User Controls
Do rainbows exist objectively?
-
2018-01-11 at 7:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind No, you don't seem to get it yet.
Nothing is coloured until light enters an eye and a brain turns that light into colour. Yes, things exist that reflect or absorb different wavelengths of light. Again, those things are not blue unless light enters an eye and a brain turns that information into whatever you experience as "blue".
Are you getting it yet?
I've already addressed this. -
2018-01-11 at 7:14 PM UTC
-
2018-01-11 at 7:16 PM UTC
-
2018-01-11 at 7:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Still waiting for you to respond to how the self is an illusion.
I did. I asked you to define “self” and you said that the “self” is “whatever you think you are” and then I said “ok then I think I’m not an illusion”. Therefore my “self” is not an illusion. QED.
If you want me to continue this conversation then you’ll need to change your definition of “self”. -
2018-01-11 at 7:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws I did. I asked you to define “self” and you said that the “self” is “whatever you think you are” and then I said “ok then I think I’m not an illusion”. Therefore my “self” is not an illusion. QED.
If you want me to continue this conversation then you’ll need to change your definition of “self”.
No you need to re-read my last post on that thread and actually consider what was said instead of acting like it's meaningless, if you want to continue the conversation. -
2018-01-11 at 7:23 PM UTC
-
2018-01-11 at 7:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon What does it mean for something to be coloured? The experience corresponds to a phenomenon in the world. Of course it's coloured. Your experience is relative to the external phenomena you observe.
Most people make the mistake of believing we see reality with our eyes. Like our brains see the image captured on our retina. They are mistaken. The physiology of sight is more like a antenna and TV. Your antenna recieves radio waves and sends a signal to your TV via the RV cable. Your TV converts this signal and creates a picture. It does so using just 3 different colours, but using different combinations we can see all the colours.
Our eyes are light wave antennas. There are 3 types of cones on our retina and each responds to only a certain wavelength of light. When triggered, these cones send a electrical impulse along our optic nerve to the brains imaging centre. Here the brain converts these electrical impulses and creates a visual representation of our surroundings. It actually combines the impulses from both eyes and creates a 3 dimensional picture in our head about 30 times a second. What you see, is that picture.
It's impossible for us to be seeing the world with our eyes, because we would see everything upside down. Our brains turn the picture so things make sense to us. So yes, light waves exist, but light waves have no colour. A rainbow is a arch of colours. It exists only in our head. -
2018-01-11 at 7:53 PM UTCPhysical property
A physical property is any property that is measurable, whose value describes a state of a physical system. The changes in the physical properties of a system can be used to describe its transformations or evolutions between its momentary states. Physical properties are often referred to as observables. They are not modal properties. Quantifiable physical property is called physical quantity.
Physical properties are often characterized as intensive and extensive properties. An intensive property does not depend on the size or extent of the system, nor on the amount of matter in the object, while an extensive property shows an additive relationship. These classifications are in general only valid in cases when smaller subdivisions of the sample do not interact in some physical or chemical process when combined.
Properties may also be classified with respect to the directionality of their nature. For example, isotropic properties do not change with the direction of observation, and anisotropic properties do have spatial variance.
It may be difficult to determine whether a given property is a material property or not. Color, for example, can be seen and measured; however, what one perceives as color is really an interpretation of the reflective properties of a surface and the light used to illuminate it. In this sense, many ostensibly physical properties are called supervenient. A supervenient property is one which is actual, but is secondary to some underlying reality. This is similar to the way in which objects are supervenient on atomic structure. A cup might have the physical properties of mass, shape, color, temperature, etc., but these properties are supervenient on the underlying atomic structure, which may in turn be supervenient on an underlying quantum structure.
Physical properties are contrasted with chemical properties which determine the way a material behaves in a chemical reaction.
-
2018-01-11 at 7:54 PM UTC^Plagiarism
-
2018-01-11 at 7:56 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-01-11 at 7:57 PM UTC
-
2018-01-11 at 8:02 PM UTCWhat I mean is, if the argument is made and understood as a stand-alone, it doesn't really need any sources.
-
2018-01-11 at 8:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Most people make the mistake of believing we see reality with our eyes. Like our brains see the image captured on our retina. They are mistaken. The physiology of sight is more like a antenna and TV. Your antenna recieves radio waves and sends a signal to your TV via the RV cable. Your TV converts this signal and creates a picture. It does so using just 3 different colours, but using different combinations we can see all the colours.
Our eyes are light wave antennas. There are 3 types of cones on our retina and each responds to only a certain wavelength of light. When triggered, these cones send a electrical impulse along our optic nerve to the brains imaging centre. Here the brain converts these electrical impulses and creates a visual representation of our surroundings. It actually combines the impulses from both eyes and creates a 3 dimensional picture in our head about 30 times a second. What you see, is that picture.
