User Controls
Do rainbows exist objectively?
-
2015-12-15 at 11:07 AM UTC
the difference is that lava lamps have an objective existence. Colour is subjective
To save us time I've chosen this quote as representative of your whole post, mostly because it is. What you've done is make a pair of statements with zero support, as opposed to my argument from definition (common usage). Yes, you can continue to make this claim but until you do something to establish it as true rather than just a random assertion I can't say I find it very convincing. -
2015-12-17 at 3:51 AM UTCRight lanny, but I think you're missing the point. The objectiveness of rainbows is dependent soley on the abdjuctive redundancy of halcon multifaucets which as you may or may not know, are THE ONLY REASON for gratuitous barnage when you're dealing with scum scully skull fucker CORPS like S.K.E.T.A. or P.L.U.M.B.U.S. Now, if you were to take a rainbow and put it through a laser guided minefield airlock super conductor halogen light LED radar airplane, now we're talking. That's just my opinion though.
-
2015-12-17 at 9:50 AM UTCI knew, in the moment I typed the word "noumena" that someone was going to make some joke, basically this. All I can say at this point is "no I don't like that" and "I'm too drunk to work up the enthusiasm to reply to a joke post". Hey hey, maybe booze is a short term cure for autism. I could believe that, seems to fit pretty well too.
-
2016-01-03 at 8:30 PM UTC
To save us time I've chosen this quote as representative of your whole post, mostly because it is. What you've done is make a pair of statements with zero support, as opposed to my argument from definition (common usage). Yes, you can continue to make this claim but until you do something to establish it as true rather than just a random assertion I can't say I find it very convincing.
I have demonstrated that colour is not objective in various ways, from the fact that different people do experience different colours when they experience the same wavelengths of light, to the fact that you imagine colour in a completely subjective way when you read words like RED or GREEN, to the fact that colour is a function of your visual system. Ignoring these facts does not make them less true.
The claim that colour is objective because the word is commonly used that way is idiotic. The Earth was once commonly believed to be the center of the universe. In some cultures, God is a word commonly used to refer to a being believed to objectively exist. You're an intelligent enough person to know those ideas are not objectively true, despite how common it was for people to believe they were.
So why is it so hard for you to accept that colour is not objective? -
2016-01-05 at 11:30 PM UTCTo summarize, people almost universally believe that objects look coloured because they are coloured, just as we experience them. The sky looks blue because it is blue, grass looks green because it is green, and blood looks red because it is red.
As surprising as it may seem, these beliefs are fundamentally mistaken. Neither objects nor lights are actually ‘coloured’ in anything like the way we experience them. Rather, colour is a psychological property of our visual experiences when we look at objects and lights, not a physical property of those objects or lights. The colours we see are based on physical properties of objects and lights that cause us to see them as coloured, to be sure, but these physical properties are different in important ways from the colours we perceive. -
2016-01-06 at 2:21 AM UTC
I have demonstrated that colour is not objective in various ways, from the fact that different people do experience different colours when they experience the same wavelengths of light
Once again, you've demonstrated that the perception of color is non-objective. This has nothing to do with the objectivity of color itself, just as perception of lavalamps may be subjective this does not make lavalamps themselves non-objective.The claim that colour is objective because the word is commonly used that way is idiotic.
"The claim that lavalamps are objective because the word is commonly used that way is idiotic"The Earth was once commonly believed to be the center of the universe.
"Earth" has always referred to the planet we live on in common usage. A geocentric model of the universe is a misunderstanding of a property of the Earth, specifically its location. If we had used the term "earth" to refer to "the center of the universe" then we'd have been wrong in a different way, that is mistaken identity of our planet for "earth". Regardless, the meaning of the word earth has always been determined by common usage, just like meaning of any word is determined by common or technical usage, both of which support the notion of objective color.So why is it so hard for you to accept that colour is not objective?
Because you're misusing the term color. And like I've told you many, many, times: even if I grant you your (incorrect) terms it doesn't change the status of rainbows as objectively existent phenomena. The light which composes rainbows is objective, possesses objective wavelengths and is emitted in objective patterns. If you want to try and pull some new definition for color out your ass it doesn't change the fact that rainbows are objective physical phenomena. -
2016-01-07 at 4:58 AM UTCrainbows dont' exist because i can't touch them and i've never seen a leprokahn have you
-
2016-01-09 at 6:30 PM UTC
Once again, you've demonstrated that the perception of color is non-objective. This has nothing to do with the objectivity of color itself, just as perception of lavalamps may be subjective this does not make lavalamps themselves non-objective.
