You are sitting there saying "We do not believe that red is red, we see red is red."
I'm not disagreeing but someone might and you couldn't prove them wrong.
How can you prove something that you don't have the power to see? You can't see with anyone else's eyes. So until you can, it'll never be absolute.
Milla, I've not come across anyone trying to nEgotiate the existance of light. The only point I ever raised was that either way, perception (individual) is never absolute. Until we can see for each other or see what each other sees. Light exists, of course. Colour only exists because of light though.
-AC
Originally posted by jerlark386
😗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'.
But that'S the thing....we obviously call it the same..and it obviously ios the same..but do we perceive it the same?
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Maybe they are simply colour-blind.The fact which everyone is trying to get across is that light is non-nagotiable. Ray of light is not nagotiable - its a scientific fact. Remember physics class?
I think this is what Ush is getting at - prism adn reflection of light...
And I totally agree, Light Exists, Red exists (well Objects only reflecting Red Light exist) and I am not as much a skeptic to doubt that (I go with Kalr Popper on this one, Its reasonable to just go with it) .... but what I wonder, and I know there can not be an answer to that is if you see what I would call blue as the same thing...or another question if your miond would perceive the colour I see similar...would you still agree it's the same colour?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri😕 and I said that you compare the light shade to the dark shade and the lighter one is light and the darker one is dark 😕
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.
-AC
and thanks it's one of the biggest compliments I've been given recently.
Originally posted by Clovie
😕 and I said that you compare the light shade to the dark shade and the lighter one is light and the darker one is dark 😕and thanks it's one of the biggest compliments I've been given recently.
Now that's right, you can say Lighter and Darker...but you cannot jsut generally say that is light and that dark..and you can't really decide what is a "normal" colour....
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You are sitting there saying "We do not believe that red is red, we see red is red."I'm not disagreeing but someone might and you couldn't prove them wrong.
How can you prove something that you don't have the power to see? You can't see with anyone else's eyes. So until you can, it'll never be absolute.
Milla, I've not come across anyone trying to nEgotiate the existance of light. The only point I ever raised was that either way, perception (individual) is never absolute. Until we can see for each other or see what each other sees. Light exists, of course. Colour only exists because of light though.
-AC
Color exists becuase of way light is reflected off or through objects. Light can be measured. There is really only a narrow margin for perception because there is only a narrow range of light we can see in the first place. How do think programs like Adobe Photoshop could survive if it had to custom its colors to everyone's 'perception'. This is'nt like taste, where one type of food can taste bad one and good to another.
Originally posted by jerlark386
Color exists becuase of way light is reflected off or through objects. Light can be measured. There is really only a narrow margin for perception because there is only a narrow range of light we can see in the first place. How do think programs like Adobe Photoshop could survive if it had to custom its colors to everyone's 'perception'. This is'nt like taste, where one type of food can taste bad one and good to another.
I never said colour was non-existant, I said it exists because of light. Which it does.
Resorting to flawed analogies doesn't prove anything either. As sure as you are, you can't prove to me what I'm seeing. Because you don't know for sure. You're just very confident.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauriso I'm not a brickwall now? 😕
Forget it, actually forget it.-AC
Originally posted by Bardock42and I can't assume that the medium one is pink, without any lighter/darker adddings? 😕
Now that's right, you can say Lighter and Darker...but you cannot jsut generally say that is light and that dark..and you can't really decide what is a "normal" colour....
and before someone yells at me. yes i'm stupid. if you don't wanna talk to me/see my posts etc there is ignore button, thankyouverymuch.
Originally posted by jerlark386
Color exists becuase of way light is reflected off or through objects. Light can be measured. There is really only a narrow margin for perception because there is only a narrow range of light we can see in the first place. How do think programs like Adobe Photoshop could survive if it had to custom its colors to everyone's 'perception'. This is'nt like taste, where one type of food can taste bad one and good to another.
You totally misunderstand the point. I accept that everyone sees the same...but does it well.."feel" the same?
Your Photoshop example is wquite stuoid since it doesn't proof anything...
Originally posted by Clovie
so I'm not a brickwall now? 😕and I can't assume that the medium one is pink, without any lighter/darker adddings? 😕
and before someone yells at me. yes i'm stupid. if you don't wanna talk to me/see my posts etc there is ignore button, thankyouverymuch.
I don't think he meant that.
Well i guess it's my mistake I have to clarify.....you personally can decide that one Shade of Pink is "normal" but there's no reason to assume that it is the "normal" pink...it is just another color and in no way special...you yourself can use it as a reference point but that won't make a difference to any other being in this world (except if that other being agrees with you on that definition).....
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
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.
Experience and observation tells us what thing looks like. In the case of a blind man who's been blind since childbirth his senses tell him how a thing is shaped and how it feels. However, since a blind man hasn't experience or seen colors in his life he may have difficulty understanding. Now, that doesn't mean he will never understand but it will take time (i.e. a learning process) for him to understand.
A better illustration is Plato's allegory of the cave:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_allegory_of_the_cave
Another reason why Plato PWNED Nietzche. 😛
Originally posted by WindDancer
Experience and observation tells us what thing looks like. In the case of a blind man who's been blind since childbirth his senses tell him how a thing is shaped and how it feels. However, since a blind man hasn't experience or seen colors in his life he may have difficulty understanding. Now, that doesn't mean he will never understand but it will take time (i.e. a learning process) for him to understand.A better illustration is Plato's allegory of the cave:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_allegory_of_the_cave
Another reason why Plato PWNED Nietzche. 😛
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
This is because colours can only be described nominally (given that frequency doesn't confer any extra meaning as regards this problem).
Originally posted by WindDancer
Experience and observation tells us what thing looks like. In the case of a blind man who's been blind since childbirth his senses tell him how a thing is shaped and how it feels. However, since a blind man hasn't experience or seen colors in his life he may have difficulty understanding. Now, that doesn't mean he will never understand but it will take time (i.e. a learning process) for him to understand.A better illustration is Plato's allegory of the cave:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_allegory_of_the_cave
Another reason why Plato PWNED Nietzche. 😛
😠
😛