The Instigator
Furyan5
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
zeromeansnothing
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Rainbows do not exist objectively

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 817 times Debate No: 80721
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (0)

 

Furyan5

Con

Round 1 is for acceptance only.

A rainbow is defined as a multi coloured arch which humans percieve when its raining.

Exists objectively is defined as existing without our involvement.

Accepting this debate implies acceptance of these definitions.
zeromeansnothing

Pro

Hi Furyan5, I accept the Pro position here, ie I am defending the declaration that rainbows do not exist objectively.
Debate Round No. 1
Furyan5

Con

Thanks for accepting.

My argument is that our perception of reality is a function of the human subconscious and therefore not subjective. Light waves reflected off various objects, strikes the cones and rods of our retina, sending electrical impulses via our optic nerve to our brains imaging centre. Here the brain converts these electrical impulses into a visual representation which is what we percieve. This all occurs in our subconscious and therefore should be considered as objective and not subjective as it is not open to misinterpretation.
zeromeansnothing

Pro

Hi Furyan5,

I hope to enjoy and learn from our conversation. I kinda hope you win. I am tired of feeling 'in the ascendancy'.

Let us examine the progression of your argument together.

(A) Furyan5 states: My argument is that our perception of reality is a function of the human subconscious and therefore not subjective.

(B) Furyan5 states: Light waves reflected off various objects, strikes the cones and rods of our retina, sending electrical impulses via our optic nerve to our brains imaging centre. Here the brain converts these electrical impulses into a visual representation which is what we percieve.

(C) Furyan5 states: This all occurs in our subconscious and therefore should be considered as objective and not subjective as it is not open to misinterpretation.

With regard to (A) one could draw the following conclusion without deviating away from logic. One could say that the image of the rainbow made by us was not done intentionally. by us. It is therefore a 'subconscious act' . Agreed. What this will have to do with the objective existence of the rainbow remains to be revealed by you, one would hope.

Now let us look at (B) This is a description of human 'infrastructure' and a nice one at that. How does a mouse or a dog get on here. Do they see the rainbow too. If not, then why not. After all, you are attempting to insist that it is there? Is it because their 'infrastructure' is inferior that they fail to see what you insist is there objectively. This same anomaly occurs when a man, a bat and a dog cognitively engage with a common object, ie a tree. Are you saying that they received the same data but that they assembled it differently. If this is the case then which of these three life forms was 'closest' in their approximate of what is there and why do you think that your answer is correct. I apologize for the questions that are inspired by your (B)

Let us look at (C) So the creation of the image is 'objectively' reached, so therefore what? How does this indicate that the rainbow exists objectively. Are you talking about a cognitive image or an 'objectve' entity in a sky. Please explain.
Debate Round No. 2
Furyan5

Con

I'll start with your last question. Obviously I'm referring to the image that exists in our mind, as everyone knows there is no actual arch in the sky. My definition clearly states the perceived arch. This image exists objectively within our visual centre and is not a imaginary creation of our minds.
As for cats and dogs, I don't see the relevance of this line of questioning. Yes, some animals do posess the ability to distinguish different colors and due to this, will percieve a rainbow in a different way than we do. But this does not mean that they imagine it. The image exists objectively within their mind, be it only as data.
When a TV antenna recieves a signal, it sends this signal to the television, much like our eyes receive light waves and sends electrical impulses to our brains. The television, and our brains imaging centre perform the same function, turning these signals into a visual representation.
So just to clarify, there is no substantive arch in the sky, but there is an objective image that exists in our mind.
zeromeansnothing

Pro

Furyan5 states: Obviously I'm referring to the image that exists in our mind, as everyone knows there is no actual arch in the sky.


I thought as much. You may have managed to clutch defeat from the jaws of victory here.

I was about to concede ground to you on this debate and admit to an objective entity in the sky. My logic for doing this was as follows.
When three people see the same anomaly and identify it's type simultaneously it suggests that a real occurrence is happening. My son is colourblind and he struggles to identify berries on bushes. That does not mean that they are not there. If one of the three men, afore mentioned had a dog and it was unable to identify the rainbow by barking then this would not suggest in any way that the three men were delusional. Some real objective occourence is happening. I was prepared to give you this. I said that I want you to win.

This would have lead to a fantastic consideration of the relationship between the actual real sky phenomena and the visual creation of same within the cerebral space. I was about to discuss the visual language of colour. But no, you want to go elsewhere.

You want to insist that a cognitive image is objective in that it was not composed in a conscious subjective manner, ie that it is a subconscious creation. This is like my wife taking me into a clothes shop.

Furyan5 states: The image exists objectively within their mind, be it only as data.

