• Douglas Alan
    105
    The point is colors do not actually existZelebg

    Colors are properties, and properties exist.

    |>ouglas
  • Douglas Alan
    105
    The point is colors do not actually exist, and that is a fact in the sense that in the outside 3d person empirical reality there are only electric and magnetic fields, and they are transparent. There is no field of purple or substance of green. Therefore, we do not see colors, we "see" something else as colors. For example, colors could be mapped to magnetic density or electric voltage scales, or different orientation of molecules, or even symbols and numbers in some higher order representation mapping.Zelebg

    This line of reasoning leads to madness. You end up with nothing but quantum probability waves existing and nothing else.

    |>ouglas
  • christian2017
    777
    That is not it. I guess I failed to formulate the question properly.

    The point is colors do not actually exist, and that is a fact in the sense that in the outside 3d person empirical reality there are only electric and magnetic fields, and they are transparent. There is no field of purple or substance of green. Therefore, we do not see colors, we "see" something else as colors. For example, colors could be mapped to magnetic density or electric voltage scales, or different orientation of molecules, or even symbols and numbers in some higher order representation mapping.
    Zelebg

    "The point is colors do not actually exist, and that is a fact in the sense that in the outside 3d person empirical reality there are only electric and magnetic fields, and they are transparent."

    This is fun. You realize snakes see colors right? There are indirect ways of proving that. Perhaps we should argue that blue could be interpreted as red based on how the radio (eye is antenna and brain is the radio) (all communication devices whether passive or active have radios) wants to display the image. Perhaps the best way to look at it is, color is an enormous spectrum that can be modified with phase shift. Phase shift is taking a wave or a set of points that are plotted on a graph (not necessarily a set with a an easy to define pattern) and moving that whole set of points in either to the left or to the right. What this allows is for two different users (human and snake) to use the same colors to represent different light frequencies.
  • Douglas Alan
    105
    Moby Dick there too?creativesoul

    Let S = the set of all x where x is a sequence of English sentences.

    Let T = the set of all s such that s is an element of S and s forms a story with a named whale in it.

    I maintain that Moby Dick is an element of T, even in the counterfactual situation in which Moby Dick was never written.

    Conclusion: The novel Moby Dick exists as an element of a set, even were it were never written.

    |>ouglas

    P.S. If you want to quibble about rigid designators, the novel that is in T in the counterfactual situation may not be the same novel as the one written by Melville, but it would have all the same words in the same order.
  • Zelebg
    470
    This line of reasoning leads to madness. You end up with nothing but quantum probability waves existing and nothing else.

    It's a simple logical fact. What is your objection exactly?
  • Zelebg
    470
    This is fun. You realize snakes see colors right?

    Sorrry, I did not know you are insane.
  • Zelebg
    470
    Colors are properties, and properties exist.

    Aha. Forget I said anything, I'm out of here.
  • Douglas Alan
    105
    It's a simple logical fact. What is your objection exactly?Zelebg

    So, you are asserting, for instance, that people don't exist. Only quantum probability waves exist?

    |>ouglas
  • leo
    821
    The point is colors do not actually exist, and that is a fact in the sense that in the outside 3d person empirical reality there are only electric and magnetic fields, and they are transparent. There is no field of purple or substance of green. Therefore, we do not see colors, we "see" something else as colors. For example, colors could be mapped to magnetic density or electric voltage scales, or different orientation of molecules, or even symbols and numbers in some higher order representation mapping.Zelebg

    But how do you know there are only electric and magnetic fields? Do you see them? Or you have inferred their existence? Would you have been able to infer their existence if you didn't see colors? No? So how can you say that electric and magnetic fields exist but colors do not?

    Colors exist in the sense that you perceive them. If you assume they don't exist, you're assuming a great part of your perception doesn't exist. And if they don't exist, how do you know you're perceiving anything remotely close to reality? If reality is completely different from what you perceive then why would you trust anything that you infer from what you perceive?
  • creativesoul
    7.6k
    You're still confused over the same point. There are three completely distinct things here: (1) frequency, (2) spectral distribution, (3) color.InPitzotl

    That's incorrect. As you yourself say, "photoreceptors are just doing what they do". And what they do, with respect to responding to light, is send signals proportional to some amount of isomerization of photopsin molecules that they contain. That's it; nothing else. That thing is (3). And if (3) cannot distinguish between spectral distributions (2), then (3) cannot be said to measure which (2) you have. If (3) cannot distinguish frequency components (1) in a spectral distribution, (3) cannot be said to measure frequencies in a spectral distribution. (3) can do neither of these things, so it measures neither.

    To reach your conclusion from the assessment requires conflating (3) with (1) and (2). My assessment contains no such conflating; that's all on you.
    InPitzotl

    :meh:
  • creativesoul
    7.6k
    Mantis shrimp's eyes measure... what they measure. The question is what they measure. I define color in terms of what eyes measure in color vision; that's the colorimetric definitionInPitzotl

    Eyes do not measure. Anthropomorphism.
  • InPitzotl
    41
    Eyes do not measure. Anthropomorphism.creativesoul
    You're reaching. Eyes do this:
    measure
    7: To serve as a means of measuring.
    // a thermometer measures temperature
    — Merriam webster
    link

    ...and here's an example of you using that sense of the word measure:
    According to this criterion, it would make sense to say that a mantis shrimp's eyes are measuring light frequencies and distributions...creativesoul

    So to dissect this more, eyes do not measure (m-w, entry 2, use 7) frequency components; and they do not measure (m-w, entry 2, use 7) spectral distributions. Instead, they measure (m-w, entry 2, use 7) equivalence classes of spectral distributions.
  • creativesoul
    7.6k
    Eyes do not measure. Anthropomorphism.
    — creativesoul
    You're reaching.
    InPitzotl

    :meh:
  • creativesoul
    7.6k
    here's an example of you using that sense of the word measure:
    According to this criterion, it would make sense to say that a mantis shrimp's eyes are measuring light frequencies and distributions...
    — creativesoul
    InPitzotl

    An astute reader will note that it's a case of following from your use(s) and showing that it leads to a reductio ad absurdum.
145678Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.