Do rainbows exist objectively?

1. 2015-11-03 at 8:30 PM UTC

   #81
   

   -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]

   That's retarded, the best you could do is argue for Humean skepticism about an external world (although Moore's proof makes a strong argument to the contrary), if you don't have reliable access to the external world then you fundamentally can not make statements about how it is or isn't, specifically you can not say "the external world doesn't exist" based merely on a lack of reliable direct perception of it.

   
   You have built a logical strawman. The illusion of "existence" as we know it does not preclude a lack of reliable access to it, "it" being nothing more than the product of our own perceptions. We see it, we hear it, we feel it, we smell it and we measure it. We have full access to it. But that doesn't directly translate to any of it not being just a vast virtual array for our own entertainment and amusement. Nothing is really there. It is only what we and others perceive that is "real" which make it "real". Neurons firing in the brain, electrical pathways in the nerves sending ones and zeros, chemical solutions being formulated in the body, and even all of that is just a product of its own creation.
2. 2015-11-04 at 3:23 AM UTC

   #82
   

   Lanny Bird of Courage

   You have built a logical strawman. The illusion of "existence" as we know it does not preclude a lack of reliable access to it, "it" being nothing more than the product of our own perceptions. We see it, we hear it, we feel it, we smell it and we measure it. We have full access to it. But that doesn't directly translate to any of it not being just a vast virtual array for our own entertainment and amusement. Nothing is really there. It is only what we and others perceive that is "real" which make it "real". Neurons firing in the brain, electrical pathways in the nerves sending ones and zeros, chemical solutions being formulated in the body, and even all of that is just a product of its own creation.

   
   
   You know what? I'm not even going to stoop to the level of asking how you propose to know this because I have such unshakable certainty that your answer would be fucking moronic that posing the question would do nothing but give stage to your lunacy.
3. 2015-11-04 at 9:13 PM UTC

   #83
   

   -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]

   You know what? I'm not even going to stoop to the level of asking how you propose to know this because I have such unshakable certainty that your answer would be fucking moronic that posing the question would do nothing but give stage to your lunacy.

   
   There used to be a day when you'd at least bite.
   
4. 2015-11-05 at 11:20 PM UTC

   #84
   

   -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
   Let's put it this way. If I could connect directly into your brain pathways with a computer and a program designed to manipulate it, I could convince you that you are somewhere else, feeling the wind against your face, out at sea, on a ship, smelling the salt air, rocking with the waves. I could make you bump your knee on the mizzenmast, and you would feel the pain, because I simulated the pain in the program and sent the necessary data through your brain pathways, which, in turn, forwarded that data it to your nerves, to make you to "feel" the pain, sent the necessary data to your eyes to make you see the mizzenmast and your knee colliding. You would fully believe you were on a ship at sea bumping your knee and reeling with pain, because you see it and feel it, because that's what I made your brain believe when I spoofed and altered the data from the nerves going into it. And throughout, you are not actually on a ship. You are not actually at sea. You are not really feeling pain at all, but at the exact same time, you are.
   
   Now let's say I tapped into the brain which was the brain of the version of you on the ship, which I had created with my program. After all, to the "you" on the ship, you are real, and you felt that pain, and you really did feel and see the mizzenmast hit it, because your brain, the one NOT on the ship, told you it was so, and it was as if it was the brain on the ship was the real one. And because you fully believe the brain on the ship is the real one, because of my hacking, I could hack into that one as well and make THAT brain believe it was on the top of a mountain, looking down, instead of on the ship. And that imaginary brain would actually think it was on top of the mountain, and not on the ship at all. I could make that third brain see and feel and touch and smell, in such a way that it wouldn't be able to tell it was all just an illusion.
   
   But what is the relationship between the second and third brain? Both are not really real, and yet the second brain can affect the "reality" of the third brain. How can something that is not real affect something else which is not real? And remember, it is the first brain which set off the chain of perceptions, but we are focusing on the results of the third brain in relation to the second hacked brain, which was hacked by the first, which was also itself hacked. How can the second and third brain feel like they are the "real" ones when they are not even real? Why does the first brain get to be the "real" one, when the others feel exactly the same, that they are the "real" ones? "Reality" is like layers. Layers and layers and layers of clever illusions. And it all comes from a single source, which is the Hacker himself and his programming. The only thing we and everything else really are is clever programming. We don't really exist as matter and energy, but we're more like sound, wavelengths, and the waveforms are the programming which make up our reality as we know it. Does sound have particles? Does sound have energy it of itself? No. And yet it can exert "real" force. It is "real" in that it can affect its surroundings. All of reality is like sound waves, like music, you could say. All of reality as we know it is like a song being sung, and we're right smack inside that music.
5. 2015-11-06 at 3:18 AM UTC

