Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does colors trully exist?

Cometflash
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 2:08:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The snowflakes argument that was posed in a debate got me thinking. So I did some reading about. The explanation can be applied to any object really. So is any color real, or is just what our brain translates?
I cannot imagine a world with no color, so if colors do no exist, I have no idea of how the world could really be. And how can I know that colors are the only detail of the world the brain translates into being?
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 2:42:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 2:08:19 PM, Cometflash wrote:
The snowflakes argument that was posed in a debate got me thinking. So I did some reading about. The explanation can be applied to any object really. So is any color real, or is just what our brain translates?
I cannot imagine a world with no color, so if colors do no exist, I have no idea of how the world could really be. And how can I know that colors are the only detail of the world the brain translates into being?

Color is just a neat way we perceive light of different frequencies. But outside of ourselves, it pretty much doesn't exist. It's a nice concept, though.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 2:49:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 2:08:19 PM, Cometflash wrote:
The snowflakes argument that was posed in a debate got me thinking. So I did some reading about. The explanation can be applied to any object really. So is any color real, or is just what our brain translates?
What's the difference?

I cannot imagine a world with no color, so if colors do no exist, I have no idea of how the world could really be.
Then I'm afraid you have a very limited imagination. Perhaps if you spent some time with the blind you might be enlightened a bit.

And how can I know that colors are the only detail of the world the brain translates into being?
You can't, but I ask again, what's the difference?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 3:38:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Colors aren't absolute, so not really real. At least not in the sense I think you're meaning. They're just how we perceive the world based on the tools we have for doing so. Reality has no color because there's no absolute way to look at it. It all depends on what you have to look at it with.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
StreetLogician
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 3:44:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 2:08:19 PM, Cometflash wrote:
The snowflakes argument that was posed in a debate got me thinking. So I did some reading about. The explanation can be applied to any object really. So is any color real, or is just what our brain translates?
I cannot imagine a world with no color, so if colors do no exist, I have no idea of how the world could really be. And how can I know that colors are the only detail of the world the brain translates into being?

If you believe in Qualia, colors are real. If not, no. I believe they are.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 3:54:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 3:44:34 PM, StreetLogician wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:08:19 PM, Cometflash wrote:
The snowflakes argument that was posed in a debate got me thinking. So I did some reading about. The explanation can be applied to any object really. So is any color real, or is just what our brain translates?
I cannot imagine a world with no color, so if colors do no exist, I have no idea of how the world could really be. And how can I know that colors are the only detail of the world the brain translates into being?

If you believe in Qualia, colors are real. If not, no. I believe they are.
Qualia is simply an ability: how can you not believe in an ability?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
StreetLogician
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 3:59:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 3:54:08 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/21/2012 3:44:34 PM, StreetLogician wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:08:19 PM, Cometflash wrote:
The snowflakes argument that was posed in a debate got me thinking. So I did some reading about. The explanation can be applied to any object really. So is any color real, or is just what our brain translates?
I cannot imagine a world with no color, so if colors do no exist, I have no idea of how the world could really be. And how can I know that colors are the only detail of the world the brain translates into being?

If you believe in Qualia, colors are real. If not, no. I believe they are.
Qualia is simply an ability: how can you not believe in an ability?

You will have to convince me that they are. I heard the Dennett arguments and they are easily refuted.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 4:18:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 3:59:03 PM, StreetLogician wrote:
At 12/21/2012 3:54:08 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/21/2012 3:44:34 PM, StreetLogician wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:08:19 PM, Cometflash wrote:
The snowflakes argument that was posed in a debate got me thinking. So I did some reading about. The explanation can be applied to any object really. So is any color real, or is just what our brain translates?
I cannot imagine a world with no color, so if colors do no exist, I have no idea of how the world could really be. And how can I know that colors are the only detail of the world the brain translates into being?

If you believe in Qualia, colors are real. If not, no. I believe they are.
Qualia is simply an ability: how can you not believe in an ability?

