Reality and Proof

[zanzibar]

I understand what you mean, i've heard of it from the black box situation.

Basically, you have a back box, something is in it.

You can't see the box, or use your 5 senses to figure out what's in it.

Someone might say, let's just xray the box, you'd still be looking at the xray, using your viision, to determine what is in it.

The actual xray would be fine, but the process of you looking at the results ruins it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Basically the point or premise of the situation is to show you no matter what you do, eventually, everything filters into you through your sense of touch, eyesight, hearing, sense of smell, or sense of taste.

Thus, we can't absolutely know anything because of the limits of our own tools, our senses.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But for us to get anywhere, do anything, we need to start somewhere.
And our starting point, is our brain, and 5 senses.

~~Datruth

You still don't get it.  The point isn't that our senses are limited.  The point is that our senses aren't even means of sensing objective reality.

An example that might help is colour.  Colour does not exist.  There is no such thing as red.  Red is simply the way our brain interprets a certain wavelength of light, but there is no redness inherent to that light.

[Parallo]

Aye, nothing has a colour. It just absorbs certain colours from the full spectrum of light that hits it reflecting back the rest into our eye.

[zanzibar]

Aye, nothing has a colour. It just absorbs certain colours from the full spectrum of light that hits it reflecting back the rest into our eye.

ack

no

Things do not absorb colours because colours do not exist.  There is no colour in light.  It's something invented by our brains.  Colour is not reflected back the rest into our eye, because there is no colour in the light.  It's just light.

[Parallo]

But the waves of light that we observe as being colour are absorbed. Whats left of the full spectrum of light waves are beamed into the eye which then when combined and interpruted by our sences are percieved as colour. Its years ago that I heard it so I may be wrong. Not exactly on my curriculum anyway!

[zanzibar]

But the waves of light that we observe as being colour are absorbed. Whats left of the full spectrum of light waves are beamed into the eye which then when combined and interpruted by our sences are percieved as colour. Its years ago that I heard it so I may be wrong. Not exactly on my curriculum anyway!

The point is the colour is simply how we percieve light - colour does not exist apart from the perception.

[Parallo]

Naturally. Just like soft is how we percieve something to the touch and harmonious is how we percieve something to the ear.

[zanzibar]

Naturally. Just like soft is how we percieve something to the touch and harmonious is how we percieve something to the ear.

I think colour is a more extreme example though because it doesn't connect well to the physical properties of the phenomenon in question.

[bilbous]

Color exists no different than pitch. Both are arbitrary names to particular wavelengths that can be humanly perceived. If we were not able to perceive them the wavelengths would still exist although likely the names would not. If you look at a light source it can have its own color and not depend on reflection and absorbsion to give it color.

If you doubt it prove me wrong

[zanzibar]

Color exists no different than pitch. Both are arbitrary names to particular wavelengths that can be humanly perceived. If we were not able to perceive them the wavelengths would still exist although likely the names would not. If you look at a light source it can have its own color and not depend on reflection and absorbsion to give it color.

If you doubt it prove me wrong

You're very wrong.  Colour does not describe wavelength.  Colour is our description of an experience that our brain produces.  Wavelength has a reality outside of our brain, but colour does not have a reality outside of our brain.  We do not percieve colour.  Colour is not there to percieve.  We merely experience colour in reaction to certain wavelengths of light.

[bilbous]

So What I infer from what you are saying is that I could perceive a wavelength of ~ 565–590 nm (yellow) as some other color taking for granted that I perceive color in a normal manner and am not color blind or suffer from a different perceptual defect. It could be yellow today and blue tomorrow, green and red the day after? While it is true that how we perceive the wavelength may differ from person to person the terminology refers to the particular band however it actually appears to us.

If color has no reality outside of our brains why are cardinals red and blue jays blue? Why are roses red and violets blue?
How we perceive the effect is immaterial. It is the effect that is being described. Ultimately everything we can describe is a result of how we perceive it, which is what I think you are really saying, but that is a matter of linguistics not essence. I we were able to perceive a different spectrum we would have different words.

[zanzibar]

You still don't understand what I'm saying, and I don't know how to make it any more simple for you.

Wavelength exists, but wavelength is not colour.  Light has no colour, all it has is wavelength.  Colour is something our brains invented in order to describe different wavelengths.  Does that help?

[bilbous]

I am afraid I cannot concur as your words are something our brains invented to describe what we can perceive and therefor they have no meaning outside our brains.

I just do not agree with your analysis. Color is defined by its wavelength. And your arguments imply that nothing exists outside of our brains and since you are outside of my brain you don't exist and I am talking to myself. And now if you don't mind, I see some nice men in white jackets and they are coming to take me away ha ha he he ho ho.

[zanzibar]

I am afraid I cannot concur as your words are something our brains invented to describe what we can perceive and therefor they have no meaning outside our brains.

I just do not agree with your analysis. Color is defined by its wavelength. And your arguments imply that nothing exists outside of our brains and since you are outside of my brain you don't exist and I am talking to myself. And now if you don't mind, I see some nice men in white jackets and they are coming to take me away ha ha he he ho ho.

My arguments are not as you describe.  Nowhere have I said that "nothing exists outside of our brains" - that is an invention of your own.  I find it hard to believe that you aren't playing dumb just to cause trouble, but I'll ignore that possibility and humour you.

Colour does not exist outside of our brains.  Wavelength does exist outside of our brains.  Colour is how the brain interprets wavelength.  Wavelength does not have colour, colour is simply something our brain associates with wavelength.

I really don't know how I can dumb this down any further.

[Parallo]

Color is defined by its wavelength.

Take this sentance and turn it around. Wavelength is defined by its colour. Its colour does not come into existence untill these wavelengths are intercepted by an eye. Simple.

[eldoth_terevan]

The statement wavelength is defined by its color is not correct, and is needlessly solipsistic. Color is the result of the wavelength as interpreted by the eye, but the condition that allows color to be interpreted to begin with is independent of the eye.