Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

If what I say is correct? Well then that's a "no" to my question, you don't get why your statement is false:

"Personal tastes, feelings and opinions are about the individual (the subject) choice."

Did you choose to hate the flavor of your favorite food?

Did you choose to fall madly in love with me?

Did you choose to hold the opinion that I am the most clever being in the universe?

Can you do these things?

If you cannot, then what I say is correct. If you cannot, then what you said is incorrect.

Only if you can do these things is what I say incorrect. Only if you can do these things, then what you said is correct.

So can you do these things? The rest of your post is just you pondering over the consequences of this fact being true. That is irrelevant to whether or not the fact is true.

Can you do these things?

Actually I never said its a no or disagreed and you are now doing my thinking. I was asking a question and posing scenarios as to what is the truth of this matter. Like I said I may be wrong. But it appears you have decided you are right and there's no two ways about it.

People like and dislike things for all sorts of reasons. They can like several things of the same kind at once and change their preference according to the situation or the mood they are in. They can pretend to like something to for various reasons or dislike something because their friends do and then change their minds when they are not around.

Sometimes we don't even know what we prefer. We may think we like something but actually discover we don't when presented with the situation. Often our minds are not made up. We are more dynamic than being stuck with fixed preferences. Its not so black and white and we are not robots.

But if your going to dismiss me and not bother to respond to the questions then there's no sense in debating with you. You have already made up your mind and won't consider any other options.

PS I am not going to answer your questions as I don't think they reflect the true nature of peoples preferences. As far as I see your creating an either/or fallacy by narrowing down the choices when its not so black and white.

 

[Moral Orel]

Actually I never said its a no or disagreed and you are now doing my thinking.

You refused to actually answer the question just like all my questions. We both know the answer, you just won't say it.

I was asking a question and posing scenarios as to what is the truth of this matter.

No, you were asking about other things. You were asking about the consequences of accepting that the things we're talking about are not a matter of choice. That is not relevant to our discussion.

But if your going to dismiss me and not bother to respond to the questions then there's no sense in debating with you. You have already made up your mind and won't consider any other options.

PS I am not going to answer your questions as I don't think they reflect the true nature of peoples preferences.

Oh the irony. You refuse to answer any of my questions for multiple pages now because they prove me right, and then show indignation that I won't engage your Appeal to Consequences Fallacy.

This is what we're discussing:
"Personal tastes, feelings and opinions are about the individual (the subject) choice."

We aren't skipping over whether it is true or not to discuss "what ifs".

As far as I see your creating an either/or fallacy by narrowing down the choices when its not so black and white.

It doesn't matter what examples I choose as long as they involve a taste, a feeling, or an opinion. You're committing the Special Pleading Fallacy.

Your alternate examples don't work, and here's why:

They can like several things of the same kind at once and change their preference according to the situation or the mood they are in.

See how you start out talking about what you "like" and then switch to what you "prefer"? You aren't comparing like things. You haven't given an example of someone choosing to stop liking something. You've only given an example of someone choosing something they like more.

They can pretend to like something to for various reasons or dislike something because their friends do and then change their minds when they are not around.

If you're only pretending to like X, then you don't like X.
If you're only pretending to dislike X, then you don't dislike X.
You haven't even shown a change in likes or dislikes.

Sometimes we don't even know what we prefer. We may think we like something but actually discover we don't when presented with the situation.

This only proves me right! You don't choose to like something you discover that you like something.

Often our minds are not made up. We are more dynamic than being stuck with fixed preferences. Its not so black and white and we are not robots.

I already covered this one. Tastes, feelings, and opinions can and do change. That doesn't mean they change by our personal choices. Change =/= choice.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well if we want to find out the fundamentals of reality we have to refer to the experts, like anything I guess, like when doing an essay. But once again I don't think anyone is taking things to the extreme. Its a reasonable idea in the light of of QM and psychology one that seems to fit what is happening just as well if not better than other traditional ideas in physics and cosmology.

Well its becoming more of a possibility the more time goes by and many great minds think its real and not fiction. When you say you see no evidence I assume you mean empirically. Well if that's the case of course you won't see any evidence because empirical science is not designed to see anything that is not empirical science.

Height doesn't really matter as a single story building is made out of the same stuff as a skyscraper. Its not about matter in space but our experience of it.

At the fundamental level a building is 99.99% empty space. But even more fundamental is that mind is behind all that we see and experience because empty space cannot produce an objective world but a mind can.

