User Controls
Do rainbows exist objectively?
-
2018-01-07 at 5:22 AM UTCOh come on, not this shit again
-
2018-01-07 at 5:31 AM UTCThis thread is not allowed to come back.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-01-07 at 5:38 AM UTC
-
2018-01-07 at 8 AM UTCBut an optical illusion thread would be cool. They're fun.
-
2018-01-07 at 3:29 PM UTC
Originally posted by Dissociator 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
this is just as retarded as saying the throbbing cock you see in 3D porn is real and had manifested between you and your TV. -
2018-01-10 at 7:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by Dissociator 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
Specific wavelengths are not specific colours. A specific wavelength will appear to be a different colour for a woman than it appears to be for a man. Other creatures may percieve colours much differently than you do. Light exists in the physical world but colours only exist in your mind. -
2018-01-10 at 7:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Specific wavelengths are not specific colours. A specific wavelength will appear to be a different colour for a woman than it appears to be for a man. Other creatures may percieve colours much differently than you do. Light exists in the physical world but colours only exist in your mind.
Colours are our perceptual means to distinguish between different wavelengths of light. -
2018-01-10 at 7:28 PM UTC
-
2018-01-10 at 7:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Yes, the mind turns the light we see into the subjective experience of colour.
If different wavelengths of light exist objectively then so do rainbows. The “illusion” of it is how our brain interprets that information as colors and a certain formation of colors is what our brains call a rainbow.
But I mean Jesus Christ how far are you gonna take this argument? If you wanted to, you could say the word “rainbow” doesn’t exist objectively because words are just sound waves that our brain assigns meaning to. The text on your screen is an illusion. Fuck you’re dumb. -
2018-01-10 at 7:51 PM UTCEven your own brain isn't really real. It is merely an UN-real receiver that picks up the wavelengths of reality and transforms that data stream into what we call reality. Even the receiver itself is only a manifestation of the data being transmitted to it, like creating a hologram of a brain and then programming the hologram brain in such a way that it thinks itself as "real". Meanwhile, it is entirely unaware of the hologram-machine.
-
2018-01-10 at 7:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Even your own brain isn't really real. It is merely an UN-real receiver that picks up the wavelengths of reality and transforms that data stream into what we call reality. Even the receiver itself is only a manifestation of the data being transmitted to it, like creating a hologram of a brain and then programming the hologram brain in such a way that it thinks itself as "real". Meanwhile, it is entirely unaware of the hologram-machine.
Yes that’s basically a much more retarded way to explain Obbe’s belief system -
2018-01-10 at 7:56 PM UTCWhoever Obbe plagiarized from explained it much better
-
2018-01-10 at 8:14 PM UTCScience supports the theory that all of reality as we know it, and everything contained within it, actually breaks down to an elementary projection of waves of light and sound, which we perceive. So, yes, colors are subjective.
-
2018-01-10 at 8:16 PM UTC
-
2018-01-10 at 8:29 PM UTC
-
2018-01-10 at 9:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon But it's still dependent on the "noumenal" reality of the wavelength of light. Red is not blue because it is the wavelength of light required for our brain to read it as red.
But "red" can look entirely different for person A than for person B even when they are viewing the exact same wavelength of light because the colour they see is subjective experience dependent on how their brains interpret the information. -
2018-01-10 at 10:21 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind But "red" can look entirely different for person A than for person B even when they are viewing the exact same wavelength of light because the colour they see is subjective experience dependent on how their brains interpret the information.
Well no, it might look entirely different for person A or person B. It's not currently known. That's not to say that it could actually be. We have no idea whether or not the supposedly qualitative content of our experiences is in fact entirely subjective.
A materialist would contest that since these experiences, to the best of our knowledge, are rooted in physical phenomena, they should be describable like physical phenomena, and thus it should be knowable what your "experience" of a particular colour is, and whether or not it is the same as mine is purely a matter of knowledge.
If we assume that this is not the case then you could make that contention. But you have to establish that idea first. -
2018-01-10 at 10:27 PM UTCentities in the world rely upon Dasein to be properly disclosed as substances or equipment but ultimately do not rely on it for their very being
-
2018-01-10 at 11:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Well no, it might look entirely different for person A or person B. It's not currently known. That's not to say that it could actually be. We have no idea whether or not the supposedly qualitative content of our experiences is in fact entirely subjective.
A materialist would contest that since these experiences, to the best of our knowledge, are rooted in physical phenomena, they should be describable like physical phenomena, and thus it should be knowable what your "experience" of a particular colour is, and whether or not it is the same as mine is purely a matter of knowledge.
If we assume that this is not the case then you could make that contention. But you have to establish that idea first.
Colour is a function of the visual systems in our brains and not an intrinsic property of the objects we are viewing. A car is giving off light of a specific, objective wavelength that your visual system interprets as the colour red. However, your girlfriend may look at the car and see it as more of an orange colour. This is because men and women evolved to perceive colours slightly differently. Even individuals within the sexes will perceive colours slightly differently, because the specific wavelength of light the object is giving off is not a specific colour. -
2018-01-10 at 11:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Colour is a function of the visual systems in our brains and not an intrinsic property of the objects we are viewing.
I didn't say it was. Read it again. You have to establish that colour, including the experience of colour, is not itself an objectively quantifiable phenomenon. Just because it feels that way doesn't make it so.
