Fruit undergoes a chemical change, that then eliminates different wavelengths of light reflected from its surface - that signals to the organism that the fruit is ripe and ready to eat. Colour is not subjective - nor made possible by nomenclature. It exists in reality, as is then described in increasingly literal terms. — counterpunch

Yes I did understand your point about evolutionary argument but somehow I stuck in Violet perception...
we are agree that obviously colours exist in reality, thus, are objectively patterns. But this situation goes forward in terms of vocabulary and words. As you explained, when the fruit eliminates some wavelengths, it shows us the fruit is going to be ready to eat. But this is literally a good example of how we interpreted this natural objective pattern. You say we name it in literal terms but previously we had to be taught basic vocabulary to do so or at least interpret abstract things in object which are around us. Thus, the colours.
I guess this is why John Locke referred Violet as imaginary colour, but no for not existing in realty but literally the opposite. This is why he criticises the color wheel, when obviously the reflection which surpasses upon our cones it is an interpretation that could make us mistaken from the truest object of colour.
So, despite that could be so poetic speak about “wine dark sea” it shows how humans are subjective inside the objective. Some are poetic like Homero, others are more specific and scientific and wants to explain colours themselves, as the truly form. I guess both interpretation are cool and respectable.
This is why I still defend physiological is also important in terms of colour :up:

[img]http://

When René Descartes said: cogito ergo sum he referred that if I have awareness, then I exist, doesn’t matter at all if everything around us cheat me or is lying to me. Our world could be a fantasy or created by pure interpretation of ourselves. This is the true essence I guess. The fact of doubting about external points but not about your own awareness.

Looking at the colour wheel (top) it does seem that the violet is blocked by the red but emphasised by the blue. — counterpunch

Interesting perception :100:

Otherwise - how could we explain the overwhelming uniformity of perceptions that we can speak meaningfully of a blue sky? — counterpunch

I guess this happens because of how we, the humans, always been tried of put an order or criteria. If most (not all) see the sea as blue due to the wavelengths from the sky, we established it as law of common reasoning because most of us literally see it that way. We cannot lead the people say it is “green” “white” or whatever because could be a chaos. Past thinkers used colours not only in art but as a way of showing how realty thus, physics, should work in our perceptions.
For example: you thought Violet is somehow emphasised by the blue, because this is how your eye told you. For me, as John Locke said, Violet is completely different pattern form the basics red/blue and this is why is important the cones of our eyes and how they interpret the reality itself.
Previously, this example was also shared:

so that a Greek will find it as natural
to call the sea ‘wine-looking’ as we to call it blue, and
a Roman will find it as natural to call a swan ‘scarlet’ —or the word we conventionally translate scarlet
— as we to call it white. It has been suggested that this
is because the Greeks and Romans were colour-blind.
But no sort of colour-blindness known to physiology
would account for the facts. In both languages there
are the rudiments of what we should call a true colour-
nomenclature ; and in both languages it happens
that there are words for red and green, the colours
that colour-blind persons cannot distinguish — An Essay On Metaphysics

your RGB monitor has three colors that are varied in intensity (and thus this diagram is only an approximation). An example of this can be found in the wiki SRGB article. — InPitzotl

Hello InPitzotl!
Thank you for answering in my thread. I will check it out this articles later on :up:

So, yes, we're trichromatic, but no, there aren't three primary colors... unless you pull tricks like CIE-1931 color space does, and make your primaries abstract. — InPitzotl

Understandable. But I think in the past these colours were primary because somehow you could mixed them and then getting another variants. I guess this is why some artists or thinkers thought the Color Wheel was “primary”.
In this point, it is interesting how John Locke, despite it was centuries ago, tried to criticise the primary colours because of the reflection of the eye. This is why he wrote about Violet and how our cones in the eyes see it, etc...
So, the study of the colours not necessarily are provided by the spectrum of light but from a physiological point of view.

Either way, color per se isn't so much about photons per se as it is about how human eyes measure them, so I wouldn't try to put too much stock into the "colors" (human-color-label-things) that aren't wavelengths. — InPitzotl

Yes! Colours are human-label-things but... what happens with colourblindness people? We teach to them they are wrong because they do not see the basic patterns as we do. Thus, supposedly, the primary colours... so who is wrong here in terms of how our eyes reflect the colours we see?

But the fact remains morality is demonstrably not made of it. And that applies to human laws too, I think. — Bartricks

Sure this is the most difficult aspect about morality. How can we prove it? Well it depends in the social context of this specific period of life. We can apply it to human laws but not as criticise but developing greater laws. I want to defend here that we can do it better and not depending about nature or God

Yes... but it could goes further than just a moral code. We can see it as a good tool to improve the security inside the State or between the citizens. Doesn’t matter at all if we say we have to respect each other because it is moral if we do not reinforce it. As Thomas Hobbes said Homo homini lupus... we have to be careful of each other and thus, reinforce the rule of law.

But unless a law says no more than 'do what is right and do not do what is wrong — Bartricks

Not necessarily. Law could be also useful of prevention. I understand your point that without laws immoral stuff as killing each other will still be immoral. Agree. But law goes further than this... the process of court, evidences, witnesses, etc... it is not easy as just believe in nature

Can rules of law be immoral?
Yes.
Therefore rules of law are not moral laws. — Bartricks

Interesting question. I think depends about history and circumstances. I am agree with you criteria that somehow law could be immoral. But I defend that the problem is not the law itself but the the totalitarian. These are the ones who sadly break the law. Nevertheless, rule of law is a necessity we have to improve

Morality is made of norms and values. A moral norm is a prescription or proscription. If an action is right then its being so is its being prescribed; if an action is wrong then it's being so is it's being proscribed. And if something is morally valuable, then it is morally good - these are equivalent statuses - and if something is morally devalued then it is morally bad. These are conceptual truths about morality and cannot seriously be disputed. — Bartricks

What about the concept of law by H.L.A Hart?

The Rule of Recognition, the rule by which any member of society may check to discover what the primary rules of the society are. In a simple society, Hart states, the recognition rule might only be what is written in a sacred book or what is said by a ruler. Hart claimed the concept of rule of recognition as an evolution from Hans Kelsen's "Grundnorm", or "basic norm".
The Rule of Change, the rule by which existing primary rules might be created, altered or deleted.
The Rule of Adjudication, the rule by which the society might determine when a rule has been violated and prescribe a remedy. Significance of Law.

I guess when you are speaking about God as mind which creates these laws is not fair. I want to believe more in ourselves and develop the rule of law because we can do it. We don’t necessarily depend in a subterfuge like God.

t (khak where kh is pronounced like the Spanish jota), — Olivier5

Yes I know! The concierge of my old school was called “Khalil” but we called him Jalil :smile:

It's interesting to compare our colour categories with those of other cultures. You might like this but I read recently: — Olivier5

I just read the text you shared with me. It was so interesting. Probably I would never name the sea as “wine-looking” until today instead of blue.
Sometimes I think that colours have been used somehow as laws or patterns just to make an order. I guess this happens to try not make a chaos. If we see yellow it is just yellow doesn’t matter the our philosophical debate. This is just secondary for some people but I guess is beautiful debating about colours and its significance for us

I think you might like this brief of John Locke related to colours too:

If we block a child in a room all of his childhood teaching him the green colour while is actually yellow. Will he name all of his life “green” when he would actually see yellow? In this topic John Locke answered this is a perfect empirical experiment so he put the following sentence:
What you are trying to say is that complex terms like colours are not innate because we can teach children to misunderstand mixing them. I guess this is the same example of fearness. You can feel the fear because previously someone taught you what is darkness, witches, demons, etc... — John Locke

we all see colours in exactly the same way generally, but this is probably an aspect which can be answered by neuroscientists. — Jack Cummins

To be honest with you I think not. All the pigments are so unique but at the same time different towards our perception. It is true I am not a neuroscientist but I think it is clear how interpretive they are. This is beautiful and I think this is why art is so abstract depending of the people’s eyes.

It is also questionable if black is an actual colour. — Jack Cummins

This is interesting. We can argue it couldn’t be a true colour due to light prism doesn’t pass through it. I think black is there just to eliminate or cancel the develop of colours. We can say it is important because creates the feeling of diaphanous. Also when black is used in paints more than other colours tend to make the paint another feeling: sadness, nihilism, uncertainty, injustice p, etc... are somehow represented by black.

Thought you'd like it. :smile: — Olivier5

I did Oliver! :up: :100:

Hello Oliver!

Thank you so much for sharing that example. I really like it. Fits completely what I was asking in the OP.

Khaki is another example of a composite color that does not feature in the light spectrum, — Olivier5

This is why is so interesting for sensations. Our eyes somehow, by the cones, receive the information of this colour but at the same time it doesn’t be part of the color wheel. so this why I guess we have to focus the attributes in a physiological path. But, I don’t want to criticise color wheel patters I guess it is important to at least put an order in terms of art.

In Iran and Afghanistan, where Persian is spoken, there aren't many trees and greenery, often, so khaki is the dominant colour in the environment, the colour of the earth around you, and it deserves a name.

Blue in Persian is "abi", the colour of water (ab or aw). — Olivier5

Probably Khaki is the primary colour in this specific zone of the Earth. It is interesting because it follows what I type previously about how important green due to nature, well better said, Khaki in Afganistán or Iran.

Again, thanks for sharing this example I will keep it in mind.

So not real enough? — bongo fury

It is real enough :cheer:

On this analogy, purple is like a musical chord. A light beam with more than one spectral peak in frequency. Real enough, then? — bongo fury

I understand your point and this metaphor you used is even beautiful in my opinion. It is literally like a musical chord. The light beam goes in the prism and then creates , as a frequency, the spectrum of light. Nevertheless, pointing out true purple or Violet, like you did, it is amazing how our eyes catch this reflection so I guess this is why is pure sensation or physiology because it creates an imaginary colour which is not related to the color wheel itself due to the lack of dependence for red and blue.
So... I guess we have also to focus in how light interferes in this shadows of colours.

I am totally interested in the physiology of imagination. Oliver Sacks is relevant for this topic I guess because of all his researches about in his book awakenings but I am not so specialised in his works yet.

Hello Jack!

I really like your answer and thanks for replying. I didn't think about art but you are right. This topic is important in this debate. It is interesting how you recommended to me focus more in the colour itself (pigments) rather than how looks like in the paper. It is true and I am somehow agree that we have to purify the attributes of objects as empiricists said back in the day.
Also, I guess it is important to point out why the primary colours are cyan, magenta and yellow. Nevertheless, it blows my mind why is not green too. I think this pigment is so important and it is the main color of photosynthesis in plants...
Colours, as you said, are an interesting topic about philosophy, art, physics, physiology, etc...

Verse IX

Getting a full glass, without nothing spilling out, is impossible. It would have been better not fill it.
Getting a sharp blade, without the edge dulling, is impossible. It would have been better not dull it.
Conserve a living room full of Gold and minerals, without been robbed, is impossible. It would have been better not control that wealth.
You cannot control an extreme for long term. Any apogee has their own decay. Like the men...
Anyone who is showing off their power or richness, is preparing his ruin.
The retirement from the apogee and reputation, is the way to the sky.

Another example of equilibrium/balance from TTC!

Research in my country says that about one third of the people believe in something. We call it 'somethingi — TaySan

Interesting! I will check out more information about it.

Interesting! Exactly as you remember is full of castles. Fun fact: Spain in the Middle Age was called “Castilla” which it comes from literally for the big number of castles built in the country :smile:
Here is another one I like:

It is called Buitrago de Lozoya.

[img]http://


[img]http://

It could be so random but I want to share with you friends this beautiful castle near in my hometown: Madrid.

The castle is called Manzanares el Real.

[img]http://

Yes. For example: The concept of time. When we are living a period of uncertainty we have nihilistic feelings or thoughts about what the future could holds. This symptom of vagueness make us feel so uncertain about us. Nevertheless, vagueness, itself, it is already absorbed previously by nihilism because this is the main premise or thought about uncertainty.

So, is vagueness itself a philosophy? — Don Wade

It could be but I guess vagueness can be absorbed by two big branches of philosophy: scepticism and nihilism because when we have vague thoughts sometimes depends in our uncertainty so vagueness, itself, could be more developed inside these two.

Why do we then, not support the extreme hatred of fat people, but support the extreme hatred of "Hitler" for example?

Is it because all the fat people claim, "It's wrong to hate fat people,". Is this the case? — Cobra

There are different concepts and situations. You cannot compare fatness with a dictator who was responsible for a World War and millions of deaths. Also, nobody teaches you to hate Hitler... their ideas are still there, someone doesn’t like it others support them.
If we want to remove obesity we have to promote healthy programs to avoid it not hating obese people because it is not healthy.

I would say perseverance. We all have that period in lifetime where we everything looks like impossible or against us. I think all of them who are strong enough to fight against the circumstances can conquer whatever they propose. For this reason, I guess perseverance is an important skill too

Trump launched his own cute little four page website: https://www.45office.com/ — praxis

As I did expect his official page is only in English despite the fact he was the president of the most influential country of the world. Also he refers only to American people, he doesn’t care about the rest of the world despite his administration put a lot of worldwide conflicts.

and the viability of creating an Artificial Mind, and more to the point, whether such an entity may even be qualified as in possession of consciousness, or capable of encountering like forms of experience, have all been overlooked — Vessuvius

It is interesting how scientists try to find out an Artificial Mind or AI, etc... instead of developing more our consciousness or even animals minds. I guess this debate about how further we can go in terms of developing a machine which could think by itself it is quite interesting but irrelevant at the same time if we don’t understand ourselves yet. Don’t you think?