Actually dreams are an important part of understanding reality. Out of dreams comes creativity and imagination and out of these comes deeper insights and truths about reality.

Then you need to learn some theoretical physics and cosmology. There are scientific ideas proposed that support the idea of a simulation, the Hologram Principle, and that Mind and Information are a fundamental part of reality. All these ideas are based on the observer effect in QM and are proposed as possible ideas that can explain what exactly reality is.

For example look at how virtual reality is beginning to look real to us. We could imagine that the the distant future it becomes so real people cannot tell the difference anymore. Take this further and if as it is claimed that we can make a robotic human who can experience the world then it stands to reason that a simulation with programmed conscious beings would think that they are experiencing something real. This is the Simulation hypothesis by Nick Bostrom.

Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50
Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50
Symmetries Reveal Clues About the Holographic Universe
Physicists have been busy exploring how our universe might emerge like a hologram out of a two-dimensional sheet. New clues have come from the symmetries found on an infinitely distant “celestial sphere.”
https://www.quantamagazine.org/symmetries-reveal-clues-about-the-holographic-universe-20220112/
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind

Well your missing out because more and more people are jumping into the rabbit hole as it makes sense.

Yep that's what many in science are doing whether you would call them hippies I think that's a bit dismissive when you have not even explained your reasoning as to why these ideas are so hippy trippy. If they are then many scientists are posing hippy trippy ideas.

A lot of people have deliberately misrepresented the observer effect to advance a personal agenda.

The observer in "the observer effect" refers to a filter screen of sorts which particles are shot through.

It's not a human observer. In fact, a human observer makes no difference at all.

 

[stevevw]

A lot of people have deliberately misrepresented the observer effect to advance a personal agenda.

The observer in "the observer effect" refers to a filter screen of sorts which particles are shot through.

It's not a human observer. In fact, a human observer makes no difference at all.

There are some interpretations of quantum physics that support the observer effect in one way of another such as the Copenhagen interpretation and QBism.

 

[stevevw]

You refused to actually answer the question just like all my questions. We both know the answer, you just won't say it.

How can we both know the answer when I disagree with what you say. I would say it if I agreed but I don't. You haven't even argued the point. You have just made an unsupported claim. I think if anything we should both know is you just don' go along with an unsupported opinion.

It doesn't matter what examples I choose as long as they involve a taste, a feeling, or an opinion. You're committing the Special Pleading Fallacy.
Your alternate examples don't work, and here's why:

OK all I know is you say it doesn't matter what examples I give and say they don't work but then don't tell me why but rather leave this blank for some reason.

See how you start out talking about what you "like" and then switch to what you "prefer"? You aren't comparing like things. You haven't given an example of someone choosing to stop liking something. You've only given an example of someone choosing something they like more.

That doesn't matter as it is still a choice when it comes to our subjective tastes, feelings and opinions. The point is people can choose to either go with their favorite or second favorite or even least favorite if they like in an given situation. We are not bound or fixed by just one option. We are not robots.

If you're only pretending to like X, then you don't like X.
If you're only pretending to dislike X, then you don't dislike X.
You haven't even shown a change in likes or dislikes.

It doesn't matter. The fact is a person can choose to pretend and therefore can choose another option. They then may find they like or dislike this option better. What happens when someone doesn't have a favorite. Then they can pick and choose something different in different situations always fluctuating on their choices as to what they will like.

AS far as I understand its not so black and white like we a predestined to like what we like and hate what we hate. Its more dynamic where we can slip in and out of what we like or not as well as get fixated on certain things.

This only proves me right! You don't choose to like something you discover that you like something.

And to discover what you really like and not what you thought you liked we make choices to try something different. It is in trying something different that we discover that we did not really like or hate the things we liked or hated.

I think subjective tastes and feelings are more than just our taste buds and limbic system. There are a number of factors where we may think we like or dislike something and were wrong. We find ourselves in situations where we don't choose what we like or dislike but choose something else not because we won't to discover but because that's how subjective thinking works.

People chop and change its a fluid process and we can slip in and out of what we like, dislike and feel according to the situation.

I already covered this one. Tastes, feelings, and opinions can and do change. That doesn't mean they change by our personal choices. Change =/= choice.

I don't think it matters. The point is somewhere in the process of subjective thinking we can make choices and have a degree of control.

The point I was making with Kylie was that subjective thinking has a degree of choice and control by the subject regardless of when and how that happens as opposed to biology, neurology and physics which is fixed and we have no choice or control over as it has an objective basis.

