User Controls
Do rainbows exist objectively?
-
2015-11-20 at 3:51 AM UTC
"Grammar: The difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit."
I once helped my uncle Jack off a horse -
2015-11-20 at 6:25 AM UTCI once helped a horse Jack off my uncle
-
2015-11-21 at 4:53 PM UTC
That's wrong, you haven't done anything to establish this. I've already told you why that experiment does not establish this. The only other thing you've done in this thread is repeat the mantra that color is subjective without actually making a meaningful reply to any of my points for the last couple of pages.
No, actually all you have done is made the claim that colour has an objective existence regardless of how differently it can be perceived subjectively. I maintain that the fact people perceive colour differently demonstrates that colour is not objective, and I believe that it is a mistake to define colour as a property of an object considering the fact that different people will see different colours when viewing the same object. It is a mistake to define colour as a wavelength of light, considering the fact that the same objective wavelengths of light will appear to be different colours to different people. These definitions are confusing the subjective phenomenon of colour, which is actually function of our visual systems, with the objective phenomenon which becomes colour.
Colour may be commonly defined as an objective property, but simply being a common practice doesn't save something from being wrong. People used to commonly believe that lightning was caused by an angry god, but as we use scientific experimentation to explain the world around us we develop a new understanding of how the world works and common knowledge changes. Colour is also defined as a perception, and scientific experimentation as well as simple logic appears to support this definition.
For your information, colour is defined as perception on both the wikipedia page for colour as well as in the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition for colour.Also see the "ultraviolet", "infrared" and "blue light" examples. How could those terms be coherent in a technical sense if color is not a property of light? How could we assign wavelengths to colors if color isn't a property of light?
Those terms are just labels for different portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. What is the colour of radio waves Lanny? What is the colour of gamma rays? These wavelengths belong on the same spectrum as visible light, if colour is an objective property of light then surely these wavelengths must also have colours. They don't appear to have any colour at all, at least to us humans. Why would that be? Possibly because colour is not an objective property of light?
We assign wavelengths to colours because all humans have fairly similar brain structures, or rather, the brains of two humans will be more similar than one human brain and one dog brain. Therefore most of us humans see colours somewhat similarly, and so we then proceeded to assign specific wavelengths to specific colours. But as science has shown us, individual people still see colours differently than other individuals. And humans see colours differently than other animals. Logically this is because colour is a function of your visual system, and everyone has a somewhat different visual system.
So far all you have done to support your claim that colour is objective, is define it as such. I have now shown how colour can also be defined as a perception, and I have demonstrated that different people/animals do perceive colour subjectively. Are you now able to demonstrate that colour is objective, beyond the common practice of defining it as such?Your whole argument has been semantics from the start but this is particularly stupid. Rainbows are causally responsible for certain light, wether or not you consider that emission doesn't change the fact that it's sufficient criteria for existence. Mirrors don't "emit" light (by your definition) nor do they create an alternative universe populated by their apparent contents. Do you deny the objective existence of mirrors?
Of course a mirror objectively exists. But the mirror image I see when looking at the mirror is just an apparition.
I am saying the phenomenon that leads to the mirror image (the reflective surface of the mirror) objectively exists, but the phenomenon of the "mirror image" (the appearance of a "mirrored version of me and the world around me") does not. Likewise, the phenomenon that leads to the rainbow (viewing water droplets exactly 42 degrees from the direction opposite the light source) objectively exists, but the phenomenon of the rainbow (the appearance a colourful arch) does not. -
2015-11-21 at 6:16 PM UTC
P.S. you never relied to this:
But I maintain, and common/technical usage supports, that color is not the same thing as the experience of color. I can experience lavalamps differently than other people but this doesn't show that lavalamps do not have an objective existence,
Why do you evade this? It wreks your entire point. Address it or fuck off. -
2015-11-21 at 8:21 PM UTC
No, actually all you have done is made the claim that colour has an objective existence regardless of how differently it can be perceived subjectively.
You're right in that I have made an argument for the objectivity of color. We are, after all, talking about what the word "color" means. The difference, however, is that I've supported my position. I've given you a definition from the dictionary that supports the notion of color as a property of either light or objects, I've demonstrated this is common usage, and I've given you examples of rigorous technical usage that, in order to be coherent, require a definition of color which is different that the subjective perception of color. You on the other hand linked to a pop-sci article and tried to claim it demonstrates something it does not.I maintain that the fact people perceive colour differently demonstrates that colour is not objective
Yes, you've said that many times now. What you haven't done is addressed my argument for why "color" and "perception of color" are not synonymous.and I believe that it is a mistake to define colour as a property of an object considering the fact that different people will see different colours when viewing the same object. It is a mistake to define colour as a wavelength of light, considering the fact that the same objective wavelengths of light will appear to be different colours to different people.
