words. They are locked into the world by what we do. So fortunately or unfortunately, you are not mere words.I'm just a word in your game — Hanover
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.