   #85
   

   Lanny Bird of Courage
   You'll notice the question I didn't ask you is why you think you know this, not "please give me some halfassed descartes demon, inception slashfic".
6. 2015-11-06 at 4:20 AM UTC

   #86
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole
   Spectral, your explanation with a long winded halfassed descartes demon inception slashfic is fallavcious in that it A. Assumes you have technology far beyond what is possible with current restrictions, B-A. Proposes you can "hack" this non-existent tech to infiltrate an emulation of a brain (which makes no since seeing as you dont actually have the ability to "hack someone brain" like a fucking sploo fractal) B-B You assume a level of understanding that is impossible due to the misalignment of your existence and the technology. C. Literally asserts we are not composed of matter and energy.
   
   Anyway, this thread sucks but was really fun. I had a good time ripping on idiots like spectral and open your mind who think that by asserting the negation of existence in reality they are at a higher understanding, when in reality the only negation of existence in reality is their thought process.
7. 2015-11-06 at 2:54 PM UTC

   #87
   

   -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
   The technology exists. There are those out there who have it, those who have not yet revealed themselves fully. It's only because we don't have the technology that we think it is impossible, when in fact, anything and everything is possible. Through a higher understanding of what is possible, everything becomes possible. This is why their languages were deliberately confused during the building of the Tower of Babel. If human understanding had developed too quickly, none of us would have survived. Even today, we find technology unraveling the deepest mysteries of science, much of it refuting previous understandings, shocking us profoundly at turn after turn. The truth of it all is too overwhelming for us to fully grasp at this point in our development, and may well be far too dangerous for us to know without competent guidance.
8. 2015-11-06 at 11:06 PM UTC

   #88
   

   Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]

   Why? You're just making an assertion with no evidence. Why does color not a property of light? If a red car is not perceived by anything with a visual system does it stop being red? Does it become red again as soon as someone looks at it? You're digging yourself deeper and deeper into an incoherent hole here.

   
   Again, colour is a function of the visual systems in our brains and not an intrinsic property of the objects we are viewing. To use your example, the 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. Again, colour only exists in your mind.
   
   The car would still be emit the same wavelength of light whether you are looking at it or not. I never claimed anything like your ridiculous suggestion that reality might disappear when we stop looking at it. But if you magically became a girl and looked at the car, it would appear to be a different colour, even though it is still emitting the exact same specific wavelength of light. If you magically became a dog, the car might appear to be less colourful. If you magically became a bee, you might see colours on the car you have never seen before, because bees can see ultraviolet light.
   
   This isn't make-believe, these are scientifically verified facts of life.
   
   

   The researchers also found that men require a slightly longer wavelength to see the same hue as women; an object that women experience as orange will look slightly more yellowish to men, while green will look more blue-green to men. This last part doesn’t confer an advantage on either sex, but it does demonstrate, Abramov says, that “the nervous system that deals with color cannot be wired in the exact same way in males as in females.” He believes the answer lies in testosterone and other androgens. Evidence from animal studies suggests that male sex hormones can alter development in the visual cortex. While Abramov has an explanation for how the sexes see differently, he’s less certain about why. One possibility—which he cautions is highly speculative—is that it’s an evolutionary adaptation that benefited hunter-gatherer societies: Males needed to see distant, moving objects, like bison, while females had to be better judges of color when scouring for edible plants.

   
   Source
   
   

   Different animals have different kinds of color vision. Some have very poor color vision and others have very good color vision. In fact some birds and bees have super color vision and see colors that humans don't see.
   
   Bees and butterflies can see colors that we can't see. Their range of color vision extends into the ultraviolet. The leaves of the flowers they pollinate have special ultraviolet patterns which guide the insects deep into the flower.

   
   Source
   
   
   
9. 2015-11-06 at 11:25 PM UTC

   #89
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole
   @ open ur meind You realize that none of what you posted negates the fact that specific wavelengths of light correspond to specific colors right? What you posted simply means that each animal has its own method of interpreting a wavelength as a color with some processing methods being more efficient than others from animal to animal. What follows is that each animal is specialized to interpret various specific wavelengths into their corresponding colors necessary to carry out their task. This does not mean that colors do not objectively exists but rather that their objective existence is beyond the scope of a specific beings perceptual ability. I.e. just because a color blind person cannot see, lets say, green, this does not mean there is no green, it means that his or her mechanism for perceiving these colors are not attuned to seeing colors in that wavelength spectra.
   