Why? Again, people might perceive lavalamps differently, we have interesting cases of people perceiving faces differently (failing to perceive distinguishing aspects of faces), this does not make faces or lavalamps non-existent.These definitions are confusing the subjective phenomenon of colour
While you personally may be confused, the rest of us find a definition of "color" as a property of light to actually be quite natural because it captures common usage very well, while your definition doesn't capture it at all. What would be confusing is if every time anyone ever talked the color of an object in the world they were actually forming an incoherent though, we'd be left to wonder why we seem to be able to communicate effectively about color if the majority of our discussion if it were inherently self-contradictory, which is what would be the case if we accepted your proposed definition of color as correct.Colour may be commonly defined as an objective property, but simply being a common practice doesn't save something from being wrong.
No, it being a common practice does actually made me right. Because that's what a definition of a word is: how it's used by the body of people who use it. I've demonstrated how both common and technical usage is contrary to your absurd attempt at redefinition.Colour is also defined as a perception
Nope, it isn't. I've shown you the actual definition of color in this very thread. You're simply lying at this point.For your information, colour is defined as perception on both the wikipedia page for colour as well as in the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition for colour.
From the MW page:Full Definition of COLOR
a : a phenomenon of light (as red, brown, pink, or gray) or visual perception that enables one to differentiate otherwise identical objects
b (1) : the aspect of the appearance of objects and light sources that may be described in terms of hue, lightness, and saturation for objects and hue, brightness, and saturation for light sources <the changing color of the sky>; also : a specific combination of hue, saturation, and lightness or brightness <comes in six colors> (2) : a color other than and as contrasted with black, white, or gray
At best you can make the argument that we can use "color" to talk about both the perception and the objective property of light. Which doesn't help you because it means that we can say some color, that is the color that is the property of light rather than a perception, is objective and as such rainbows, producing both the subjective (perceptions) and objective (light of given wavelengths) varieties color still has an objective existence in the form of the objective sort.Those terms are just labels for different portions of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Sure, but then every word in our language is just a label for something. This doesn't mean the things those words describe are subjective. "lavalamp" is just a label for a certain arrangement of a lightbulb, fluids, and glass. This does not make lava lamps subjective.What is the colour of radio waves Lanny?
We probably don't have specific names for bands of radio waves, just as we don't have specific names for every color in the visible spectrum. For example, #FFFFFF is white but #FFFFFD doesn't have a similar name, it's just a color that we describe as a RGB triplet. So we could name specific frequencies in the radio spectrum or we could just refer to them by wavelength.So far all you have done to support your claim that colour is objective, is define it as such.
That's right, because the topic at hand is "what is the meaning of the word 'color'", so I've given an argument for why color, or at least some varieties of color (including those produced by rainbows) are objective. I didn't pick my definition out of thin air, I'm using a definition that exists in dictionaries, which is in common usage, and in technical usage.I have now shown how colour can also be defined as a perception, and I have demonstrated that different people/animals do perceive colour subjectively.
That isn't even a coherent sentence. If color is perception then you've just said "I have demonstrated that different people perceive perceptions subjectively". How on earth could two different people perceive (the process of generating perceptions) a perception differently? What does it even mean to perceive a perception? One perceives objective things in the world, one does not perceive perceptions.Are you now able to demonstrate that colour is objective, beyond the common practice of defining it as such?
No, but there's no other way to say "X is objective" than to talk about the common usage of the word X. We're not even talk about the same thing otherwise.Of course a mirror objectively exists. But the mirror image I see when looking at the mirror is just an apparition.
OK, so let's just admit your definition of color as a perception for a moment. Now I can say "Of course rainbows objectively exist. But the colors I see when looking at a rainbow are just an apparition". How is this any different? By what criteria are mirrors objective and rainbows not?I am saying the phenomenon that leads to the mirror image (the reflective surface of the mirror) objectively exists, but the phenomenon of the "mirror image" (the appearance of a "mirrored version of me and the world around me") does not. Likewise, the phenomenon that leads to the rainbow (viewing water droplets exactly 42 degrees from the direction opposite the light source) objectively exists, but the phenomenon of the rainbow (the appearance a colourful arch) does not.
