User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2015-12-02 at 4:19 AM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
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. -
2015-12-02 at 4:09 AM UTC in Freewill
Determinism in theory and free will in practice. In the individual level we choose our fates but those choices are dependant on the choices others made in lives before yours.
Either way, I'm ready for a 9 page thread where OYM gives ridiculous assertions with no evidence or logical backing.
You don't really seem to disagree with me. -
2015-11-28 at 4:22 AM UTC in Freewill
-
2015-11-28 at 1:33 AM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
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 1:07 AM UTC in FreewillWhatever you do has been predetermined. Your decisions are meaningless and choice is an illusion. You agree that you can't change the laws of physics or alter the past. The present is nothing more than the result of those laws acting on the past.
Look at your liver. It's a regenerating, automatic organic filtration system that you could not possibly build yourself. It evolved over eons from basically nothing to become this amazing thing. And if you can accept that, it shouldn't be too hard to accept that this miraculous feeling that we call freewill also evolved out of basically nothing. Sure, it's a complex system, but so is your liver. The rise of the liver as this amazing organ was entirely reactionary, as was the formation of the planet we live on and the evolution of every living thing on it, including you and all the decisions you have or will ever make. Research even shows us that brain activity behind a decision occurs before a person consciously apprehends the decision.
-
2015-11-28 at 12:36 AM UTC in Do fast food workers deserve a $15 wage?
Lanny is thoroughly brainwashed by privileged leftist 'educators'.
He reminds me so much of this character:
that it is hard to believe Lanny is a real person and not just a fake internet persona. -
2015-11-28 at 12:28 AM UTC in FreewillI don't mean in the legal sense. I mean the vague, mystical, hard to define sense. Freewill as in the magical ability to determine your own fate, cannot exist. Can you change the laws of physics? Can you alter the past? If you answered no to these questions, then it follows that you cannot have freewill.
-
2015-11-28 at 12:25 AM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
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?
-
2015-11-21 at 8:41 PM UTC in Do fast food workers deserve a $15 wage?Why is income inequality a problem? Isn't that how a free market works? The value of your work should be determined by what people are willing to pay for it, not by regulations.
-
2015-11-21 at 8:36 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?I 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 8:34 PM UTC in The hard problem of consciousnessWhat?
-
2015-11-21 at 8:33 PM UTC in Are illogical thoughts an evolutionary advantage?Good point. I decided to create this thread after listening to part of this discussion:
-
2015-11-21 at 8:30 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?This 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 5:19 PM UTC in The hard problem of consciousnessHow do we define consciousness? Does consciousness of ones actions have an effect on ones actions?
-
2015-11-21 at 5:13 PM UTC in Are illogical thoughts an evolutionary advantage?Are most people "wired" to think logically or illogically? Which way of thinking had the greater evolutionary advantage?
Imagine you were a primitive cave man sitting by his fire. You heard a rustling in the bushes. Logically, you could conclude that the rustling was most likely just the wind. But there is always the chance that it could be some monster preparing to jump out and eat you. Those who thought illogically and prepared to react to the unknown may have had an advantage in such a situation.
As a side note, much of enjoyable modern culture (art, music, etc) is a result of illogical thinking. What does it mean to be very opposed to illogical thinking? -
2015-11-21 at 5:02 PM UTC in Do fast food workers deserve a $15 wage?Serious Question: If minimum wage workers deserve an increase in minimum wage to $15/hour, do skilled workers who are already earning a higher wage deserve an equivalent raise?
If minimum wage were to increase by 40%, does a worker earning $40/hour deserve a 40% increase in wage as well? -
2015-11-21 at 4:53 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
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. -
2015-11-18 at 4:32 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?The fact that people perceive colour differently demonstrates that colour is not objective. Colour is defined as the way your visual system interprets light, therefore colour is perceived and is not an intrinsic property of objects. There is nothing incorrect about any of that. The fact that you cannot understand this demonstrates that you're dumb.
-
2015-11-18 at 1:17 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
You keep saying that but you've done absolutely nothing to establish it.
Yes I have, I've explained it to you a dozen times already. At this point it's easier to just tell you that colour is already defined as the visual perceptual property in humans corresponding to the categories called red, blue, yellow etc.The very best the experiment could claim to show (and the methodology is so flawed as to be nearly meaningless) is that the subjective experience of color differs from person to person.
Colour is a subjective experience. It is defined as a perception. Colour is not an objective property of light, colour is subjective, wavelengths are an objective property of light but wavelengths are not colour. Colour is a perception.Sure, but like I said before "color information" or the qualia of color is not the same as color.
Demonstrate this.Rainbows emit light, light is objective even if you want to pretend color isn't, clearly rainbows have an objective existence regardless of how moronic you want to be about the meaning of color.
rainbows do not emit light, the sun does. A rainbow is not an object but rather an optical illusion produced under very specific circumstances which have already been explained earlier in the thread. -
2015-11-18 at 2:57 AM UTC in Chakra Attack!You need some body whispering. Dr. Open Your Mind is a spiritual body whisperer. Ommm. Ommm. Many of you might ask, "What are you doing?" I'm omming. "Why are you making that noise?". It relaxes myself and the ladies. You see, ommm is a scientific frequency that lulls the ladies into a relaxed spiritual place where their brain shuts off and their thighs go into overdrive. Mind off, body on. It's like trying to start a car. Zu-zu-zu-zu-zu. Zu-zu-zu-zu-zu. Zu-zu-zu-zu-zu. That mind is a battery, and that battery is drained and dead, but the engine is good. Right? You understand, Reader? I can teach you how to get that frequency, but you have to buy my book and my ommm call. You know how duck hunters have a call they blow on that attracts ducks, so they can shoot them like stupid-ass sitting ducks? That's where that term comes from - a sitting duck, because that duck's sitting there. Right? He heard that call and he sat there and got his ass shot. Boom! Feathers everywhere! Floosh! Well, I have developed a bird call that attracts women, and it's called the Dr. Open Your Mind "Ommm" Spiritual Fine Lady Soothing Call To Attract Women. It's shaped like a sausage and trust me, it looks a bit strange, but blow it - and you'll see. Walk out on your cul-de-sac or the PTA meeting and blow in that thing, and women go mental! Wururururu! Believe me. And sure, you have to blow on a sausage, but while you're blowing on the sausage you want to ommm... Hell, I had a whole yoga studio full of fine women all over me when I blew that sausage-shaped horn. It was like one of them medieval shows on cable, only we didn't have a dwarf or a yak skin for a blanket. Some ignorant fools will say "Are you really humming on that sausage?" No, I'm cleansing myself!