 

[Moral Orel]

How can we both know the answer when I disagree with what you say. I would say it if I agreed but I don't. You haven't even argued the point. You have just made an unsupported claim. I think if anything we should both know is you just don' go along with an unsupported opinion.

I don't need an argument. I gave you a demonstration. You can't change your tastes, feelings, or opinions by use of your will. I've reminded you in every single post what we are talking about, and you clearly aren't paying any attention. Here it is again:

Remember, this is what you said:
"Personal tastes, feelings and opinions are about the individual (the subject) choice."

You cannot choose what your tastes are.
You cannot choose what your feelings are.
You cannot choose what your opinions are.

That's why your statement is wrong. These things are not about individual choice. They might affect our choices, but they are not a choice. We are not discussing other things that we might choose.

That doesn't matter as it is still a choice when it comes to our subjective tastes, feelings and opinions. The point is people can choose to either go with their favorite or second favorite or even least favorite if they like in an given situation. We are not bound or fixed by just one option. We are not robots.

This isn't an example of choosing to like something, so it isn't relevant.

It doesn't matter. The fact is a person can choose to pretend and therefore can choose another option. They then may find they like or dislike this option better. What happens when someone doesn't have a favorite. Then they can pick and choose something different in different situations always fluctuating on their choices as to what they will like.

AS far as I understand its not so black and white like we a predestined to like what we like and hate what we hate. Its more dynamic where we can slip in and out of what we like or not as well as get fixated on certain things.

This isn't an example of choosing to like something, so it isn't relevant.

And to discover what you really like and not what you thought you liked we make choices to try something different. It is in trying something different that we discover that we did not really like or hate the things we liked or hated.

I think subjective tastes and feelings are more than just our taste buds and limbic system. There are a number of factors where we may think we like or dislike something and were wrong. We find ourselves in situations where we don't choose what we like or dislike but choose something else not because we won't to discover but because that's how subjective thinking works.

People chop and change its a fluid process and we can slip in and out of what we like, dislike and feel according to the situation.

This isn't an example of choosing to like something, so it isn't relevant.

 

[stevevw]

I don't need an argument. I gave you a demonstration. You can't change your tastes, feelings, or opinions by use of your will. I've reminded you in every single post what we are talking about, and you clearly aren't paying any attention. Here it is again:

Remember, this is what you said:
"Personal tastes, feelings and opinions are about the individual (the subject) choice."

You cannot choose what your tastes are.
You cannot choose what your feelings are.
You cannot choose what your opinions are.

That's why your statement is wrong. These things are not about individual choice. They might affect our choices, but they are not a choice. We are not discussing other things that we might choose.

This isn't an example of choosing to like something, so it isn't relevant.

This isn't an example of choosing to like something, so it isn't relevant.

This isn't an example of choosing to like something, so it isn't relevant.

Your creating a strawman. You came into my discussion with Kylie. The point I was making to Kylie is whether our perception of colours is something objectively fixed or determined by subjective thinking. In other words can we subjectively change colours according to our likes and dislikes of them or are they something that is fixed and we have no choice but to view the particular colours the way we do.

So which is it. As far as I can understand it one is a matter of control and choice regardless of how that process happens because that's how subjective thinking works and the other is a matter of an objective reason that is dictated by biology, neurology and physics.

They are two different things. We can't control or choose how nature presents colours to us but there has to be a degree of control and choice in our subjective thinking about colours because they can and do change for us.

If we have no control and choice whatsoever about our subjective likes and dislikes then they are not subjective but objective because something beyond the subjects thinking and ability to change is dictating terms.

 

[Ken-1122]

If we have no control and choice whatsoever about our subjective likes and dislikes then they are not subjective but objective because something beyond the subjects thinking and ability to change is dictating terms.

I disagree. It is nothing beyond your thinking dictating the terms, but your thoughts themselves dictating. If you believe strawberry ice cream taste better than chocolate, there is nothing beyond you that is dictating that view; it is completely subjective.

 

[Kylie]

In other words can we subjectively change colours according to our likes and dislikes of them or are they something that is fixed and we have no choice but to view the particular colours the way we do.

I don't know where you get the idea that having a subjective perception of colour means we should be able to change the way we see them. "I really haven't been enjoying the colour blue very much lately, I think today I'll choose to perceive it as more of a greeny-yellow colour..."

If we have no control and choice whatsoever about our subjective likes and dislikes then they are not subjective but objective because something beyond the subjects thinking and ability to change is dictating terms.

