There's a lot of truth in that. As I remarked to Arkady before, I have often thought that the Christian church in some ways appropriated the best of what they then described as 'pagan philosophy' only to metaphorically 'lock it in the Vatican archives' whereafter it could only be approached on their terms. I now think it's an uncharitable view, but that there's some truth in it.

What concerns me more, though, is the fact that because so much ethical theory became bound up with the Christian ethos, that in the rejection of religion, actual virtue is being rejected as well, and unknowingly. — Wayfarer

I think there's a lot to be learned from reading the musings of various Christian scholars about ethics but I've always rejected the institutionalisation of religion. For those things we should arrive at on our own (ethical convictions) are now edicts and dogma that are resistent to change when change is called for. It's a split many cannot consistently bridge. I still remember my religious roommate when we were discussing "love thy neighbour" in relation to our gay roommate. "I love him but he's going to hell". I never could wrap my mind around that statement.

Christianity has a spotty moral record at best, and the Old Testament is likewise extremely morally spotty. I don't know why you would cede the entirety of ethical thought to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Our modern notions of ethics arguably owe as much (if not moreso) to Enlightenment thinkers than to religious ones. — Arkady

And don't forget the recent philosophical revival of virtue ethics which finds its roots in ancient Greece. In fact, the Christian tradition incorporated virtue ethics with its seven sins and seven virtues - so they're not even original.

If I understand correctly, it is not the case that there are red pixels in the composition, there are none, and that prompts the claim that there is no red in the picture. However, I understand that there are grey pixels, and the grey pixels are composed of some red. So it is not really the case that there is no red wavelength in the picture, there is, but it is hidden within the grey. When our brains filter out the blue, as you suggest, if this is really what is happening, then the blue within the grey is also being filtered out, and this brings out the red in the grey.

You admit above, that there is grey in the picture. What wavelength do you think the grey is if there is no red in it? — Metaphysician Undercover

Grey is like white, it consists of a lot of wavelengths including those for the colour red. And yes my first posts were inaccurate but I clarified in my post about colour and chromacity.

can you just zoom in on the pixel?

Compare that to the following. In a flash you think you see a cat. You look again, it turns out to be a dog. The first appearance was false. You seem to claim there a qualitative difference with colour. I disagree.

Also, you're mistaken when you think no light with wavelengths for the colour red are present in the picture. They are in the gray pixels. When your brain "corrects" for the blue, the gray is interpreted as red. It's still gray though, which you'll see by zooming in. We don't even need instruments to establish the mistake.

Of course, there's a multitude of tricks with colour and light possible. If I have a yellow banana and I put it on a dark blue blanket, the yellow will appear more vibrant. That's partly the contrast but also the juxtaposition of colours. Nothing changed about the banana though and I don't see any basis to assume the yellowness of a banana is context dependent but I see every reason to conclude our eyes and brains are simply not very accurate in establishing colours. Which is why I'll take the spectrometer any day over your subjectivity.

It all has to do with the mixtures of wavelengths, and how our eyes detect them. If red mixed with other colours, within a tiny pixel makes a colour called grey, then we are justified in saying "colour", in general, is a mixture of wavelengths. If mixing these grey pixels with certain blue pixels in a larger scale makes the colour red, then we are justified in saying that the strawberries are red. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure. So how about you get the image into paint and zoom in on that apparent red pixel until that pixel fills your screen. Then get back to me with which colour it has.

EDIT: I'd like to point out that the colour of that faux-red pixel doesn't change because of the surrounding blue, we are not "mixing" them in our perception. We're quite capable of seeing individual pixels at these resolution (1080p, just stick your nose in the screen).

The blue merely influences how we perceive it due to false signal it gives us that we ought to white balance the image for outdoor circumstances. Then our brains filter out blue from the grey, which makes the grey appear red. Taking a closer look (literally!) shows the error.

When we disagree on the redness of something, are we disagreeing on the wavelength of the light that is emitted/reflected by it or are we disagreeing on its appearance? If the former then, yes, there's an independent fact-of-the-matter. If the latter then, no, there isn't. — Michael

As I said: I'm willing to have a spectrometer to have a last say on this. Are you?