Great, so now you're trying to change the definition of a rainbow. It's no longer the phenomenon that results in us seeing colors itself, it's the actual colors. That's top tier retarded. So lava lamps again. There's a phenomenon that results in me perceiving lavalamps (a physical structure, the emission and reflection of light) but that's not what lava lamps are. Lava lamps are now the perception of that phenomenon, they're seeing that light or feeling that heat when touching them. And everyone knows we see and feel things differently. QED lavalamps are subjective.
By your niggertarded pretzel logic I can concoct some bullshit to demonstrate how literally every word you can come up with doesn't exist objectively. -
2015-11-21 at 8:30 PM UTCThis thread has been very fun, and I found it very challenging to create arguments against the objective existence of colours/rainbows. However I no longer can find the motivation to continue putting on that facade. I thank you for your participation, and hope that we can get into more pointless arguments over semantics in the future.
-
2015-11-21 at 8:33 PM UTCGlad to see you admit you were wrong.
Rainbow objectivity triumphs again. I'm gonna go down to the castro and tell everyone the good news. -
2015-11-21 at 8:36 PM UTCI don't admit that. Colours are perceived subjectively, and I do think that therefore colours are not objective. I just have no more motivation to argue against someone as pedantic as you.
-
2015-11-21 at 9:02 PM UTC
Colours are perceived subjectively
Sure, I agree completely, but for the sentence "colors are perceived" to even make sense we would have to admit colors are not mere perceptions.and I do think that therefore colours are not objective.
Well that's simply a non-sequitur. If you want to lie to yourself that's fine I guess.I just have no more motivation to argue against someone as pedantic as you.
cool intellectual dishonesty bro -
2015-11-21 at 10:09 PM UTC
Then, by "that logic", everything you know is subjective. It doesn't mean that nothing exists. At the very least your consciousness/sentience exists.
Consciousness/sentience doesn't exist in a physical sense. -
2015-11-28 at 12:25 AM UTC
Sure, I agree completely, but for the sentence "colors are perceived" to even make sense we would have to admit colors are not mere perceptions.
Not really. The phenomenon which becomes colour objectively exists (the existence of visible light). However, colour itself is only perceived subjectively (your unique visual systems subjective interpretation of the objective wavelengths of light).Consciousness/sentience doesn't exist in a physical sense.
Can you demonstrate that? Isn't consciousness just a physical reaction to our environment, like a highly evolved version of single celled organism reacting to its own environment?
-
2015-11-28 at 1:14 AM UTC
Not really. The phenomenon which becomes colour objectively exists (the existence of visible light). However, colour itself is only perceived subjectively (your unique visual systems subjective interpretation of the objective wavelengths of light).
We've assumed earlier that perceptions and noumena are of fundamentally different kinds, perceptions and their causes are distinguishable at least in the sense that is necessary to say they have distinct objectivity statuses. It would then be odd to say both perceptions and noumena can be perceived. Either perception is the translation from external reality to objects of the mind or perception (verb) acts on perceptions (noun) such that we perceive subjective perceptions but do not perceive things in themselves. Using it both ways is awkward and confusing.
But it's largely irrelevant, for the following two reasons:
1. Wether we perceive perceptions or noumena doesn't change the kind of thing color is. Common and technical usage do not permit for "color" to describe a mere perception, it must describe something out int the world. So how you use "perceive" (verb) is irrelevant, it may change wether it's valid to say "I perceived a color" or not but it does not change the fact that "color", for usage to be coherent, must be something objective in the world.
2. Even if color is a mere perception (it's not), then you still have to give objectivity to its cause (light of a certain frequency) in which case rainbows still have an objective existence because, the light which causes their perception is still real, they are composed of objective parts (fields of light) thus they themselves must have some sort of objective existence. -
2015-11-28 at 1:33 AM UTC
Common and technical usage do not permit for "color" to describe a mere perception, it must describe something out int the world. … "color", for usage to be coherent, must be something objective in the world.
No, not really. You have never been confused by what I mean when I use the word colour. The entire time we have been having this conversation you have understood exactly what I mean. I'm not saying anything incoherent at all. Colour can be used to describe a perception, to describe the way an object appears. When I type the word "RED" and your eyeballs see that, your brain automatically associates that with the colour red. You are probably imagining the colour red right now at this very moment, in a very subjective way. And when light of a specific wavelength which does objectively exist enters into your eyes, your visual system subjectively interprets that information as the colour red.Even if color is a mere perception (it's not), then you still have to give objectivity to its cause (light of a certain frequency) in which case rainbows still have an objective existence because, the light which causes their perception is still real, they are composed of objective parts (fields of light) thus they themselves must have some sort of objective existence.