"The claim that lavalamps are objective because the word is commonly used that way is idiotic"
"Earth" has always referred to the planet we live on in common usage. A geocentric model of the universe is a misunderstanding of a property of the Earth, specifically its location. If we had used the term "earth" to refer to "the center of the universe" then we'd have been wrong in a different way, that is mistaken identity of our planet for "earth". Regardless, the meaning of the word earth has always been determined by common usage, just like meaning of any word is determined by common or technical usage, both of which support the notion of objective color.
Because you're misusing the term color. And like I've told you many, many, times: even if I grant you your (incorrect) terms it doesn't change the status of rainbows as objectively existent phenomena. The light which composes rainbows is objective, possesses objective wavelengths and is emitted in objective patterns. If you want to try and pull some new definition for color out your ass it doesn't change the fact that rainbows are objective physical phenomena.
Pay attention, Lanny. You have not demonstrated that colour is objective, you have only defined it as objective. Defining something as objective doesn't make magically it objective. If it did, then any ridiculous fantasy could be defined into reality. That is not the case. On the other hand, I have clearly demonstrated that colour is not objective. Neither objects nor lights are actually ‘coloured’ in anything like the way we experience them. Rather, colour is a psychological property of our visual experiences when we look at objects and lights, not a physical property of those objects or lights. The colours we see are based on physical properties of objects and lights that cause us to see them as coloured, to be sure, but these physical properties are different in important ways from the colours we perceive.
You have also claimed that the word "colour" can only be used as you have defined it, as an objective property. I have demonstrated that is not true. I have shown that there are definitions of colour as something non-objective, and I have demonstrated a common use of the word colour as a description of entirely subjective experiences like imagining the colour red when you read the word RED.
A lava lamp does have objective properties. These properties can be measured and verified as objective. However, the colour of this lava lamp is not one of those objective properties. Different people will look at that lavalamp and see different colours. This lava lamps clearly posses objective physical properties that cause you to see it as coloured, of course, but those physical properties are different in important ways from the colours you and I perceive subjectively.
You claim I am "misusing" the word colour and that I am incorrect. But you are wrong. The way I am using the word colour is entirely legitimate, valid, acceptable and correct. I have demonstrated this in various ways throughout this entire thread, and your inability to accept the facts do not not make them any less true. The fact is colours are not objective. And therefore, neither are rainbows. Rainbows are an optical illusion created by a very specific set of circumstances, and while I would be the first to admit that those circumstances have an objective and physical existence, I maintain that those circumstances are different in important ways from the rainbows we perceive. -
2016-01-09 at 7:13 PM UTCAsk a blind person.
-
2016-01-09 at 7:40 PM UTC
Pay attention, Lanny. You have not demonstrated that colour is objective, you have only defined it as objective. Defining something as objective doesn't make magically it objective. If it did, then any ridiculous fantasy could be defined into reality. That is not the case. On the other hand, I have clearly demonstrated that colour is not objective. Neither objects nor lights are actually ‘coloured’ in anything like the way we experience them. Rather, colour is a psychological property of our visual experiences when we look at objects and lights, not a physical property of those objects or lights. The colours we see are based on physical properties of objects and lights that cause us to see them as coloured, to be sure, but these physical properties are different in important ways from the colours we perceive.
The irony in this paragraph is staggering. You say I've only defined color as objective then follow up with telling me how color is actually the definition you pulled out of your ass and that definition happens to be subjective.
The point seems continually lost on you however, that it doesn't matter which definition is "correct" because we agree on the objectivity of light and rainbows are composed of light. Rainbows are consistently observable and detectable with equipment with no subjective experience and thus must be objectively existent. Wether or not you take color to mean the perception of wavelengths of light or a property of light itself it doesn't change anything.A lava lamp does have objective properties. These properties can be measured and verified as objective. However, the colour of this lava lamp is not one of those objective properties.
Which properties does a lava lamp have that are objective. Be specific, name a few.Different people will look at that lavalamp and see different colours. This lava lamps clearly posses objective physical properties that cause you to see it as coloured, of course, but those physical properties are different in important ways from the colours you and I perceive subjectively.
OK, this is back to the definition of color again but let's take your definition. You would still admit that rainbows and the light that composes them has objective properties. Anything with objective properties must, if it exists, do so objectively. Thus rainbows are still objective no matter what meaning you put on "color".You claim I am "misusing" the word colour and that I am incorrect. But you are wrong.