You will have to convince me that they are. I heard the Dennett arguments and they are easily refuted.
It's self evident that they are. What else could they be?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
StreetLogician
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 4:52:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 4:18:16 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/21/2012 3:59:03 PM, StreetLogician wrote:
At 12/21/2012 3:54:08 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/21/2012 3:44:34 PM, StreetLogician wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:08:19 PM, Cometflash wrote:
The snowflakes argument that was posed in a debate got me thinking. So I did some reading about. The explanation can be applied to any object really. So is any color real, or is just what our brain translates?
I cannot imagine a world with no color, so if colors do no exist, I have no idea of how the world could really be. And how can I know that colors are the only detail of the world the brain translates into being?

If you believe in Qualia, colors are real. If not, no. I believe they are.
Qualia is simply an ability: how can you not believe in an ability?

You will have to convince me that they are. I heard the Dennett arguments and they are easily refuted.
It's self evident that they are. What else could they be?

This is not worth the effort of a response.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 6:55:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 2:08:19 PM, Cometflash wrote:
The snowflakes argument that was posed in a debate got me thinking. So I did some reading about. The explanation can be applied to any object really. So is any color real, or is just what our brain translates?
I cannot imagine a world with no color, so if colors do no exist, I have no idea of how the world could really be. And how can I know that colors are the only detail of the world the brain translates into being?

As I recall in my basic physics classes in High School, objects appear to have color to us (humans) because as light hits an object, most of the light is absorbed by the object and what we "see" is in reality the light that the object reflects. Of course a light "source" of certain light frequencies will be seen by us as whatever color we have decided it is... But the reality is it's just a radiated signal of whatever frequency it is.

So, the radiated sources and reflected light occurrences that we perceive as color exists whether we are there to perceive them or not and from the standpoint of Physics, I think it can be said that "colors" as we define them and perceive them do in fact physically 'exist' even in the absence of our perception.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 7:00:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 6:55:27 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:08:19 PM, Cometflash wrote:
The snowflakes argument that was posed in a debate got me thinking. So I did some reading about. The explanation can be applied to any object really. So is any color real, or is just what our brain translates?
I cannot imagine a world with no color, so if colors do no exist, I have no idea of how the world could really be. And how can I know that colors are the only detail of the world the brain translates into being?

As I recall in my basic physics classes in High School, objects appear to have color to us (humans) because as light hits an object, most of the light is absorbed by the object and what we "see" is in reality the light that the object reflects. Of course a light "source" of certain light frequencies will be seen by us as whatever color we have decided it is... But the reality is it's just a radiated signal of whatever frequency it is.

So, the radiated sources and reflected light occurrences that we perceive as color exists whether we are there to perceive them or not and from the standpoint of Physics, I think it can be said that "colors" as we define them and perceive them do in fact physically 'exist' even in the absence of our perception.

What makes them appear that way to us exists whether we perceive them or not but you can't say that's the way they really are in absence of our perception of them.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 7:05:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 7:00:32 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 6:55:27 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:08:19 PM, Cometflash wrote:
The snowflakes argument that was posed in a debate got me thinking. So I did some reading about. The explanation can be applied to any object really. So is any color real, or is just what our brain translates?
I cannot imagine a world with no color, so if colors do no exist, I have no idea of how the world could really be. And how can I know that colors are the only detail of the world the brain translates into being?

As I recall in my basic physics classes in High School, objects appear to have color to us (humans) because as light hits an object, most of the light is absorbed by the object and what we "see" is in reality the light that the object reflects. Of course a light "source" of certain light frequencies will be seen by us as whatever color we have decided it is... But the reality is it's just a radiated signal of whatever frequency it is.

So, the radiated sources and reflected light occurrences that we perceive as color exists whether we are there to perceive them or not and from the standpoint of Physics, I think it can be said that "colors" as we define them and perceive them do in fact physically 'exist' even in the absence of our perception.

What makes them appear that way to us exists whether we perceive them or not but you can't say that's the way they really are in absence of our perception of them.

