User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2015-11-11 at 4:57 PM UTC in Life is scary..."I have spent my whole life scared, frightened of things that could happen, might happen, might not happen, 50 years I spent like that. Finding myself awake at three in the morning. But you know what? Ever since my diagnosis, I sleep just fine . . . What I came to realize is that fear, that's the worst of it. That's the real enemy. So, get up, get out in the real world and you kick that bastard as hard as you can right in the teeth."
-Walter White
-
2015-11-11 at 4:48 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
What? "The researchers also found that men require a slightly longer wavelength to see the same hue as women" what the fuck does that even mean? Aside from the obvious issue of determining qualia equivalence across organisms (since you quoted a popsci site I'll save you the time of reading the actual paper and tell you they asked to rate colors on a scale from 1 to 100 in each of the RGBY channels. If you can't see the obvious issue here then you're fucked in the head) we've learned that color differential perception varies between sexes in that very article and thus even lopsided hue perception differentials can be explained by fewer discrete perceivable hues
The second link is even worse than the first. It actually demonstrates my point. Consider that the spectrum of human-visible light is filled by what we call colors. Consider that some animals can see a wider spectrum, we see consider them to be seeing colors (per your childrens article, "Bees and butterflies can see colors that we can't see"). What then do we say of light that exceeds the spectrum visible to any animal? Is it not color? Does it become color when there become animals that can perceive it? Was the ocean not blue before animals with a visual system evolved? Your position is fucking absurd and fails to capture the way in which we use the term color in any sane context.
How is my position fucking absurd? It isn't crazy, and it shouldn't be too hard to understand. You asked how colour only exists in the mind. This is how:
If specific colours objectively corresponded to specific wavelengths of light, specific wavelengths of light would appear to be the same colours for everyone. Clearly specific wavelengths do not appear to be the same colours for everyone. Therefore specific colours do not objectively correspond to specific wavelengths of light, and therefore colour is not objective.
Since specific wavelengths of light do not objectively correspond to specific colours, of course animals with different visual systems will see colours we do not see - that doesn't magically make the colours they are seeing objective. On the contrary, it clearly demonstrates that colour is function of an animals visual system and not an intrinsic property of the objects they are viewing. An object only appears to have colours, and will appear to have different colours depending on who is viewing the object. Even the words we use to describe colour reflect this: the word "spectrum" from the term "visible spectrum" is the Latin word for appearance or apparition.
"What then do we say of light that exceeds the spectrum visible to any animal? Is it not color? Does it become color when there become animals that can perceive it?"
We could demonstrate that those wavelengths of light objectively exist, but clearly they do not appear to correspond to any colours in our minds. Therefore we could say those wavelengths of light subjectively correspond to some unimaginable colours in that animals mind, and subjectively correspond to no colours in our minds, but objectively they do not correspond to any colour because clearly colour is a function of an organisms visual system and not an intrinsic property of the objects which they are viewing. -
2015-11-09 at 10:08 PM UTC in Morrowind vs SkyrimFallout 3.
-
2015-11-08 at 6:11 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?^Troll bait.
-
2015-11-08 at 5:07 PM UTC in How did religion begin?Another factor would be the "spiritual experience" various people from various cultures have claimed to have experienced.
-
2015-11-08 at 3:15 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?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.
-
2015-11-08 at 2:24 AM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?Oh I get it. You're trolling. For a minute I thought you might actually be that dumb.
-
2015-11-08 at 12:27 AM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?It's not an assertion, it's a fact. Colour only exists in your mind.
-
2015-11-07 at 9:10 PM UTC in Never ever make a mission statementWhere is it?
-
2015-11-07 at 8:59 PM UTC in Never ever make a mission statement
Bottom line is Lanny is just too lethargic to bother making this place into anything but a large scribble pad. It may be an unpopular opinion, but it is the truth.
Why have you never set up a better place? Too lethargic? -
2015-11-07 at 6:05 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
@ 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. -
2015-11-06 at 11:06 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
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.
SourceDifferent 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
-
2015-11-01 at 4:10 PM UTC in My life sucks so muchUnderstanding hyperspace is nothing but the ability to comprehend plural concepts, including polar opposites, within the same gestalt.
-
2015-11-01 at 2:49 PM UTC in Silicone Enhanced Women
Gravity Defying Tits
-
2015-11-01 at 2:29 PM UTC in My life sucks so muchTo illustrate, if your views of a cone were limited to the extremes of plan and elevation, only extraordinary conditions and mathematical calculation would enable you to realize that the two mutually incommensurable figures were aspects of the same identity in a higher dimension of space. Ordinarily, you are able to relate one extreme view to the other extreme by innumerable other viewing angles revealing the gradual transformation of the circle into the triangle. Even after identifying the circle as an allotropic aspect of the triangle, you would still be unable to form the concept of a solid cone unless your mental space were large enough to comprehend three dimensions; you would believe that the conical structure alternates between a circle and a triangle according to the viewing angle; it would be the wave-particle paradox all over again.
-
2015-11-01 at 2:21 PM UTC in My life sucks so muchWhat a coincidence. On the atomic scale, hyperspacial rotations occur at such speed that transition phases between extreme views cannot be resolved within the temporal precision of the experiment. The wave-particle dichotomy is refractory to scientific comprehension not only because an electron flips between its two phases faster than the instruments can follow, but also because both wave packets and particles are three-dimensional concepts. Mentally unable to comprehend ultratridimensional entities, physicists identify different projections of one subatomic particle as several new discoveries, and that is why there is no end to the number of elementary particles.
-
2015-10-31 at 11:39 PM UTC in Happy Halloween!That's the joke.
-
2015-10-31 at 11:24 PM UTC in Happy Halloween!The fact that they are content to be empty headed silicon enchanced fuck toys makes them fairly attractive.
Also, children are not as attractive as you think they are. -
2015-10-31 at 11:10 PM UTC in I could really use some weed right now*exhale*
-
2015-10-31 at 10:55 PM UTC in I could really use some weed right nowI'll smoke some extra weed for you.
