Originally posted by Clovie
and it has nothing to do with the fact that AC was trying to tell me that there is no normal pink? 😕
Yes, right....since I didn't adreess the whole thread but just what I figured you might be talking aboot.....😮 .....and there is not actually a normal pink ..... (although I don't know what ACs reasoning is....)
Originally posted by Alpha Centauriright..you were saying thet I can't be using temr like light and dark pink, because there is no normal one, which can be related to the dark and light ones.
I wasn't trying to say there's no normal pink, was I? Jesus.-AC
I think Ush is countering Bardock's point (and the point of the whole thread).
The side issue between AC and Clovie regards not 'is that pink?', but 'is that light pink?'
Given various shades of pink, how do we know which is the normal shade?
I suppose it's essentially a sense-based perception. The lower limit of pink becomes white, the upper limit becomes red. The middle position is normal pink.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doomand it is what i've been all the time saying!
I think Ush is countering Bardock's point (and the point of the whole thread).The side issue between AC and Clovie regards not 'is that pink?', but 'is that light pink?'
Given various shades of pink, how do we know which is the normal shade?
I suppose it's essentially a sense-based perception. The lower limit of pink becomes white, the upper limit becomes red. The middle position is normal pink.
or trying to say and failing 😕
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why not? Reason enough to think it might be true is the fact that it can't actually be proven wrong. I enjoy discussing it, not saying I believe it.
No, that is absolutely inept reasoning. That something cannot be proven wrong is not in any way at all a reason to think something might be true.
It is a fundamental cornerstone of reason that things MUST be proved positive, not negative. You cannot prove a negative, nor is it the function of any logical process to do so.
Every piece of evidence we have tells us that we would see it the same. To deny it is counter-logical and entering, as I mentioned, into the realm of the purely philosophical until, as I also mentioned, we are back to brains in jars.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, that is absolutely inept reasoning. That something cannot be proven wrong is not in any way at all a reason to think something might be true.It is a fundamental cornerstone of reason that things MUST be proved positive, not negative. You cannot prove a negative, nor is it the function of any logical process to do so.
Every piece of evidence we have tells us that we would see it the same. To deny it is counter-logical and entering, as I mentioned, into the realm of the purely philosophical until, as I also mentioned, we are back to brains in jars.
But that#S not true..there's no evidence for that at all...it's easy t go that way..but there is absolutely no reason to believe so....
There is absolutely TONS of it!
Light isn't a vague concept- it's an existing thing, that has been analysed and discovered. The scattering of light and the way it produces colour (and why, and what the underlying difference is) is a matter of scientific record. The way that our eyes act as lenses to see that scattering (no different, fundamentally, to the way camera lenses work) is a matter of scientific record, as is the way that information is then transmitted to our brains.
Colour is a matter of fact, not supposition. Making a hypothesis that people see colours differently with no proof for it and plenty against is futile.
Originally posted by Clovie
right..you were saying thet I can't be using temr like light and dark pink, because there is no normal one, which can be related to the dark and light ones.
and as I said before. I'm too stupid to understand you.
No no no. For crying out loud.
I was saying IF you use light and dark terms, how do you KNOW there's a normal one? What do you use to deduce that? Jesus. It's actually like talking to a brick wall.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, that is absolutely inept reasoning. That something cannot be proven wrong is not in any way at all a reason to think something might be true.
I was speaking in relation to why some people might believe it, because as you will have noticed, I followed it with "not saying I believe it." It can't be proven or disproven and regardless of how likely or unlikely it is, I enjoy discussing it. It's not antagonistic discussion purely for the sake of, it's because I find it to be an interesting concept that I neither confirm or deny.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It is a fundamental cornerstone of reason that things MUST be proved positive, not negative. You cannot prove a negative, nor is it the function of any logical process to do so.
I didn't say you could prove a negative, I said it can't be proven for or against purely because the very essense of the question cancels out anyone else saying "I see the same as you." It'll always come back to someone saying "Well what if that's not what you see/are saying, what if I'm just hearing it that way?" and due to the fact that it isn't provable (either way) nobody can say "Well you're wrong."
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Every piece of evidence we have tells us that we would see it the same. To deny it is counter-logical and entering, as I mentioned, into the realm of the purely philosophical until, as I also mentioned, we are back to brains in jars.