As we can record the occurrences and view them later and even create the occurrences in a controlled environment? Sure I can.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 9:50:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 7:05:27 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/22/2012 7:00:32 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 6:55:27 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:08:19 PM, Cometflash wrote:
The snowflakes argument that was posed in a debate got me thinking. So I did some reading about. The explanation can be applied to any object really. So is any color real, or is just what our brain translates?
I cannot imagine a world with no color, so if colors do no exist, I have no idea of how the world could really be. And how can I know that colors are the only detail of the world the brain translates into being?

As I recall in my basic physics classes in High School, objects appear to have color to us (humans) because as light hits an object, most of the light is absorbed by the object and what we "see" is in reality the light that the object reflects. Of course a light "source" of certain light frequencies will be seen by us as whatever color we have decided it is... But the reality is it's just a radiated signal of whatever frequency it is.

So, the radiated sources and reflected light occurrences that we perceive as color exists whether we are there to perceive them or not and from the standpoint of Physics, I think it can be said that "colors" as we define them and perceive them do in fact physically 'exist' even in the absence of our perception.

What makes them appear that way to us exists whether we perceive them or not but you can't say that's the way they really are in absence of our perception of them.

As we can record the occurrences and view them later and even create the occurrences in a controlled environment? Sure I can.

Semantics.

But it's still all about perception. You still need empirical tools to see it how we see it. Something is read because of its physical nature as well as the way our eyes or a camera translate the information. You need both. There is no objectively correct tools for observing color. We just have a certain type of perception that allows us to see it the way we do.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 9:51:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
*red
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 12:52:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 4:52:15 PM, StreetLogician wrote:
At 12/21/2012 4:18:16 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/21/2012 3:59:03 PM, StreetLogician wrote:
At 12/21/2012 3:54:08 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/21/2012 3:44:34 PM, StreetLogician wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:08:19 PM, Cometflash wrote:
The snowflakes argument that was posed in a debate got me thinking. So I did some reading about. The explanation can be applied to any object really. So is any color real, or is just what our brain translates?
I cannot imagine a world with no color, so if colors do no exist, I have no idea of how the world could really be. And how can I know that colors are the only detail of the world the brain translates into being?

If you believe in Qualia, colors are real. If not, no. I believe they are.
Qualia is simply an ability: how can you not believe in an ability?

You will have to convince me that they are. I heard the Dennett arguments and they are easily refuted.
It's self evident that they are. What else could they be?

This is not worth the effort of a response.
Precisely! There's no other alternative!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 3:12:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 9:50:24 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 7:05:27 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/22/2012 7:00:32 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 6:55:27 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:08:19 PM, Cometflash wrote:
The snowflakes argument that was posed in a debate got me thinking. So I did some reading about. The explanation can be applied to any object really. So is any color real, or is just what our brain translates?
I cannot imagine a world with no color, so if colors do no exist, I have no idea of how the world could really be. And how can I know that colors are the only detail of the world the brain translates into being?

As I recall in my basic physics classes in High School, objects appear to have color to us (humans) because as light hits an object, most of the light is absorbed by the object and what we "see" is in reality the light that the object reflects. Of course a light "source" of certain light frequencies will be seen by us as whatever color we have decided it is... But the reality is it's just a radiated signal of whatever frequency it is.

So, the radiated sources and reflected light occurrences that we perceive as color exists whether we are there to perceive them or not and from the standpoint of Physics, I think it can be said that "colors" as we define them and perceive them do in fact physically 'exist' even in the absence of our perception.

What makes them appear that way to us exists whether we perceive them or not but you can't say that's the way they really are in absence of our perception of them.

As we can record the occurrences and view them later and even create the occurrences in a controlled environment? Sure I can.

Semantics.

But it's still all about perception. You still need empirical tools to see it how we see it. Something is read because of its physical nature as well as the way our eyes or a camera translate the information. You need both. There is no objectively correct tools for observing color. We just have a certain type of perception that allows us to see it the way we do.