   @ spectral And that is the point where I pull one of these:
   
10. 2015-11-07 at 6:05 PM UTC

    #90
    

    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]

    @ open ur meind You realize that none of what you posted negates the fact that specific wavelengths of light correspond to specific colors right? What you posted simply means that each animal has its own method of interpreting a wavelength as a color with some processing methods being more efficient than others from animal to animal.

    
    Do you realize that you're claiming nothing is subjective?
    
    Of course specific wavelengths do not correspond to specific colours. If you and your girlfriend see the same object emitting the same wavelengths, but the object appears to be different colour in your mind than it appears to be in her mind, that means the specific wavelength is not objectively one specific colour. If the specific wavelength was objectively one specific colour it would look the same to both of you. But it doesn't. Therefore it is not objectively one specific colour.
    
    Claiming that the specific wavelength is objectively one specific colour but that either you or your girlfriend or your dog are just less efficient at processing it, is sort of like claiming that "watermelon" is objectively the most delicious flavor and that other people who disagree with you are just less efficient at processing flavors. Or like claiming that your girlfriend is the most beautiful girl and other people who disagree are just not as efficient at processing beauty as you are.
    
    

    What follows is that each animal is specialized to interpret various specific wavelengths into their corresponding colors necessary to carry out their task. This does not mean that colors do not objectively exists but rather that their objective existence is beyond the scope of a specific beings perceptual ability. I.e. just because a color blind person cannot see, lets say, green, this does not mean there is no green, it means that his or her mechanism for perceiving these colors are not attuned to seeing colors in that wavelength spectra.

    
    Green doesn't exist in the physical world. Colours only exist in your mind. A specific wavelength of light can be said to objectively exist in the physical world and may, subjectively, correspond to the colour green in your mind, but the colour green has only ever existed in your mind as a way for your mind to interpret the sensory information it is receiving. To the colour blind person in your example that specific wavelength of light still objectively exists whether they can sense it or not, but in their mind, subjectively, there is no colour green.
    
    If specific wavelengths of light objectively corresponded to specific colours, we should know what colours a bee can see. But those specific wavelengths of light don't look like anything at all to you and me. Therefore they do not objectively correspond to specific colours. Instead they subjectively correspond to some unimaginable colours in the bees mind, and they subjectively correspond to no colour in our minds.
11. 2015-11-07 at 10:34 PM UTC

    #91
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole
    Stop being such a high octane retard. You need to learn many things before you make stupid assertions.
12. 2015-11-08 at 12:27 AM UTC

    #92
    

    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    It's not an assertion, it's a fact. Colour only exists in your mind.
13. 2015-11-08 at 12:42 AM UTC

    #93
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole
    Nope. You have absolutely zero evidence.
14. 2015-11-08 at 2:24 AM UTC

    #94
    

    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Oh I get it. You're trolling. For a minute I thought you might actually be that dumb.
15. 2015-11-08 at 2:45 AM UTC

    #95
    

    -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    Color is merely a perception. Animals can't even see it.
16. 2015-11-08 at 8:55 AM UTC

    #96
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole

    Oh I get it. You're trolling. For a minute I thought you might actually be that dumb.

    
    Being this much of a metatroll makes you a betatroll.
    
    

    Color is merely a perception. Animals can't even see it.

    
    Oh I get it. You're trolling. For a minute I thought you might actually be that dumb
17. 2015-11-08 at 3:15 PM UTC

    #97
    

    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    I think Lanny actually took the time to read and consider my arguments and supporting sources, and changed his opinion accordingly. Little nigger is just a dumb faggot troll.
18. 2015-11-08 at 5:55 PM UTC

    #98
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole
    Thats a pretty wild assumption considering the fact that he fucking WREKT you throughout the entire thread and never stated a change of opinion. Stop living in a fantasy land.
19. 2015-11-08 at 6:11 PM UTC

    #99
    

    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    ^Troll bait.
20. 2015-11-08 at 6:15 PM UTC

    #100
    

    -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    Color is the effect. Light particles and their environment are the cause. It's cause/effect.