No. Objective means that it is set by some outside force. It exists independently of ourselves. I think my husband is wonderful, and that is a subjective opinion of mine (I'm sure there are people who think he's a bit of a jerk, after all), but that doesn't mean I can choose to stop thinking he's wonderful.

Of course, if you disagree, why don't you take that food you don't like and CHOOSE to like it, and then gulp down huge platefuls of it.

 

[stevevw]

I disagree. It is nothing beyond your thinking dictating the terms, but your thoughts themselves dictating. If you believe strawberry ice cream taste better than chocolate, there is nothing beyond you that is dictating that view; it is completely subjective.

I don't know why you disagreed because you have just agreed with what I was saying.

 

[stevevw]

I don't know where you get the idea that having a subjective perception of colour means we should be able to change the way we see them. "I really haven't been enjoying the colour blue very much lately, I think today I'll choose to perceive it as more of a greeny-yellow colour..."

So as far as I understand we have different ways of viewing things. One is perception where we are presented with information from beyond us by our senses and another is subjective thinking about how we see the world from within.

So going back to our discussion I said that the colour green for example is dictated by nature (the eye and brain processes and light waves). We cannot choose to change this colour through subjective thinking because it has an objective basis which is beyond us. Though someone can see a different shade of green this is because of light illumination which is also objective because this affects the light waves. But you can't turn green into yellow objectively through subjective thinking.

But subjective likes for colour are different they are based on what the subject thinks (from within) and have no objective basis. Someone may say I like blue or yellow rather than natures green. But that doesn't change natures green objectively. Its just what the subject thinks. Its a psychological state that is changeable within the subject and between subjects.

No. Objective means that it is set by some outside force. It exists independently of ourselves. I think my husband is wonderful, and that is a subjective opinion of mine (I'm sure there are people who think he's a bit of a jerk, after all), but that doesn't mean I can choose to stop thinking he's wonderful.

So what if you find information that changes your view of him. You may then decide he is not wonderful. But you didn't just come to think he is wonderful like it was something programmed in you. There are many factors taken in along the way which causes you to think that way which involve assessments and choices for you to come to that determination.

The point is subjective thinking is changeable and we are in the driving seat and can choose to go with or change our views accordingly unlike something objective which cannot change according to subjective thinking.

Of course, if you disagree, why don't you take that food you don't like and CHOOSE to like it, and then gulp down huge platefuls of it.

Subjective thinking is not so black and white, we are not robots. Likes or dislikes for food are not just based on taste buds. We may hate a food and have never tried it because of some unreal idea about it or some personal reason. So we can choose to try that food we thought we didn't like and find we like it. We may not have a favorite food and can decide to try something different every day.

We can hold an opinion based on personal views which stem from many factors, life experience, information, lack of information, personal experiences. We can hold that opinion without telling anyone and then suddenly decide it was wrong and change our opinion.

 

[Kylie]

So as far as I understand we have different ways of viewing things. One is perception where we are presented with information from beyond us by our senses and another is subjective thinking about how we see the world from within.

So going back to our discussion I said that the colour green for example is dictated by nature (the eye and brain processes and light waves). We cannot choose to change this colour through subjective thinking because it has an objective basis which is beyond us. Though someone can see a different shade of green this is because of light illumination which is also objective because this affects the light waves. But you can't turn green into yellow objectively through subjective thinking.

But subjective likes for colour are different they are based on what the subject thinks (from within) and have no objective basis. Someone may say I like blue or yellow rather than natures green. But that doesn't change natures green objectively. Its just what the subject thinks. Its a psychological state that is changeable within the subject and between subjects.

So what if you find information that changes your view of him. You may then decide he is not wonderful. But you didn't just come to think he is wonderful like it was something programmed in you. There are many factors taken in along the way which causes you to think that way which involve assessments and choices for you to come to that determination.

The point is subjective thinking is changeable and we are in the driving seat and can choose to go with or change our views accordingly unlike something objective which cannot change according to subjective thinking.

Subjective thinking is not so black and white, we are not robots. Likes or dislikes for food are not just based on taste buds. We may hate a food and have never tried it because of some unreal idea about it or some personal reason. So we can choose to try that food we thought we didn't like and find we like it. We may not have a favorite food and can decide to try something different every day.

We can hold an opinion based on personal views which stem from many factors, life experience, information, lack of information, personal experiences. We can hold that opinion without telling anyone and then suddenly decide it was wrong and change our opinion.