I didn't say there was. However, there are objective ways of measuring light waves and for detecting light 'frequencies.'

We assign those frequencies a name (green for example.) That is true.

But it is also true that those frequencies, sources and reflections take place even in the absence of our perceptions or labels.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 6:01:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 3:12:49 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/22/2012 9:50:24 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 7:05:27 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/22/2012 7:00:32 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 6:55:27 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:08:19 PM, Cometflash wrote:
The snowflakes argument that was posed in a debate got me thinking. So I did some reading about. The explanation can be applied to any object really. So is any color real, or is just what our brain translates?
I cannot imagine a world with no color, so if colors do no exist, I have no idea of how the world could really be. And how can I know that colors are the only detail of the world the brain translates into being?

As I recall in my basic physics classes in High School, objects appear to have color to us (humans) because as light hits an object, most of the light is absorbed by the object and what we "see" is in reality the light that the object reflects. Of course a light "source" of certain light frequencies will be seen by us as whatever color we have decided it is... But the reality is it's just a radiated signal of whatever frequency it is.

So, the radiated sources and reflected light occurrences that we perceive as color exists whether we are there to perceive them or not and from the standpoint of Physics, I think it can be said that "colors" as we define them and perceive them do in fact physically 'exist' even in the absence of our perception.

What makes them appear that way to us exists whether we perceive them or not but you can't say that's the way they really are in absence of our perception of them.

As we can record the occurrences and view them later and even create the occurrences in a controlled environment? Sure I can.

Semantics.

But it's still all about perception. You still need empirical tools to see it how we see it. Something is read because of its physical nature as well as the way our eyes or a camera translate the information. You need both. There is no objectively correct tools for observing color. We just have a certain type of perception that allows us to see it the way we do.

I didn't say there was. However, there are objective ways of measuring light waves and for detecting light 'frequencies.'

We assign those frequencies a name (green for example.) That is true.

But it is also true that those frequencies, sources and reflections take place even in the absence of our perceptions or labels.

You're not seeing the point. Yes, those frequencies result in a certain color and they are objective. But color is an appearance. It's a property of how things look. If advanced life evolved on another planet, most likely they wouldn't see the same colors as we do because it's entirely about how our eyes translate those frequencies and they most likely would have different eyes or not any eyes at all but something else. It's relative to what tools we have for observing light. It's not the nature of light that makes color not real. It's the fact that color is all dependent on what you have to translate how light appears to you.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 2:14:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 6:01:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/23/2012 3:12:49 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

... there are objective ways of measuring light waves and for detecting light 'frequencies.'

We assign those frequencies a name (green for example.) That is true.

But it is also true that those frequencies, sources and reflections take place even in the absence of our perceptions or labels.

You're not seeing the point. Yes, those frequencies result in a certain color and they are objective. But color is an appearance. It's a property of how things look.

It's about more than that. In Physics, for example light that is absorbed more often than not generates heat. One end of the frequency spectrum creates more heat than the other. So, it's not only about appearance and how things 'look.'
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 10:30:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You basically ignored almost everything I said.

What does heat have to do with color? I said color is a property of how things look, not light waves. Of course light waves have more to do with than just color.

Please respond to what you for some reason cut off.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 1:06:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 10:30:35 AM, phantom wrote:
You basically ignored almost everything I said.

What does heat have to do with color? I said color is a property of how things look, not light waves. Of course light waves have more to do with than just color.

Please respond to what you for some reason cut off.

Phantom, I tried to make the point that (in physics) color is about more than just that we can 'see.' You seem to agree that it does but you want to make it ONLY about that which we can see.

'Colors' (in the light spectrum) exist even if aliens are blind or no-one is around to perceive them.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 4:04:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 1:06:42 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/24/2012 10:30:35 AM, phantom wrote:
You basically ignored almost everything I said.

What does heat have to do with color? I said color is a property of how things look, not light waves. Of course light waves have more to do with than just color.

Please respond to what you for some reason cut off.