Right, and I'm not denying that we might very well see it all the same. If anything that's what I would believe. I prefer to think though, as opposed to dismissing something that might possibly make for some interesting discussion purely because you or a few others can't be bothered to let others indulge their imaginations.
It's a sad day when ninety Spelljammer threads are left to clog the forum up but when one decent thread arises, it's attempting to be quashed. You think it's stupid to discuss, fine. Why are you here?
And as for colours being a matter of fact, they only exist because of light. If you put a green, blue and red sweater in a closet with no light, what colours are they? Have you ever stood in the dark?
-AC
Because I am here pointing out why it is stupid to discuss.
Your mistake is assuming there is no evidence for colour being perceived the same and so that it cannot be proven. There IS evidence for it, and as I say, it is counter-logical to believe otherwise, unless you are returning to philisophical scepticism.
Your logic is flawed at a very basic level. And your final paragraph strikes me as totally irrelevant.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Because I am here pointing out why it is stupid to discuss.
You've done so. Why are you here? Is it such an annoying occurance that this forum has taken a turn toward discussing something above trolling? I don't actually see why you are trying to stomp on this thread purely because you think it's stupid.
Why don't you go and stomp on the entire OTF and it's countless "Win a date with..." threads?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your mistake is assuming there is no evidence for it and so that it cannot be proven. There IS evidence for it, and as I say, it is counter-logical to believe otherwise, unless you are returning to philisophical scepticism.
If there is factual, undeniable evidence, then show me it. Because the fact that the very nature of this topic lies in the negative and not being able to prove it wrong, shows otherwirse.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your logic is flawed at a very basic level. And your final paragraph strikes me as totally irrelevant.
Well if it can be proven, it would be undeniable. So considering the fact that some of KMC's more intelligent people have posted in here wanting to discuss it, suggests that you either need to prove us all wrong to the point that we can't deny it, or move it to the philosophy forum (which is where I and others believe it should be).
-AC
Originally posted by Ushgarak
There is absolutely TONS of it!Light isn't a vague concept- it's an existing thing, that has been analysed and discovered. The scattering of light and the way it produces colour (and why, and what the underlying difference is) is a matter of scientific record. The way that our eyes act as lenses to see that scattering (no different, fundamentally, to the way camera lenses work) is a matter of scientific record, as is the way that information is then transmitted to our brains.
Colour is a matter of fact, not supposition. Making a hypothesis that people see colours differently with no proof for it and plenty against is futile.
But no one doubts light or colour...but what evidence do you have that our brains see it similar......that#S not provable..we cannot test that....we see it for the same reason, that is a fact but how we perceive it is just a wild guess..and although I agree that the easiest is usally the best I don't know if it is the truth....
Originally posted by WindDancer
Here is quick little trick question for all you followers of Hume's empiricism...How do you explain colors to a person that has never seen colors in their life? (i.e. born blind)
I think blind people know objects only based on the touch. If they got their sight back, they would need a long time to understand what an object is without touching it - simple objects, such as ball. If a blind since birth person, saw a ball after they got their sight back (assuming) they wouldnt know what it is, until they touch it.
As for colours, once they establish the differance between a picture and a 3D withouth touching, im assuming their colour teaching will be the same as everyone else.
No matter how easy it is to get two or ten people in a room and have them say "The wall is blue" and believe that's all there is to it, anyone can always raise the "What if it's just perception?" argument and no matter how sure you are, you can't prove them wrong.
If you could, the debate and subject would be void. But it's not.
I'm by no means saying that they are as likely, the perception theory is outlandish even by my standards. That doesn't mean I'm dismissing it because I enjoy discussing the possibilities of it.
-AC
Originally posted by WindDancer
Here is quick little trick question for all you followers of Hume's empiricism...How do you explain colors to a person that has never seen colors in their life? (i.e. born blind)
What do you mean...someone that has never seen and still cannot. ....or someone that used to be blind and now does see?
😗
I'm afraid I have to go with the mods on this one. Seeing different colors would really be a trivial demonstation of perception, if thats what you're trying to argue. The word 'red' exists to symbolise red, not the other way around. Everyone else with normal sight, seems to see red as red. With miniscule differences. We do not believe that red is red, we see red is red.
Either their are certain rules to light or we are all equally 'delusional'.