And I'd argue that we're disagreeing about the latter. We can both measure and agree upon the wavelength of the light but nonetheless disagree on its colour. Because although stimulation by the former is what elicits the experience of the latter, they're not the same thing. — Michael

I agree they aren't the same thing. However, I don't believe we can arrive at two different answers. So when we search for an explanation as to why we disagree, we discover "red" is associated with a certain wavelength. We then discover there's no red in the picture and we even discover how that comes about.

The difference then is that I'm willing to say: "oops, I was wrong to interpret that as red" and you continue to maintain it's red.

By that token the sun still revolves around the earth and the illusionary oasis is really there. The latter with deadly consequences.

Sure. But that goes back to the question I asked before; does the "red" in "I see red strawberries" refer to that kind of light? I don't think so. When I say that I see red strawberries I'm not (either explicitly or implicitly) saying that I see that kind of light. So there's equivocation here. On the one hand we might use "red" to refer to that kind of light – and that's an ad hoc scientific stipulation – and on the other hand we might use "red" to refer to the qualitative aspect of seeing. — Michael

I agree we can use the word "red" in different contexts but when we disagree on the redness of something, how are we going to arbitrate this question? I have no problem with you referring to the strawberries as appearing red but if we want to definitely answer the question whether they are red, we have to conclude they aren't irrespective of our subjective experiences of seeing.

But that's just wrong, if by "red" you mean "light with a wavelength between 620-740nm", because those strawberries don't appear to reflect light with a wavelength between 620-740nm. That would be equivocation, based on the fact that most people ordinarily see things that reflect light with a wavelength between 620-740nm as being red. — Michael

I don't follow. I don't think I'm saying much else than the following analogy "the desert appeared to have an oasis and we even know why but there wasn't an oasis."

This is the important point. There's an agreed consensus about what wavelengths are associated with what colours, but those wavelengths are not themselves those colours. The colour red is the sensory quality that is usually elicited by the stimulation of light with a wavelength of ~620–740nm, but that's it.

And there's no reason for it to be considered wrong (as opposed to just uncommon) for an organism to have such a sensory quality elicited by light of a different wavelength – or by stimulation of something other than light, e.g. in the case of synaesthesia. — Michael

If we define red as light with a wavelength between 620-740nm, then calling any light with a different wavelength "red" is wrong. By definition. And that's my point condenced I suppse. We are capable of verifying our own perceptions with instruments. To then lift the subjective experience up as the definitive answer to whether an object is red or not is a step back. All the way back to before Copernicus.

The strawberries therefore appear red and we can even explain why but they aren't red.

(Also the answer is a bit more subtle because the picture does emit light in that wavelength range of red as part of the white/gray areas but something is red or reddish due to a concentration of a particular spectrum of wavelength in a particular area but that is more about chromacity).

Human eyes can see millions of different shades of colour. This is not because there are millions of different wavelengths between 400 and 740. — Metaphysician Undercover

There's a difference between colour and chromaticity. Sensitivity to colour change for humans is in the range from 1nm to 10 nm.

Benkei appears to be claiming that there is a truly objective "red", an ideal definition of red, and even to know this Platonic Form, through science. It is suggested that we should judge our inter-subjective interpretation against this Form. But I think Benkei derives this ideal in a faulty way. There may be such a Platonic Form of red, but Benkei has not described it. — Metaphysician Undercover

There isn't a Platonic Form, there's consensus on the wavelengths associated with colours when an object absorbs light and reflects light back. And I mean this in the sense of spectrum. The science is pretty clear on this. If we then "think" we see red, when in reality there are no colours emitting with a wavelenght between 622nm to 780nm, then we've been fooled by our very fallable perception.

A colour blind person (deuteranopia) sees purple as blue. He's wrong and so are you. Why are we comfortable with saying he's wrong? Because we understand his perception is "broken". Now what we have with the strawberries is a "broken" perception that is shared by most everyone due to the white-balancing we automatically apply due to high levels of teal in the picture. Very useful in everyday life, when moving from indoors and outdoors - for this particular picture it's a nuisance.

I'm perfectly fine trusting a spectrometer on this matter.