Phantom, I tried to make the point that (in physics) color is about more than just that we can 'see.' You seem to agree that it does but you want to make it ONLY about that which we can see.

'Colors' (in the light spectrum) exist even if aliens are blind or no-one is around to perceive them.

Right. You just repeat repeat repeat without really addressing what I say.

And the bolded part is a blatant strawman and you know it. I didn't say anything of the sort.

I'm done talking with you.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 7:30:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 5:43:17 AM, Scplante wrote:
It's Do colors not Does colors

How does you tell?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 10:09:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Color is just a neat way we perceive light of different frequencies. But outside of ourselves, it pretty much doesn't exist. It's a nice concept, though.

So what would that make the colors in crayons or the colors in plants?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 4:03:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 10:09:07 AM, Df0512 wrote:
Color is just a neat way we perceive light of different frequencies. But outside of ourselves, it pretty much doesn't exist. It's a nice concept, though.

So what would that make the colors in crayons or the colors in plants?
No. Color is a property of a physical system (broadly speaking electroluminescence). That's it. It exists irrespective of the mind.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 6:39:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 2:08:19 PM, Cometflash wrote:
The snowflakes argument that was posed in a debate got me thinking. So I did some reading about. The explanation can be applied to any object really. So is any color real, or is just what our brain translates?
I cannot imagine a world with no color, so if colors do no exist, I have no idea of how the world could really be. And how can I know that colors are the only detail of the world the brain translates into being?

I don"t understand this concept of "real" and "exist" that you and others in this thread are applying. On what basis do you consider mental phenomena to be "unreal", or come to believe that mental phenomena do not "exist"?

I don"t understand why mental phenomena, by virtue of their undeniable existence, are not considered to be as "real" as physical ones. In a very real sense, their reality is even more immediate, more self-evident than the immaterial energy fluctuations arriving at our senses, it is only the mental phenomena that we actually experience, everything else is a mental construct at best. Our entire perceived universe is formulated within our minds, and we can only infer what may lie outside of our minds. Everything we know, or feel, is mental, reality is first and foremost mental, any concept of a reality beyond mind is a presumption of sorts, the very existence of a physical reality outside of mind is at best the presumed cause of our sensations, something we infer. How does one logically make the leap of faith to consider that mental construct to be more real than the directly experienced mental phenomena from which it is derived?

If we do not grant "existence" or "reality" to mental phenomena, then we can conclude that the concept of existence is not real, in effect, we are arguing that reality is not real.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 6:47:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 3:38:14 PM, phantom wrote:
Colors aren't absolute, so not really real.

Why is "absolute" a criteria of existence? On that basis, is there anything that does exist?

At least not in the sense I think you're meaning. They're just how we perceive the world based on the tools we have for doing so. Reality has no color because there's no absolute way to look at it. It all depends on what you have to look at it with.

There is no absolute way to "look at" anything, so isn't your argument that reality doesn't exist? You have defined knowledge as not existing with this "absolute" requirement of yours, now you are saying that the universe doesn't exist either?

Is there anything that does exist?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 12:00:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 6:47:30 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/21/2012 3:38:14 PM, phantom wrote:
Colors aren't absolute, so not really real.

Why is "absolute" a criteria of existence? On that basis, is there anything that does exist?

It's not absolute because it's subjective. It's relative to who's perception it is.

At least not in the sense I think you're meaning. They're just how we perceive the world based on the tools we have for doing so. Reality has no color because there's no absolute way to look at it. It all depends on what you have to look at it with.

There is no absolute way to "look at" anything, so isn't your argument that reality doesn't exist?

That's a misrepresentation. Reality still has the absolute properties which give off a color (lightwaves and such), but what type of color it is, is far from absolute. Color exists in a sense, but it's relative.

You have defined knowledge as not existing with this "absolute" requirement of yours, now you are saying that the universe doesn't exist either?

Of course I'm not. Read further down my previous discussion if you need a clarification of my meaning.

Is there anything that does exist?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)