Oh wow, nice argument bro. Ready for this sick comeback?
-
2016-01-10 at 5:59 PM UTC
The irony in this paragraph is staggering. You say I've only defined color as objective then follow up with telling me how color is actually the definition you pulled out of your ass and that definition happens to be subjective.
The point seems continually lost on you however, that it doesn't matter which definition is "correct" because we agree on the objectivity of light and rainbows are composed of light. Rainbows are consistently observable and detectable with equipment with no subjective experience and thus must be objectively existent. Wether or not you take color to mean the perception of wavelengths of light or a property of light itself it doesn't change anything.
Which properties does a lava lamp have that are objective. Be specific, name a few.
OK, this is back to the definition of color again but let's take your definition. You would still admit that rainbows and the light that composes them has objective properties. Anything with objective properties must, if it exists, do so objectively. Thus rainbows are still objective no matter what meaning you put on "color".
Oh wow, nice argument bro. Ready for this sick comeback?
Try to pay attention Lanny. I didn't pull some definition out of my ass just to support my position. Rather, this is the definition that the facts happen to support, therefore it is the correct definition. I didn't just decide one day that colour is not objective. People have been using the word in this way long before I was alive because this is what the facts tell us about colour.
You maintain that the "perception of colours" and "colours themselves" are two different things, yet you refuse to differentiate between colours and the objective properties of objects which cause you to see colours. This is an obvious flaw in the way you think about colour. You have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that colour exists beyond subjective perception, while I have clearly demonstrated that colours are not objective and are different in important ways from the objective properties of objects which cause us to perceive colours.
I already listed some of the objective properties of a lava lamp earlier in this thread. Try to pay more attention in the future.
A rainbow is not defined as "light". A rainbow is defined as "the appearance of a colourful arch in the sky". Therefore a rainbow is composed of colours. Colours are not objective, therefore neither is a rainbow. The appearance of a rainbow is caused by a very specific set of circumstances, circumstances which objectively exist. However the appearance of a rainbow is different in important ways from the specific circumstances which cause it to appear.
And no Lanny, I'm actually not wrong. My argument is entirely legitimate, valid, acceptable and correct. I'm not "misusing" any words at all, rather, you are simply refusing to move past the semantics, face the facts about colour and accept the truth about rainbows. -
2016-01-10 at 8:32 PM UTC
Try to pay attention Lanny. I didn't pull some definition out of my ass just to support my position. Rather, this is the definition that the facts happen to support, therefore it is the correct definition. I didn't just decide one day that colour is not objective. People have been using the word in this way long before I was alive because this is what the facts tell us about colour.
Words take their definition from common usage. Your definition does not fit common usage. Thus your definition is arbitrary, pulled out of your ass. Sorry bud.You maintain that the "perception of colours" and "colours themselves" are two different things, yet you refuse to differentiate between colours and the objective properties of objects which cause you to see colours.
That's because I take "color" to definition be the properties of things which cause the perception of color, just as I take lavalamps to be the objective things out in the world that cause me to perceive lavalamps sometimes.This is an obvious flaw in the way you think about colour. You have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that colour exists beyond subjective perception, while I have clearly demonstrated that colours are not objective and are different in important ways from the objective properties of objects which cause us to perceive colours.
Well we're both in agreement that wavelengths of light are objective, so there's no need to demonstrate that. And that's what I argue color is, and I've gone to lengths to demonstrate why it makes sense to talk of color being just that so you seem to have pretty severely misunderstood the argument here.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.
Ah, but if I could demonstrate to you that people's ability to perceive height, width, and breadth is not uniform, that some people will perceive lavalamps to be larger or smaller than others, would you admit lavalamps are purely subjective then?
This is a reductio argument, try to pay attention because I'm sure you'd miss it if I didn't point it out.A rainbow is not defined as "light". A rainbow is defined as "the appearance of a colourful arch in the sky".
google suggests a definition of:[FONT=arial]an arch of colors formed in the sky in certain circumstances, caused by the refraction and dispersion of the sun's light by rain or other water droplets in the atmosphere
[/FONT]Therefore a rainbow is composed of colours. Colours are not objective, therefore neither is a rainbow. The appearance of a rainbow is caused by a very specific set of circumstances, circumstances which objectively exist. However the appearance of a rainbow is different in important ways from the specific circumstances which cause it to appear.