No. It's driven by China driving down the costs of labor and allowing it's people get paid next to nothing for the work they do all in an effort to steal manufacturing power from the US. — Harry Hindu

Steal? Seriously. I think we're done here. >:O

Actually, it makes what every other country needs to do worthless. What good is it for every other country to do something when the world's largest populations and polluters are doing nothing to very little? — Harry Hindu

Actually it makes a lot of difference. A Dutch invention could be exported and used by other countries, for instance. A county can inspire others for demonstrating that co2 reduction and growth are possible (oh wait, the USA and China did exactly that).

And the amount of pollution China creates is largely driven by market demand in the West. So "blaming" them as solely responsible in a global economy is a bit silly. It is global warming after all.

I don't see what instrumentation has to do with this. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's instrumentation that can tell you there's no red in the image. The rest of your post is an argument to ignore progress and return to the Middle Ages.

As I pointed out earlier, to define "red" as a particular range of wavelength is unacceptable, because the vast majority of instances of seeing a particular colour, are instances of a combination of different wavelengths. So the fact that a particular wavelength of light is not present, does not mean that the strawberries are not red. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right. So we can stop trusting telescopes that there really are more stars in the sky than we can see with the naked eye.

There's a reason why we trust intstrumentation and why that works. You sound like the Spanish inquisition when they dealt with Copernicus. We "have" defined red as a particular wavelength and it's precisely because it is a particular wavelength that we are capable of discerning it under different lighting conditions by "filtering" out certain wavelengths of light. That this, normally useful adaptation, now plays tricks on us by making us believe the strawberries are red when they aren't, doesn't make the strawberries red, it only makes them look red.

EDIT: The mirage isn't really there, no matter how certain you are you saw it.

OK, wasn't sure what you meant with "seeing inheres that transformational aspect". Must be my English. :D

The object of perception is blue pixels arranged in strawberry shapes. You see red strawberries rather than blue ones because the act of seeing inheres that transformational aspect in this case. — Baden

I thought this particular image had to do with our brains "white balancing" the image due to the cyan tint to it. An adaptation we also use when moving from indoor (yellow light) to outdoor (blue).

EDIT: the strawberries only appear red but in reality the colour red isn't present in the picture.

Another thing: China is one of the worst, if not THE worst polluters on Earth. If Climate Changers really want to put their money where their mouth is, why not go to China and make your claims there? After all, the U.S. has probably spent more money and energy to limit pollution than any other country yet these people still lambaste Americans more than any other country. This is what the left is known for - selective outrage. — Harry Hindu

That's fallacious reasoning. Just because China is the worst polluter doesn't absolve every other country from doing what needs to be done. Moreover, China's expenditure in reneweable energy is also the largest in the world (2015) USD 103 billion compared to USD 44 billion in the US. Considering the choices Trump is making the "selective" outrage is spot on.

By the time we hit 3 degrees of warming, the Bangladeshis will be as rich as the present day Dutch, and quite able to afford sophisticated flood defences. — tom

uhuh... The Pretence of Knowledge

Copenhagen Consensus is, in general, a bit weird. I mean, if I fiddle with the discount rate I get totally different results when looking at this from a pure cost-benefit approach. It's not very sensible.

Here's another nice statistic I read today from the WHO: 25% of infant mortality is caused by man-made pollution.

fair enough but I maintain I'm not the one you need to argue with on this subject. :D

The good thing about End of Oil is that that will (belatedly) solve global warming as well. There's a limit to how much stuff we can burn after all.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Yeah it changed just not so drastically.

I think one reason for the shift in terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" is that the latter is less controversial; of course the climate changes over time. The question then becomes the degree to which human activity is the cause of its detrimental aspects. — aletheist

Average world temperatures will go up, which the earlier research focused on and is still true. Midway the 80s this was common knowledge even with the big oil companies who often pioneered the research back then. 1985 is the year Shell wrote its internal memo on the greenhouse effect.

1991 Shell published a movie Climate of Concern. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/28/shell-knew-oil-giants-1991-film-warned-climate-change-danger

ExxonMobil knew in 1981 (well, just Exxon back then).

1988 the IPCC is established and Hansen, a climatologist, states there's a 99% confidence level that recent temperature rise of 1/2 degree is caused by human activity. That it will be paired with more extreme weather also becomes clear, which is why it's a panel on climate change (IPCC duh). So there wasn't a shift in terminology. At least not in the past 30 years.

1989 Shell adjusts designs of oil platforms to withstand bigger waves due to expected changes in weather. That's the same year the Global Climate Coalition is set up by US oil companies with the express purpose to emphasise uncertainty in the research and sow disinformation, because of the bottom line.

Climate change skepticism is unwarranted.

I described the facts behind biofuels - increased CO2, forest and habitat destruction, subsidies, but forgot to mention the inevitable increase in food prices. What you describe is the fantasy. — tom

I understand you're skeptical but the issues you raise are a consequence of the subsidies.

What I describe is hardly a fantasy and there is an the economic rationale that underpins the reason research was started in this direction. Bagasse, a waste product of cane sugar production, would be an excellent source for biofuels for instance but only if the refinery would be established very near to the source.

This is the main constraint for any biofuels plant; the net benefit of the energy won through catalytic processes and the energy cost of getting the base material to the plant reduces quickly over longer distances. These plants by necessity have to remain relatively small but the technology of catalytic cracking is robust, low temperature (low risk, easy to operate) and simple to maintain (regular decoking). It will be economically viable and be environmentally sound but not at the scale of current oil production; at maximum 10% but more probably at most 2-3%.

An interesting failure in this respect is Kior.

I believe shale methane hasn't reached peak yet. And last I recall there is something like 200 years worth for the US to run off in the country alone. Also, shale oil/gas is a US innovation that hasn't yet taken hold of the rest of the world due to limiting the tech to the US to benefit initially from it the most last I recall. — Question

Shale oil is not a US innovation. It predates the US by a couple of hundred years. ;)

I think he meant fusion. — Mongrel

Yup, my mistake.

So long as you consider massive subsidies and destruction of primary forest habitats "commercially viable", which it certainly is if you are in receipt of the handouts.

Oh, and if you don't care about the increase in CO2 over simply burning coal. — tom

Not in the manner you describe. The idea behind biofuels is to use biomass and catalytically convert it to fuels. the biomass is quickly replanted and regrown and therefore "captures" the CO2 released from burning the biofuels. In essence, nothing more than speeding up the process by which fossil fuels are created naturally. CO2 capture and catalytic conversion to methanol/ethanol is the same principle.

So do biofuels. I meant, of course, in a commercially, viable manner. ;)

World GDP growth and energy usage are closely correlated. With the advent of burning fuel to power machines, we've greatly increased our capacity to produce things. GDP will drop as I suspect the transition to alternative (non-subsidised) energy will not be supple as the infrastructure to get stored energy (like oil) from A to B is huge and not easily replaced.

Some things I consider likely:
There will be an increase in distributed energy production - a strong growth in solar cells for private individuals to try and meet their personal needs. Commuting will become expensive, so I suspect working from home will become more economically viable and therefore implemented by companies, possibly through more extensive use of VR.

3D-printing will further support the possibility to decentralize economic activity so I suspect an uptake there too.

Any technology that might come up that can be "dropped" into the existing oil infrastructure will be more successful than battery-powered cars. Biofuels or even CO2 capture and conversion to methanol/ethanol would be a life-safer. These ideas work in the laboratory but might not necessarily be economically viable at industrial scales. Not a certainty then but a possibility.

Nuclear power will become a necessity for many countries to support their way of life. Nuclear fission would be great if we can get it to work.

Rising prices will mean less holidays, less meat, lowering your heating, less new clothes; basically less of everything, as your income will not rise as quickly as energy prices (and therefore most every product) will. Your physical world will shrink as travelling will become prohibitively expensive, but with a bit of luck our devices will be efficient enough to stay connected.

My advice is to invest in local producers of products with a long life-cycle, with a low energy use for production.

Yes. So what? How's that a "big deal"? How is someone posting two words "naval gazing :-O " a big deal? First of all, it was a simple joke, as indicated by the presence of the emoticon itself. — Agustino

It's about time you understand those jokes aren't appreciated and that they detract from the user experience of other members. The fact you keep coming back with "I'm joking" or "I'm a provocateur" means you simply have no consideration for how your behaviour affects others. Are you really that self-centered that every time someone takes issue with your behaviour that it's their failure to understand you?