Right, so, basically, or subjective opinions can change.

So? No one is arguing this.

 

[Moral Orel]

The point is subjective thinking is changeable and we are in the driving seat and can choose to go with or change our views accordingly unlike something objective which cannot change according to subjective thinking.

See, I am not strawmanning you. You really are claiming that we can will our tastes, feelings, and opinions to change. We cannot.

That's why you can't choose to dislike the flavor of your favorite food.
That's why you can't choose to fall madly in love with me.
That's why you can't choose to hold the opinion that I am the most clever being in the universe.

You are incapable of making these choices because you are not "in the driver's seat" for your tastes, feelings, and opinions.

They do change, but not by choice. That's the False Dichotomy Fallacy you keep insisting on. Your logic is bad. Your argument looks like this:

If it changes, then we chose to change it
It changes
Therefore we chose to change it

And your initial premise is blatantly false. Things change about me that are outside of my control all the time. I get older every year. That is not a choice I make simply because I am changing.

Let's say you go to a new restaurant. All of the menu items are completely unknown to you. You have no idea whether you like or dislike anything. So you order an item at random and eat it. When you taste it, you discover you like it. Now where are the choices in this scenario?

You chose to tell the waiter to bring you whatever item you chose.
You chose to put the food in your mouth and eat it.
You did not choose to like the food. Whether or not you liked it was completely out of your control. You discovered that your personal physiological makeup and configuration of tastebuds created an enjoyable experience. You did not make that choice.

 

[stevevw]

See, I am not strawmanning you. You really are claiming that we can will our tastes, feelings, and opinions to change. We cannot.

That's why you can't choose to dislike the flavor of your favorite food.
That's why you can't choose to fall madly in love with me.
That's why you can't choose to hold the opinion that I am the most clever being in the universe.

But people don't suddenly fall in love most of the time. They gradually come to love someone and along the way they make decisions and choices to get to that point.

All I am saying is one way or another we can control and change our subjective thinking and its not just about the end result. What your doing is taking the end result as the mark of how we subjective thinking works.

Its more complicated and dynamic than that. There is a degree of control and choice leading up to the end result of determining our subjective tastes, feelings and opinions. To a degree we reap the subjective state of mind we sow. So if we get fixated on certain subjective views its because we made choices and cultivated this to a degree along the way.

You are incapable of making these choices because you are not "in the driver's seat" for your tastes, feelings, and opinions.

They do change, but not by choice. That's the False Dichotomy Fallacy you keep insisting on. Your logic is bad. Your argument looks like this:

If it changes, then we chose to change it
It changes
Therefore we chose to change it

But if it can be proven that we can choose to change our subjective thinking then the argument stands up.

We are capable of changing our tastes, feelings and opinions. For example we can change a food 'like' by choosing to try something new and even if we don't like it we can fake it until we make it and come to like it. We can even do that with food we like by choosing to learn about what the food does to our body. Then we will come to dislike it even despise it for what its doing to us. We have taken control and have made the decision to do that. Likes and dislikes for food are more than our taste buds.

And your initial premise is blatantly false. Things change about me that are outside of my control all the time. I get older every year. That is not a choice I make simply because I am changing.

Getting older every year is an objective fact. But you can change your view about getting older. You can get down about it or see the positive side. You can do things that cultivate your view of aging which develops your view one way or the other. You have control about how you see things to a degree.Not every thing is set in stone.

I may not have a view on aging or may have a tentative view that is not fully articulated. I am be aware of certain factors and so it becomes something that matters at some point but at the same time I can choose to develop my view rather than just let it ride or be subject to my unconscious biases. My view about age doesn't just pop into my head from nowhere. I can exercise a degree of control about developing my opinion.

Let's say you go to a new restaurant. All of the menu items are completely unknown to you. You have no idea whether you like or dislike anything. So you order an item at random and eat it. When you taste it, you discover you like it. Now where are the choices in this scenario?

You chose to tell the waiter to bring you whatever item you chose.
You chose to put the food in your mouth and eat it.
You did not choose to like the food. Whether or not you liked it was completely out of your control. You discovered that your personal physiological makeup and configuration of tastebuds created an enjoyable experience. You did not make that choice.

Like I said your seeing things too black and white. What about if the person is unsure of whether they like it the first time. So they decide to give it a second or third go and then they like it and gradually come to like it.They have made the conscious decision to persist.

