tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2913809749903445948.post524799076606730549..comments2023-09-21T02:25:48.907-07:00Comments on The Lobotomist's Dream: One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish...BLUE Fish???Andrew Schnorrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15539646748703738697noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2913809749903445948.post-74195757480574771172007-02-14T13:58:00.000-08:002007-02-14T13:58:00.000-08:00Yes colors can be defined objectively and absolute...Yes colors can be defined objectively and absolutely by their light wavelengths and their luminance. The problem is that this description does not take into account the first-person perceptual experience of that color: the hues we have come to know. And many wavelength/luminance combinations can map to one hue. This is particularly funny with reds as many people put wavelengths in both the lowest and highest wavelengths in the visible light spectrum in the red (or reddish) hue bucket.<BR/><BR/>As far as abstract conceptual associations to those hues...well those vary greatly given the socio-cultural context. The only seemingly universal association is that of the red hue with warmth.<BR/><BR/>As far as what the blocks ARE...well if what they are is their hue, then they are red and green. If what they are is the light wavelengths that are absorbed, then they are everything but the wavelength reflected which maps to red and green hues. I tend to find that most people refer to their perceptual hue experience when they ask "what color is that?"<BR/><BR/>The problem with our perceptual experience of blacks and whites are that they are anchored on the darkest and brightest light sources in our visual field. Black is whatever has the lowest luminance and white is whatever has the lightest luminance (with a roughly uniform distribution of light wavelengths). So objective scientific definitions of black (no light reflectance) and white (absolutely uniform light reflectance with high luminance) are rare if they even are existent in our perceptive experience.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I'm Dimas. :)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13464611740418767305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2913809749903445948.post-13110913406056808792007-02-13T09:42:00.000-08:002007-02-13T09:42:00.000-08:00ok i took a couple of days off. so you couldn't co...ok i took a couple of days off. so you couldn't complain about me complaining about your complaints. and to let the rest of your great friends to commment on blogs.<BR/><BR/>"red" can be describe. now, whether or not the child could understand it is another question.<BR/><BR/>Red may be any of a number of similar colours at the lowest frequencies of light discernible by the human eye. Red is one of the three primary colours of visible light, the others being green and blue. Red light has a wavelength range of roughly 625–760 nm. Frequencies lower than this are called infrared, or below red and cannot be seen by human eyes, although some infrared frequencies can be felt as heat. Red is associated with anger, death, blood, and love.<BR/>it also gives off the perception of warmth.<BR/><BR/>the last line is probably the only part the child could understand.<BR/><BR/>actually that first block is everything but red. like the second block is everything but green.<BR/><BR/>black, which is thought of as all the colors put together, is nothing. white, thought of as absent of all color, has them all.<BR/><BR/>but there is a line that got me confused a little.<BR/>"the other person sees purple and calls it yellow."<BR/>how would anyone know purple is indeed purple?<BR/><BR/>i understand that's your point. but still you're naming the color in question. you're assuming there IS a purple. but what if there isn't? a more correct way to state it is to say "my purple" "your purple" "his purple" or "her purple" can't really say "their purple" because they probably don't see the same hue.<BR/><BR/>note: in art, there is no such this as "purple."<BR/>it's non-existent. but thats just in art. so i don't see purple. i blocked it out. lol. i see violet.<BR/><BR/>speaking of which, i can't see gray. honestly, i'm grey color-blind. i can recognize it. i know its gray. but it doesn't look grey to me. they're all look like dark version of green, blue, violet or reflective.<BR/>but there are some colors that are dark green that i call grey, because i assume they're gray. but then people laugh at me and tell me its green. then they think i can't see green. :(<BR/><BR/>but i do love the concept of grey. shame i can't see it.<BR/><BR/>holla at your boy!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14867948309493429429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2913809749903445948.post-42058643858645959582007-02-12T22:43:00.000-08:002007-02-12T22:43:00.000-08:00Thanks for the info! Although I'm a little dishear...Thanks for the info! Although I'm a little disheartened that I didn't think of some new, sweeping idea, I can rectify that by realizing that I was able to independently think of something that has significant discussion in philosophy. Huzzah!<BR/><BR/>P.S. Don't mind me asking, but who are you? I can't tell by your user name?Andrew Schnorrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15539646748703738697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2913809749903445948.post-46109203131606925132007-02-12T21:13:00.000-08:002007-02-12T21:13:00.000-08:00The argument is thoroughly discussed in philosophi...The argument is thoroughly discussed in philosophical literature and is called the Inverted Spectrum argument. The basic consensus among the community is your conclusion: what does it matter? It's functionally equivalent regardless of the differences in the first-person experience.<BR/><BR/>Searle would also argue that there is no objectively empirical way know about any given person's conscious perceptual experience because it has a first-person subjective ontology.<BR/><BR/>And with that, I'm going to highly recommend you take Philosophy 132 (The Philosophy of Mind) with John Searle. You'll find this and lots of other fun mindfucks littered throughout the course. :)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13464611740418767305noreply@blogger.com