But that only works if we take your specific definition of color, which we would have no reason to do because when we talk about rainbows in common usage we're not talking about perceptions. In fact read the definition, read your own definition: "a colorful arch in the sky". We talk about a rainbow as having a location, an objective property, obviously it must have some objective existence if we can talk about it's location.And no Lanny, I'm actually not wrong. My argument is entirely legitimate, valid, acceptable and correct. I'm not "misusing" any words at all, rather, you are simply refusing to move past the semantics, face the facts about colour and accept the truth about rainbows.
Oh oh, you said you're actually right. Nice argument bro, very nice. But two can play this game. Watch:
actually I'm the one who's right, and you're the one who's wrong.
Haha, take that bud -
2016-02-01 at 9:02 PM UTCIt is common for people to misunderstand colours. Most people believe that a car looks red because it is red. Or that the grass looks green because it is green. As surprising as it may seem, these beliefs are fundamentally mistaken. Neither objects nor lights are actually ‘coloured’ in anything like the way we experience them. Rather, colour is a psychological property of our visual experiences when we look at objects and lights, not a physical property of those objects or lights. The colours we see are based on physical properties of objects and lights that cause us to see them as coloured, but these physical properties are different in important ways from the colours we perceive. Many people may commonly believe colour to be something that is objective, but according to the facts they are wrong. Rather the conclusion the facts support, the correct conclusion, is that colour is not objective.
You've stated that you personally define colours as the physical properties of objects which cause the perception of colours. That sounds a lot like circular logic. If colours are the physical properties of things which cause the perception of colours, then why do different people and animals see different colours (or no colours) when they look at the same objects? The answer is that those physical properties are different in important ways from colours they cause us to percieve. The most obvious being that colour is a visual experience, a subjective experience which varies from person to person. When I look at a red wall I see the colour red, a subjective visual experience. I don't see the microscopic physical properties of the surface of the wall causing me to experience red. Someone with a different brain will look at the same wall and see orange. Someone else will look at the same wall and won't be able to see any colour. The objective properties of the wall don't change every time a new person looks at it. Therefore colour is psychological property of our visual experiences, and not a physical property of the objects we are viewing.
In order for your definition to make any sense at all you have to imagine that "colour" and "the perception of colour" are magically different things. But according to the facts they are not magically different things. According to the facts the colours we percieve are based on the physical properties of objects and lights that cause us to see them as coloured, but these physical properties are different in important ways from the colours we perceive. To define colour as the properties of objects which cause colour is like defining the effect as its own cause.
A rainbow is the appearance of a colorful arch (usually in the sky), and yes, it is caused by a very specific set of circumstance. It is caused by those circumstances, it isn't the circumstances themselves. It is the appearance of a colorful arch. If a rainbow were the specific set of circumstances which cause it, the observer of the rainbow would have to be considered part of the rainbow, and that is ridiculous. Rainbows do not have any specific physical location. Usually they appear in the sky, but if you walk towards one it will appear to move farther away. If you call your friend and tell him there is a rainbow over his house, he won't see it over his house when he looks out his window. Rainbows do not have objective properties. The circumstances which cause the rainbow do, but the cause is not the effect.
And no Lanny, I'm actually not wrong. My argument is entirely legitimate, valid, acceptable and correct. I'm not "misusing" any words at all, rather, you are simply refusing to move past the semantics, face the facts about colour and accept the truth about rainbows. -
2016-11-02 at 3:56 AM UTC'Member this thread? I 'member.
-
2016-11-02 at 4:28 AM UTCI do now
-
2016-11-02 at 1:34 PM UTCLight exists.
-
2016-11-02 at 1:36 PM UTChow can rainbows be real if our eyes arent real
-
2016-11-02 at 4:02 PM UTCI remember this thread, and I remember it being frustrating to participate in. I think since first enjoying the particular bouquet of this thread I've come to appreciate why any discussion into the relationship between qualia and language will so quickly and reliably devolve into the shitshow here showcased.
Instead of going on about why descriptions of qualia and their relations is difficult I'm just going to point out that you're a fucking retard if you don't think rainbows have an objective existence. -
2016-11-02 at 4:34 PM UTC^ define "existence"
-
2016-11-02 at 6:45 PM UTC
I remember this thread, and I remember it being frustrating to participate in. I think since first enjoying the particular bouquet of this thread I've come to appreciate why any discussion into the relationship between qualia and language will so quickly and reliably devolve into the shitshow here showcased.
Instead of going on about why descriptions of qualia and their relations is difficult I'm just going to point out that you're a fucking retard if you don't think rainbows have an objective existence.
This thread was frustrating to read.