I don't think we truly have free will at all because we have to consider two important facts:
1. Rule of law (we cannot do whatever our free will dictates because it can pass the limits of so)
2. The coliving (free will would sound even selfish because is an act of pure personal interests. Nevertheless, we are forced to live in a community of group that somehow "sacrifice" our own interests to persevering the common one)

I understand and respect your points because are solid. Nevertheless, the following phrase is so interesting to point out despite you found it in Google:

Exploitation- the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work. — schopenhauer1

How can we consider someone is exploiting other? I mean, economically concept. Do you consider earning just 400 € per month working 6 days as abusive? Of course it is but these people is in a dilemma is this sitthy job or sleeping in the streets. This is the world that democracy created.

but not as being born into the human condition as a whole. Why is the assumption that being born at all to produce anything considered "good" for that person? Who is the one that gets to decide that? Why is another person getting to decide that on behalf of someone else? — schopenhauer1

I guess there are two factors here we have to point out:

1. Oligarchy implanted by the own market. If a random company with 1 Billion euros wants to exploit and abuse others for just their own interest we have to assume it even if this company has as object the things we cannot live without like tech and this stuff... money wins in our system. Have we discovered something different rather than capitalism? NO why literally are we making them even richer despite the fact we know they are abusing us? I don’t know it is curious

2. Some State's weak public affairs. Sadly, there are countries why can only survive because of them. For example, Birmania and other countries with child labour. It is abusive but somehow those States win profit with these politics. They do not care if some kids die of pollution if at least Adidas or Nike put millions of dollars/euros when their coin value is trash.

Karl Marx and his economical philosophy doesn’t not get effect because by nature humans tend to get benefit laying down others

What is a philosophical zombie?

Everything and nothing is happening and not happening, everywhere and nowhere, all at once, now, never and forever.

“It is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect” (with the appropriate qualifications) (Metaph IV 3 1005b19–20)

- Aristotle.

I also think that repeatability in science is to check the results we got previously in our analysis. But, even further than this, repeatability could also help us to improve the hypothesis itself. If you want to make a solid statement I guess you should repeat a lot until you believe is enough proven.

According to your pleasures, I would recommend to you "the revolt of masses" by Ortega y Gasset.
I hope you could like it

There is no need to know. There is no need to prove. That's an issue born exclusively upon us, upon conscious, thinking beings. It's similar to truth. It's perplexity of our own making. We create need to know, we create issues of validation, we create issues of falsity and truth in our minds and in our conscious interactions. — daniel j lavender

Well... If you open a topic defending that "existence is infinite" I guess you should, at least, prove or argument your criteria. When we make such statements we have to provide good proofs in order to convince others.

I look out into the night sky and see countless celestial bodies. I don't know what's going on, I don't know what all is out there. While aware there are things, I haven't a clue of the specificity. But whatever it is, it is existent. And it is happening precisely the way it is happening. Regardless of my knowledge. Existence is, things are whether known or not. If it isn't — daniel j lavender

True. Agreed with this point but I guess it is important give it a chance too. You pointed out the sky and celestial bodies. We both already know that the science which is specialist in this topic is astrophysics. I guess, all the scientifics working in this aerea are professionals with good reputation who provide with proofs what is going in our universe and celestial bodies.
What would happen if they never did so? Nothing as you perfectly said. Universe will still be there. But don't you think it's beautiful give a chance and study those phenomenon?

Existence is the universal, not consciousness or thinking. Existence is whether conscious or not. Things can be without consciousness, things can be without thinking. Things can be without consciousness or thinking but consciousness nor thinking can be without things. Consciousness and thinking would be things themselves — daniel j lavender

It is true that consciousness or awareness could be something that we have to develop through the years. In this point, I didn't say that we cannot exist without awareness but how important this proof is. Imagine, there are people who never will think about this situation. Are they still existing?
Sure, they existe but do they aware of? I think not...
This why I guess awareness and the force of develop our consciousness could be a good proof of our existence. Saying both existence and awareness can act separately is even irregular...

is it not apparent consciousness, the ability to think develops gradually over time? — daniel j lavender

Yes, of course but this is indeed a good example of empiricism. How can we know what is awareness and existence itself if we never been taught of?

I've been to Europe twice, three times if you count the time my family lived there in 1952 when I was one. Most recently my brother and I went there in 2014. I've always been treated well by the people I met. I loved trying to make myself understood using my five years of high school French and one year of college German — T Clark

I am glad to read this. It is interesting that despite our politicians are always discussing each other, the citizens have fun in both continents. I guess this happens because somehow our culture and values are connected doesn't matter a few differences that could be language or customs

I just wanted to clarify here that I was saying I think your word of equilibrium is better than balance. I think it allows for a continual sense of movement and change. — Possibility

Thank you! I think both words are important to understand TTC because somehow the meaning of the book is connected to this two words.

It's one of the big reasons so many people in the world don't like us much. — T Clark

I think this is just political stuff we don't have to mix governments with people. When I was in Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois and Wisconsin everything was so awesome and I have good memories.
True, nobody knew Spanish but this made me stronger to improve my English so I ended up winning in that journey.