Moderator: MagsJ
Amorphos wrote:James S Saint wrote:...We give names to different affects upon our senses for sake of communication. The affect that water has upon our senses is what we call "wetness". Because all or at least most water triggers that same affect upon us, we categorize wetness as a "quality" of water in the same way that we categorize color as a quality of certain apples.
The quality of a thing tells us what affect to expect from that thing. The quality is not the thing itself, but rather an affect stemming from it. That is just the way the language works
This doesn’t tell us what colour qualia is though.
Amorphos wrote: I can only imagine that those electrical signals are being converted to light. How else do we see colour?
So mind is not real? Qualities are not real?
Yes, we can say there are things that are not real.
Dreams are real.
Why? Because we have an experience of them.
Color is real, and qualities in general, whether or not color is a property of light
I think they are, but physicists don’t. they think the mind is the brain and qualities are physical objects e.g. photons for colour.
Ok, can you give an example?
We experience the colours and sounds etc, and they are not necessarily a faculty of experience. The brain is composing those qualities just as it does the world, so they are akin to the brain working like a computer and making the graphics for the game.
Mind is not the brain. Mind is caused by the brain. I don't think physicists, at least most of them, deny the former. They are simply stating the latter using crude terms.
They are experienced. If you have a memory of them, they have been experienced.
There are no colors in the brain and there are probably no colors in light. Colors do not belong to these categories.
Ah ok sry. Biological unicorns don’t exist until you make them, but I take your point, they are just an idea about something which is not real. A real idea concerning a non-real.
What kind of dream is imagined without being experienced? We are somewhat disconnected from the same memory we use in everyday life, so we can forget dreams, but that doesn’t mean we didn’t experience them.
There is no question that mind is not the brain. Mind is simply not the brain.
You ask "what is color?" I am not sure you know what you're asking. We already know what color is. We know what kind of experience the word "color" refers to. You need to understand what you're asking. Are you asking "what is the cause of color?" That would be a different question. But we have answers to that question too. What exactly are you asking?
The word "exist" is nothing but a label that we attach to certain objects of experience, namely to ideas, using a certain method (defined by a certain set of rules) and with a certain purpose in mind.
People are addicted to this naive concept of objectivity which is entirely independent from every subjective factor including personal judgment. Such an objectivity is entirely imaginary, and therefore, not really an objectivity.
I disagree however that existence itself is a matter of judgement, how we judge things only changes our subjective interpretation of a thing. You could judge that the mountain doesn’t exist, but it still does. Just because its particles cannot be located if you try to observe them, doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. They are a bit like a bee in a jar - so when there are collections of relative particles acting as information upon one another, the result is a substance and that isn’t relative. Otherwise we’d be saying that information does not inform, yet it measurably does, even our minds use info.
That’s a whole topic in itself and I am inclined to agree, perhaps we could go so far as to say that only subjective things exist?
Its like software/hardware, the machine and what it produces are different yes, but colour qualia is composed by the brain and not some mysterious facet we consider to be ‘mind’. that’s why we can be tricked by optical illusions, you wouldn’t suggest that we are consciously doing that surely?
...but colour qualia is composed by the brain and not some mysterious facet we consider to be ‘mind’.
how can we say something exists without judging that it exists? We cannot
We have to assess that a thing exists, but that’s just our understanding it, the thing itself once you have measured its existence, does exist all the while. In other words, there is the world and what that is say if humanity didn’t exist, then their is humanities subjective [judgement] interpretation of observations. The existence itself has nothing to do with us.
That would take it too far, I'm afraid. I don't even know what "only subjective things exist" means. What is a subjective thing? How is it defined? Care to give some examples and counter-examples?
You have to understand that causation, and correlation in general, is established after-the-fact. It is not what is simply "out there". It is a product of our judgment based on our need to fore-see, which is to say, to see before seeing.
What does "out there" mean?
More generally, what do words "inside" and "outside" mean?
Would you agree with the following:
"X is inside Y" simply means "element X is a member of set Y".
"X is outside Y" simply means "element X is not a member of set Y".
Basically, would you agree that these words indicate membership status of any given element in relation to any given set?
If so, you will agree that "out there" means nothing other than "not a member of some presumed set". Possibly "within some set that is not the one that is presumed".
the sensation (qualia) which we experience by viewing colors or particular colors, is ALSO brought on by the individual mind, in conjunction with the individual brain, I believe.
Neither can I agree that it [causality] is a product of our judgment, us thinking about something doesn’t change causality?
By ‘out there’ I meant existent informations which are out there existing in the world.
Not being able to measure doesn’t mean there is nothing there
MagsJ wrote:Do colours solely rely on light to exist?
Maia wrote: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.
Magnus Anderson wrote:Maia wrote: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.
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.
Magnus Anderson wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot]