Qualia and the Mystery of Colors

Universe (which is what “out there” apparently refers to) is a set of ideas of events that the one owning this set thinks have occurred in the past or will occur in the future.

This means that every person will have his own set that is universe. It also means that the content of this set, the elements included within it, will vary between people as their experience and method of judgment varies.

Idealists don’t like this. Instead, they will argue that there is only one universe to which everyone and everything existent belongs.

This set must be outside of the subject. Otherwise, it will no longer be singular. But this means we can’t speak of it. And yet, we do.

I call it mystery set because we can never know what it is. It is forever “out there” in the sense that it is forever outside of our knowledge.

We cannot speak of its content because that would be putting in it our opinions of what is in it and not what is truly in it.

Whoever asks “is color real?” meaning “does color belong to this set?” must be told that we can never know.

We quite simply don’t know the membership rules of this set. It’s an undefined set.

It’s a classic case of paranoia, of being afraid that your judgments will turn out to be incorrect in the future.

The only thing we know is that we know nothing.

Everything is possible. You can never be sure of anything. I might in fact be a dragon dreaming I’m a man. How can I know that I am not? I can’t.

So let’s give up on our judgments and worship this undefined set.

…an element, created by other elements as a by-product of their activity, that the eye has the ability to take advantage of… just like we have with water to quench our thirst, and produce to satiate our hunger.

We have come to rely on the sun for our main source of vitamin D, just like colour relies on the sun(light) for its creation.

Colours don’t exist outside of the physical, external stimulus that creates them. If they did, I would know what they look like, when in fact, I have no idea.

Define “colour”.

It’s the same as color.

Need not be the case. It could be that your brain is simply not producing them because the condition to initiate their production is lacking.

Well yes. That’s what I said, isn’t it?

You said there must be external stimulus, presumably light, in order to experience colors. I said not necessarily. You might be able to see colors without light and eyes and yet not see them because the corresponding events in the brain are not taking place.

Why would they not be taking place?

Because nothing is causing them to take place (e.g. light hitting the eyes.) But that does not mean that light hitting the eyes is the only thing that can cause them to take place. I think it was Amorphos who mentioned earlier an experiment in which man was made to see via his tongue.

I don’t have the details off hand but I’m willing to bet that the man had not been blind all his life, and/or had at least some light perception.

I’m not a neuroscientist. I do not study relations between what is in the brain (e.g. neurons) and what is in the mind (e.g. colors.) Thus, as far as I am concerned, it may or may not be the case that there are certain states in the brain that are necessary and sufficient condition for the experience of colors.

What I am saying is that if you’re blind and have no idea what colors are that does not mean the experience of colors is dependent upon the presence of light. It could be simply that these states in the brain that have 1-to-1 correspondence with visual states are simply not activated because there is no external cause, such as light, that would do so.

In the absence of evidence, we have no choice but to conclude that light is necessary for the experience of colors. But this absence of evidence shouldn’t stop us from acquiring further evidence. We want to open up the brain – well, not exactly me, I think that’s a bit dirty – and see if there are any connections between what’s in there and what’s elsewhere.

:laughing:

I expect better from you guys (although I can’t think of a good reason to).

Define “color”.

Define “affect”.

Affect == verb - to cause change.

Now back to the topic of this thread;
Define “color”.

Alright. I think everyone knows what change is. But what does “cause” mean? What is causality?

You can ask as many questions as you want but if their relevance isn’t evident noone will answer them.

What exactly is your point?

I can give you any number of definitions of color.
Here’s one straight from the Google:

color
noun
The property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way it reflects or emits light.

Now what?
What exactly is your point?

It’s “relevance”??!!

Color is the very subject of this thread. If you cannot tell me what you mean by “color”, then you literally do not know what you are talking about, because color IS THE SUBJECT.

If that is what YOU mean when you say “color”, then in this thread, you are talking about a “property of an object”. You are NOT talking about a mentally assigned value or qualia. A property of an object can be objectively measured.

But is that what everyone else is talking about?
Probably not (hence senseless bickering).

I am pretty sure that everyone already knows what color is. Whether or not they can define it. It is certainly not true that you cannot know what something is without being able to express it using language or without being able to compare it to some other thing to which it is related.

You asked for a definition and I gave you one.

If you read my previous posts, instead of simply ignoring them, you would know that I am speaking of color qua quality.

My suspicion is that you are making no point whatsoever.

Logically you gave a definition by taking it from Google which in essence means that Google gave you one and therefore Google gave James a definition of Color/Colour - how about you offer one from your own brain/mind. I think that would be more interesting actually.

How are you “pretty sure that everyone already knows what color is”? That is a rather peculiar thing to say given that you can only be sure about what you know or would you disagree? I am not trying to be mean here Magnus - just trying to make some sense of what you are saying. I would be interested to know if you are completely sure about what you know.

Anyway . . .

:-k