It's impossible for us to be seeing the world with our eyes, because we would see everything upside down. Our brains turn the picture so things make sense to us. So yes, light waves exist, but light waves have no colour. A rainbow is a arch of colours. It exists only in our head.
The phenomenon of a rainbow which corresponds to colours exists. The phenomenon of our perception of colour from that other phenomenon exists. The colour red being a description of EM waves between 430 and 480 THz is no different than our description of a box being 1 metre high. The metric of 1 metre is as arbitrary as our assignment of colour but it describes a concrete physical characteristic of the box in relative terms. Either every one of our experiences objectively exist (yes) or none of them do (prove it). -
2018-01-11 at 8:05 PM UTCin the iq group im in theres a huge discussion about the number line being a mobius strip with infinite circumference and here you fucking retards are legitimately arguing about whether rainbows are real. dumbshits
-
2018-01-11 at 8:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fromus Krokus in the iq group im in theres a huge discussion about the number line being a mobius strip with infinite circumference and here you fucking retards are legitimately arguing about whether rainbows are real. dumbshits
This is a philosophical debate, not an academic one -
2018-01-11 at 8:11 PM UTCSupervenience
…supervenience is a relation used to describe cases where (roughly speaking) a system's upper-level properties are determined by its lower-level properties. Some philosophers hold that the world is structured into a kind of hierarchy of properties, where the higher-level properties supervene on the lower-level properties. According to this view, social properties supervene on psychological properties, psychological properties on biological properties, and biological properties on chemical properties. That is, the chemical properties of the world determine a distribution of biological properties, those biological properties determine a distribution of psychological properties, and so forth. So, for example, mind–body supervenience holds that "every mental phenomenon must be grounded in, or anchored to, some underlying physical base (presumably a neural state). This means that mental states can occur only in systems that can have physical properties; namely physical systems."[1] However, mental states cannot be reduced to physical properties.
Though it is intuitively clear what supervenience is, formally specifying what it means involves a complex technical apparatus and a family of related but subtly different definitions. Most definitions involve comparisons of objects for indiscernibility. According to one standard definition, a set of properties A (e.g. mental properties) supervenes on a set of properties B (e.g. neural properties), if and only if any two objects x and y which share all properties in B (are "B-indiscernible") must also share all properties in A (are "A-indiscernible"). The intuitive idea is that if you could make a physical copy of a person, you'd also be making a psychological copy of that person. The reverse does not hold; two people could be in the same mental state, but that mental state could be supported by different brain states (the same mental state could be "multiply realizable" by different brain states). The properties in B are called the base properties (or sometimes subjacent or subvenient properties), and the properties in A are called the supervenient properties.
source >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervenience -
2018-01-11 at 8:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fromus Krokus in the iq group im in theres a huge discussion about the number line being a mobius strip with infinite circumference and here you fucking retards are legitimately arguing about whether rainbows are real. dumbshits
Interesting, what are the arguments in support of the number line being a mobius strip? What is your position on the subject? -
2018-01-11 at 8:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon The phenomenon of a rainbow which corresponds to colours exists. The phenomenon of our perception of colour from that other phenomenon exists. The colour red being a description of EM waves between 430 and 480 THz is no different than our description of a box being 1 metre high. The metric of 1 metre is as arbitrary as our assignment of colour but it describes a concrete physical characteristic of the box in relative terms. Either every one of our experiences objectively exist (yes) or none of them do (prove it).
I never claimed "experiences don't exist".
The phenomenon that causes a rainbow to appear exists outside of your head. The appearance of the rainbow takes place entirely inside your head. -
2018-01-11 at 9:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind I never claimed "experiences don't exist".
The phenomenon that causes a rainbow to appear exists outside of your head. The appearance of the rainbow takes place entirely inside your head.
What is to say that the phenomenon that causes the rainbow could not be interpreted into a colour in the exact same way that your brain does? The same way that some assortment of 1s and 0s on a flash drive could be interpreted into a picture. The colour "blue" could very well be physically manifest in the wavelength of light being emitted from there. It doesn't exist any more or less in your brain than it does in the wavelength of light. -
2018-01-11 at 9:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Interesting, what are the arguments in support of the number line being a mobius strip? What is your position on the subject?
"What if infinity to the right was another path to the left ?
What if the line of numbers was a circle of infinite length radius ?
Let's define a whole infinite number N that has infinitely many 9's.
We can write it :
N = ...99999
N + 1 =
...99990 + 9 +1 =
...99990 + 10 =
...99900 + 90 + 10 =
...99900 + 100 =
...99000 + 900 + 100 =
...99000 + 1000 =
[...]
...000 + ...000 = ...000 = 0
So N + 1 = 0
N = ...99999 = -1"
i dunno it seems kind of just like a number trick. i cant really debate on this tho
basically if you add to an infinite number it self destructs back to zero so did it really go anywhere in the first place on the number line?
