One could even just write ye. Takes 2/3 the time of yes.
Geez, James, Dennett doesn’t think red exists (if i understand him correctly) and he’s a pretty pro-science kind of guy.
I think philosophers are the ones who deal with matters of existence. I like science and all, but the more “pro science” a “philosopher” is, then the less “pro philosophy” he is on certain philosophical questions. Please don’t confuse this as advocacy for religion in some weird science v religion context in your mind when you read this. That’s not what I mean.
You quote idiots and expect a reasonable response?
That link involves “what is knowledge”, not whether red exists.
The debate they seem to be conducting is far too simple minded to bother with getting into, but more importantly, it is not on topic.
I’m just defending the OP as perfectly straightforward, and interesting. There’s an issue to explore here.
Not in Science.
There are philosophical issues to learn about.
But nothing that hasn’t been resolved for a very long time.
Almost every “objection” is merely an issue of word usage.
I think the issue can be resolved by defining red. If we can’t do that then the issue is really the problem of definition and the whole debate on it is pretty well documented I think you know Socrates and all…
You’re right, it’s naive of me to expect reasonableness. Thanks for reminding me.
Oh wait, this is in the science forum? My god, that changes everything. I forgot this is where we’re supposed to turn off half the lights to save energy.
Read the link. Dennet didn’t say anything like that anyway. That was a pretty blatant misrepresentation of the material.
I’ve read the material, in Consciousness Explained. Can you explain your objection?
Definitions are always welcome.
Red= electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of 620-700 nanometers
My objection is that in what you linked, Dennet didn’t say anything that can be remotely reasonably interpreted as saying ‘Red doesn’t exist’.
Not really, even the dictionary does better…
. The hue of the long-wave end of the visible spectrum, evoked in the human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of approximately 630 to 750 nanometers; any of a group of colors that may vary in lightness and saturation and whose hue resembles that of blood; one of the additive or light primaries; one of the psychological primary hues.
“My objection is that I object”? Brilliant.
I’m done with this thread.
K bye
If something can be perceived by someone/some being… then surely it exists regardless of irregularities in nature?
This little disagreement reminded me of something I read recently.
The way the human mind treats categories is significantly different from how classic philosophy wants to treat categories. Classically, using what’s sometimes called ‘conceptual analysis’, categories are described by necessary and sufficient conditions – in this case, a photon is in the category ‘red’ if it’s wavelength is between the given lengths, and not if it’s outside.
But, if definitions are descriptive of what we mean when we say words – if definitions are descriptions of our categorization process – it doesn’t quite work like this. The human mind treats categories as fuzzy. Whether that range of 620 to 630 or 700 to 720 really is red or not is, I think, the wrong approach.