It might be me but I read the OP as an invitation to find a shared MO that's conducive to the quality of this site without moderating action. But maybe unen can clarify.

Value judgments over other people's characters generally don't help.

That's like what a father says when he doesn't get things his way. Or what a potential mother says when she places the priority of her own welfare above the fetus.

Sad things. — Question

So unless it hit puberty it worked?

I'll threaten to blow it up before it's supposed to blow up so it can never fulfil it's life purpose.

So, we shouldn't take him seriously because he's new age and probably rich.

Or, he isn't really a Franciscan.

Or, it's detracting from social conservative institutions.

All about identity and ultimately "no true Scotchman" arguments. Boring.

All good reasons to stay stupid. You can disagree with the content of his speech but rejecting what he says out of hand based on personal perceptions is a sure way of only reconfirming what you already know. I'm an atheist and I thought the speech was interesting. He's an entertaining speaker and I agree with his critique on the trinity (I'm a raised catholic) and also recognise the need to operate on a different level to connect with the divine.

I really do agree with you that Trump is a buffoon. I don't see him as any more or less dangerous than any other candidate for President though. From my perspective, it's all entertaining theater. At the end of 4 years, I'll stand up, brush the popcorn off my lap, and go watch the next show. — Hanover

No interest in improving it then? If politics is just show then you don't have a democracy. Or is it a cynical "good enough for me" or maybe even "après moi, le déluge"?

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama invaded 3 new countries under his regime: Yemen, Libya, and Syria. — Hanover

Don't forget Pakistan. At least, I don't think Bush had already extended military action into Pakistan.

4. Neither true nor false...this is not possible (refer to 1) — TheMadFool

Why isn't this possible when you assume this was possible for the original Liar's Paradox? This appears arbitrary.

Logic can't differentiate ''this statement is false'' from ''this statement is neither true nor false''. Therefore, they are equivalent — TheMadFool

Are you sure? We can agree on the law of identity yes? You've already handily identified that there's a statement A and a statement B. A = A, pace the law of identity. It's corollary is that A = ~B.

As already pointed out, when you opt for the 4th solution to the Liar's paradox that is neither true nor false, the correct phrasing of that sentence would be:

4. "The sentence "this statement is false" is neither true nor false"

You are cutting corners everywhere and have been pointed out several mistakes by several different people already. Time to move on buddy - you're flat out wrong.

I take it from your unwillingness to admit the mistake you don't understand what you're doing wrong or don't understand what people are explaining to you. I suggest you should start asking questions to get clarifications instead of reasserting the same mistakes again and again.

If I can't distinguish the difference between A and B, then it can be inferred that A and B are the equivalent. — TheMadFool

If you can't distinguish between the two statements then you're probably dyslexic.

Options available for the truth value of A
1. True
2. False
3. True AND false
4. Neither true nor false — TheMadFool

Let's write this a bit less perfunctory.

Options are:

1. "The sentence "this statement is false" is true"
2. "The sentence "this statement is false" is false"
3. "The sentence "this statement is false" is true and false"
4. "The sentence "this statement is false" is neither true nor false"

Going with option 4, we see that statement B is a statement about A, as such it cannot refer to itself by using the pronoun "this". It should be "that statement is neither true nor false". If it refers to itself again, we get the same problem I pointed out earlier:

If the statement (in this case B) is true or false (has a truth value) then it is not true that it's neither true nor false. — Benkei

Let us now assess what possible options of truth value are there for A:

1. True
2. False
3. Both true and false
4. Neither true nor false
The above 4 choices are jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive. — TheMadFool

Normally, only 1 and 2 are considered truth values. 3 is impossible under classical logic as it violates the law of non-contradiction. 4 is the absence of a truth value.

But B is a TRUE statement. Therefore the liar statement, which is equivalent to B, is also true. — TheMadFool

If B is TRUE, then it is not "neither true nor false".

Aside from Michael's point, (which can be summed up as the conclusion isn't its proposition), your conclusion that the second sentence has a truth value is also incorrect.

If the statement is true or false (has a truth value) then it is not true that it's neither true nor false. It might be true if the 2nd sentence would say that "that sentence is neither true nor false" referring to the 1st sentence.

Can you show how these statements are equivalent?