We have effectively flip-flopped here, Furyan5 , now I have it in the sky and now you have it in the head. Keep talking.
Debate Round No. 3
Furyan5

Con

I've already had that debate. 3 people may think they see the same rainbow, but if each person has 2 eyes they percieve 6 different representations. Objectively there is no arch. So please stop evading the issue. This debate concerns the objective existence of a perceived object in our mind. So far you have offered no argument to oppose my view.
zeromeansnothing

Pro

Furyan5 states:
You say that rainbows do exist objectively.(Con)

Furyan5 states:
'(1) My argument is that our perception of reality is a function of the human subconscious and therefore not subjective.
(2) This all occurs in our subconscious and therefore should be considered as objective and not subjective as it is not open to misinterpretation.
(3) Obviously I'm referring to the image that exists in our mind, as everyone knows there is no actual arch in the sky.
My definition clearly states the perceived arch.
(4) So just to clarify, there is no substantive arch in the sky, but there is an objective image that exists in our mind. Objectively there is no arch. So please stop evading the issue. This debate concerns the objective existence of a perceived object in our mind. So far you have offered no argument to oppose my view.'

This is your argument, I think???
The internal image of the rainbow has been constructed from 'light' data in raw form to create what you then regard as an objective entity. You state that this proves your point. In (1) above you state that it is objective because it has not been misinterpreted in a subjective conscious way.

This is what you mean in real terms.

'Any' and I do mean 'Any' internal image of 'a rainbow ' is an objective existence. It can be in any head that is capable of creating this image. So any one incident of this.
I draw our readers attention to (4)

Furyan5 ''This debate concerns the objective existence of a perceived object in our mind.'

There it is A. My advice to you is to read this or something of this nature.

https://ccrma.stanford.edu...

The subjectivity within this debate was introduced by your via oversimplification and concealment. It anyone can find a point to this , please contact me in comments. Vote as you see fit. Thank You for your efforts here, Furyan5. Have you any idea how hard it is to unravel your 'deductions' with Jack Nicholas pointing his finger at you? (You probably have)
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by zeromeansnothing 2 years ago
zeromeansnothing
Ditto Furyan5, until we meet again. Good Fortune
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Furyan5
Hi Zero, sorry for taking so long to respond. Every view of reality relies on perception, therefore they are all subjective. That being said, you are correct. Though it's not our senses but our deductive processes which allow us to include observations of other living creatures, as well as mechanical devices to get a better look at objective reality. Our visual perception may be limited to a very narrow bandwidth of light but nothing limits our deductive abilities. We may not see reality for what it truly is, but the picture is definitely becoming clearer, be it only in our minds.
Thanks for an interesting debate. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Furyan5
Lol sorry, my bad. I misread your first statement.
Yes it does prove that rainbows do not exist objectively outside of our perceptions. But there will still be people who insist that light of differing wavelengths is color. I'm afraid some concepts are just beyond the grasp of everyone. But be nice. One does not get to choose ones I.Q.
Posted by Kreakin 2 years ago
Kreakin
Include perception when I say eyes : )
Posted by Kreakin 2 years ago
Kreakin
Rainbows are specific to eyes that see those wavelengths only. Each eye sees a different rainbow or not at all.
Posted by Kreakin 2 years ago
Kreakin
I'll have to think of a better way to explain what I mean. It's a tricky subject. I'm aware colours are only our perception of certain wavelengths but if you include UV it shows the rainbow cannot exist objectively outside of our perception.
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Furyan5
Kreakin you are not viewing a rainbow. You are viewing light waves of different frequencies. The image in your mind is the rainbow. Everyone knows the light waves exist objectively, but not everyone realizes that colours only exist in our minds perception. You see, colours start in the physical world but finish in our mind. Without a mind to convert light waves into color, color does not exist. Physics might define color as light waves of a certain frequency, but that is a very shallow definition akin to calling a cake, (flour, sugar, baking powder,etc. ) . Mixing, baking and icing are part of the process that results in a cake. Well seeing color is a process.
Posted by zeromeansnothing 2 years ago
zeromeansnothing
I have another question for consideration

A man, a dog, and a bat, simultaneously perceive the same 'tree'. All create their own cognitive 'approximate'of same. Surely an 'amalgam' or 'composite' of all three will produce an image that is closer to 'reality'. Isn't it a fact therefore that our own senses have been programmed to incorporate other creatures cognizance and reactiveness to the physicality of our shared environment. Just consider the implications of this truth that we choose to ignore, ie we are interdependent with other life forms to properly evaluate our own existence.??
Posted by Kreakin 2 years ago
Kreakin
So if I view a rainbow using an ultra violet sensing camera as well as my sensors (eyes) my perception of it has been enhanced. Does having an additional sensor we perceive to show what we call ultra violet increase the probability of it being objective in the sense of a structure consisting of electrons? There is more to the "object" than we originally perceived or is it random electrons we now can see more of. Is it still a rainbow?
Posted by zeromeansnothing 2 years ago
zeromeansnothing
Furyan5 states: There is an actual tree where I see one, but the image that exists in my head is a recreation. The bark of a tree is not brown. It merely reflects light of a frequency which our minds interpret as brown.

I agree with this and I have been considering it for years. I feel that this point is vital within a religious discussion about man's described place within life. Our assumption is that we are tops in all this when we are clearly not. We use genesis to force this point home through false logic. See if you can organize something and well done.
No votes have been placed for this debate.