User Controls
Do rainbows exist objectively?
-
2017-03-28 at 9:08 PM UTC
-
2017-03-28 at 9:11 PM UTCHa. Ahahahahaha. I really, really want to watch toddlers on acid now. Can you imagine?
-
2017-03-28 at 9:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Yeah who knows? That's not like that though. You're asking if it exists, not if it looks exactly the same to every single person. People seeing things differently doesn't make those things' existences subjective. In fact it really demonstrates the opposite.
Anyway I don't know what definition of 'exist' you're using.
The conditions which cause a rainbow objectively exist. They can be measured, tested, etc. But the rainbow itself is entirely subjective. Just like the way a noise sounds to you might sound differently to me. If nobody were there to hear it, the noise wouldn't sound like anything. A rainbow is an apparition. It is an optical illusion, caused by conditions that objectively exist, that appears subjectively to everyone who experiences it.
If there were no subject viewing the rainbow, it wouldn't exist. The conditions that cause it to appear would still exist. The world would still be here. But the appearance of a rainbow is dependent on a subject to perceive it. -
2017-03-28 at 9:27 PM UTCIf you believe in the existence of some objective physical reality (that the tree does fall, even if no one is around to see it or hear it), then you must necessarily believe. Maybe the qualia of "colour" in this rainbow does not exist, but the physical phenomenon that stimulates that qualia certainly does.
-
2017-03-28 at 9:27 PM UTCIf you believe in the existence of some objective physical reality (that the tree does fall, even if no one is around to see it or hear it), then you must necessarily believe. Maybe the qualia of "colour" in this rainbow does not exist, but the physical phenomenon that stimulates that qualia certainly does.
-
2017-03-28 at 9:28 PM UTC
If you believe in the existence of some objective physical reality (that the tree does fall, even if no one is around to see it or hear it), then you must necessarily believe. Maybe the qualia of "colour" in this rainbow does not exist, but the physical phenomenon that stimulates that qualia certainly does. -
2017-03-28 at 9:31 PM UTCPatronizing FUCKS!
Obbe I asked you what definition of exist you are using. Thank you. -
2017-03-28 at 9:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon If you believe in the existence of some objective physical reality (that the tree does fall, even if no one is around to see it or hear it), then you must necessarily believe. Maybe the qualia of "colour" in this rainbow does not exist, but the physical phenomenon that stimulates that qualia certainly does.
I wouldn't call the conditions which produce the optical illusion of a rainbow, a rainbow.
A rainbow is a rainbow. The conditions that produce the appearance of a rainbow are the conditions that produce the appearance of a rainbow. -
2017-03-28 at 9:33 PM UTC
-
2017-03-28 at 9:34 PM UTC
-
2017-03-28 at 10:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind I wouldn't call the conditions which produce the optical illusion of a rainbow, a rainbow.
A rainbow is a rainbow. The conditions that produce the appearance of a rainbow are the conditions that produce the appearance of a rainbow.
An optical illusion is when your brain manufactures some visual experience that does not normally/directly correspond to a physical phenomenon. These visual experiences can be shown to be "wrong" by alternative forms of testing, and thus this disagreement with reality is called an illusion.
For example, take the famous Hermann grid
If you stare directly at any of the intersections, you will see blank white space. However areas outside of your direct focus (i.e. in your peripheral vision) will show dark spots at each intersection. By a number of methods you can verify the spots aren't there. Now you can say that the fact that these spots exist in your perception due to this given pattern means that the perception of these dots is no less "real" than other things you perceive visually, and that's true to a certain extent, but the point is that these spots *only* exist within your perception.
A rainbow is no more an optical illusion than an apple or a dog, or any other physical phenomenon. Your eyes perceive different wavelengths of light as different colours. This impression of colour is the qualitative content of your experience of the rainbow. But the noumenon of the rainbow, so to speak, exists behind the phenomenon that you witness. The atmospheric conditions and angle of the sun eventually deliver a diffracted spectrum of light into your eyes in an arc (actually a circle, but the other half of the circle is usually hidden from view). There is no disagreement here with the physical phenomena behind it. It's not an illusion.
The conditions that produce the rainbow, are the rainbow. You could measure the same spread of colours with a camera or other methods. Your perception of those colours, are not the rainbow. -
2017-03-29 at 1:13 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-03-29 at 1:35 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon The conditions that produce the rainbow, are the rainbow. You could measure the same spread of colours with a camera or other methods. Your perception of those colours, are not the rainbow.
If this is true, wouldn't it make sense that the conditions which produce you, are you? Are the conditions that produced the appearance of you, are those conditions also you? -
2017-03-29 at 3:07 AM UTCYou all objectively have autism
-
2017-03-29 at 3:09 AM UTCremembering this thread makes me angry
-
2017-03-29 at 3:28 AM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind If this is true, wouldn't it make sense that the conditions which produce you, are you? Are the conditions that produced the appearance of you, are those conditions also you?
Sure, I don't see a problem with with accepting that. I am both my physical reality and my subjective perception. But since subjective reality is subjective, I can ground my "self" in the objective substrate that those perceptions are taken from.
The question you are asking me is essentially "is an apple the perception of an apple, or the physical being of an apple?" And i would imagine you would agree that the physical apple is the Apple.
Sure you could make the argument that all a thing is, is its impressions (as Hume would argue). But I think otherwise are inherent problems with that and modern philosophy has moved past that.
Post last edited by Captain Falcon at 2017-03-29T03:31:27.828525+00:00 -
2018-01-07 at 4:10 AM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind No, actually the rainbow is inside your mind. Because it is an optical illusion.
Yeah, I know, light exists out there. Yes, those water droplets exist out there. Those are not a rainbow. Because a rainbow is an optical illusion produced when viewing water droplets at a particular angle relative to the source of light. So yeah, a rainbow does exist inside your mind. It has no physical location. A light source has a physical location. Water droplets in the sky have physical locations. A rainbow exists in your mind.
Dummy.
youre a fucking idiot. we know it exists because our eyes are capable of viewing the color spectrum, there are technologies that utilize light waves, lasers, certain microscopes, cameras even. just like we know particles exist, protons neutrons electrons, quarks, stars, galaxies, neural impulses, they are measurable existances -
2018-01-07 at 4:15 AM UTCyou can argue only things that have mass exist fully objectively, and that things without matter that we can see, measure, know exist, exist but arent entirely, tangibly real. for example, fire would be real because it is a form of matter, gas, you can touch it and know it exists because it emits heat and it burns you, you know its real.
but light, is radiation, which you can also feel, as it effects your body. maybe at a microscopic and very minute level a rainbow can affect your cells by being in the vicinity of which the water particles/fog exists and by seeing it the cones and rods in your retinas are altered -
2018-01-07 at 4:21 AM UTCIt's really a pretty good question no matter the agreed or diagreed upon answers.
-
2018-01-07 at 4:22 AM UTC
Stare in the center, and the revolving dot changes color to green.