No, the phenomenon which becomes the rainbow objectively exists. All the conditions are objectively met. But a rainbow is not the conditions. A rainbow is the appearance of a colorful arch in the sky. It is perceived subjectively, it does not have objective existence. The conditions which create it do exist objectively, but the rainbow itself does not. -
2015-11-28 at 1:52 AM UTC
No, not really. You have never been confused by what I mean when I use the word colour.
I'm not sure that's true but I never said the issue was that I was confused or that anyone would be confused at all. I said your definition of color would make usage incoherent. There is a difference between coherence and confusing, many incoherent ideas confuse no one. The relevant detail here is that if we take color to mean what you insist it means then it would entail the word means something different than common or technical usage. Since the meaning of a word is dictated by one of those two things (depending on context) accepting your premise leads us to paradox, if we take Q to mean "color is not something out in the world" then your premise would lead us to the conclusion "Q and not Q" (the former from usage, the latter from your premise). We can thusly reject your premise like we would reject any premise that leads to paradox.The entire time we have been having this conversation you have understood exactly what I mean. I'm not saying anything incoherent at all. Colour can be used to describe a perception, to describe the way an object appears. When I type the word "RED" and your eyeballs see that, your brain automatically associates that with the colour red. You are probably imagining the colour red right now at this very moment, in a very subjective way. And when light of a specific wavelength which does objectively exist enters into your eyes, your visual system subjectively interprets that information as the colour red.
And we're back to lavalamps. When I write "lavalamp" you might think of lavalamps. This doesn't make lavalamps devoid of an objective existence.No, the phenomenon which becomes the rainbow objectively exists. All the conditions are objectively met. But a rainbow is not the conditions. A rainbow is the appearance of a colorful arch in the sky. It is perceived subjectively, it does not have objective existence. The conditions which create it do exist objectively, but the rainbow itself does not.
We're back to lavalamps. I could make the exact same argument that the effect which produces lavalamps is objective but lavalamps themselves are not. This, however, would be stupid because your argument is stupid and remains stupid for most, maybe even all, possible values of rainbow. -
2015-11-28 at 5:06 AM UTC
You have never been confused by what I mean when I use the word colour. The entire time we have been having this conversation you have understood exactly what I mean. I'm not saying anything incoherent at all.
You can't say that when someone tells you otherwise. I don't think anyone has understood what you mean, not even you, because if they did this thread would not be 9 pages of you arguing and ignoring valid points while pontificating pseudoscientific bullshit. -
2015-11-28 at 3:56 PM UTCWe're all just a figment of our own imaginations.
-
2015-12-02 at 4:19 AM UTC
The relevant detail here is that if we take color to mean what you insist it means then it would entail the word means something different than common or technical usage.
Not really. When I type the word RED, you know exactly what I mean. You imagine the colour RED every time your read the word RED, in an entirely subjective way. This is entirely common, and there is nothing incoherent about it.And we're back to lavalamps. When I write "lavalamp" you might think of lavalamps. This doesn't make lavalamps devoid of an objective existence.
The difference is that lava lamps have an objective existence. Colour is subjective.
Light has an objective existence, but seeing light as colour is entirely subjective.We're back to lavalamps. I could make the exact same argument that the effect which produces lavalamps is objective but lavalamps themselves are not.
You're misrepresenting my position by using this metaphor incorrectly. You see, lava lamps do have an objective existence. However, the colour of the lamp is subjective. Similarly, wavelengths of light have an objective existence. But the colour of these wavelengths is subjective. -
2015-12-14 at 10:01 PM UTC
A lava lamp like the one pictured above does objectively exist. We can objectively measure and verify various properties of the lava lamp like the height, width, breadth of the object as a whole or as various parts. We can objectively measure its mass and capacity. We can objectively determine the materials used in its construction. We can objectively determine the amount of electrical power needed to operate this device. We can even objectively determine the specific wavelengths of light it emits and reflects. We cannot, however, objectively determine the colours of those wavelengths of light. Where person A would see a yellow colour, person B would see more of a green colour. This is because colour is not objective, it is subjective.
Put that in your lava lamp and smoke it.
-
2015-12-15 at 12:34 AM UTCI'm surprised no one mentioned a photograph. If reality really is a wholly internal perception, independent of what's actually out there, why does a photograph seem to verify external existence. Unless it, too, is part of the grand deception. Perhaps we are simply perceiving from the photograph what our brains have been programmed to receive from it, but even the contents of the photo are not really real.
-
2015-12-15 at 1:58 AM UTCA rainbow appears every time a man fucks another man in the ass.