What if a person dislikes the food on the menu but needs to eat healthier due to health issues. They then decide to learn to like that healthy option and a lot of the time people come to like what they thought they hated.

Some people think they hate a food but have a bias against that food. If you've seen the ad for a new diet called 'Noom' which uses psychology to change peoples eating habits. Part of that is uncovering the psychological reasons you eat and like the food you do. Understanding this actually can change your mind.

So a person chooses to use this diet because they want to control their eating habits. They have made a choice to take control and in the process their tastes and food changes. They learn to like whats good for them rather than what tastes good.Subjective likes and dislikes for food is more than our taste buds.

But nevertheless this was not what I was talking about. It was about subjective thinking can change regardless as opposed to objective functions of the body. I didn't even need to qualify this by using personal choice because that was not the point. Only that subjective thinking changes and there may be no rational and objective functions don't and if they do its because of some objective reason.

 

[stevevw]

Right, so, basically, or subjective opinions can change.

So? No one is arguing this.

Yes but as it relates to our discussion subjective views on colours is different to objective reasons for the colours we see. So going back to your example about the colour green where you said someone may say they see forest green as opposed to olive green I think.

Now the green we see in nature is dictated by our eye cones. There may be variations in this as we see in nature the green in leaves can vary from tree to plant to grass and even within these categories. It can also vary by position relative to the vegetation being viewed. But this is due to the texture of the vegetation and illumination of sunlight so though the green variations still have an objective basis.

Now two different people could view the same leaf or tree from the same position and one says its more forest green and the other views it as olive green. This is their subjective take on the colour green that appears before them. But either can assess and review their choice and change their mind after they think about it.

They may chop and change several times between 4 or 5 variations of green because they are unsure. They may go along with the other person even though they are not sure. The first colour that comes to mind is not fixed where they have no choice but to stick with that. their view is subject to refinement and a change in choice at the time.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't know why you disagreed because you have just agreed with what I was saying.

No; you said if we have no control over our likes and dislikes, that makes them objective. I disagreed and explained why that is not so.

 

[Moral Orel]

But people don't suddenly fall in love most of the time. They gradually come to love someone and along the way they make decisions and choices to get to that point.

Sure. But never along the way are any of those decisions or choices to like, feel, or believe something.

You might choose to put yourself in a situation that causes you to develop a like, feeling, or opinion. But you don't have control over the outcome.

Now the green we see in nature is dictated by our eye cones.

That's why color is subjective. What color we see is subject to the configuration and physiological makeup of each individual's cones.

When you see red and you see green, you see two different colors. A person with red-green color blindness sees no distinction even when all the wavelengths of light that are hitting their eyes and yours are identical.

If they see no distinction, then they aren't seeing the distinct colors that you do.

People experience color differently, that's why it's subjective. It is subject to the makeup of the individual. There is no objective color. Color doesn't even exist without a subject's cones.

 

[Kylie]

Yes but as it relates to our discussion subjective views on colours is different to objective reasons for the colours we see. So going back to your example about the colour green where you said someone may say they see forest green as opposed to olive green I think.

Now the green we see in nature is dictated by our eye cones. There may be variations in this as we see in nature the green in leaves can vary from tree to plant to grass and even within these categories. It can also vary by position relative to the vegetation being viewed. But this is due to the texture of the vegetation and illumination of sunlight so though the green variations still have an objective basis.

Now two different people could view the same leaf or tree from the same position and one says its more forest green and the other views it as olive green. This is their subjective take on the colour green that appears before them. But either can assess and review their choice and change their mind after they think about it.

They may chop and change several times between 4 or 5 variations of green because they are unsure. They may go along with the other person even though they are not sure. The first colour that comes to mind is not fixed where they have no choice but to stick with that. their view is subject to refinement and a change in choice at the time.

But since their perception of the colour depends on their brain's interpretation of the signals it receives from the cones, it is still a subjective process.

And of course, that is assuming that the cones in someone's eyes are going to react to a specific colour in exactly the same way that the cones in someone else's eyes will. Since cones do not roll off a production line in neat little units all identical to each other, that is far from the way it really works.

 

[stevevw]

But since their perception of the colour depends on their brain's interpretation of the signals it receives from the cones, it is still a subjective process.

Actually we have 3 eye cones that pick up red, green and blue on the colour spectrum. So combinations of these colours are not interpreted because the eye cones are designed to pick up the specific measure on the spectrum. Its the colours outside this range and a number of other factors where the brain has to interpret colour.

But it isn't really interpreting but rather estimating what the colour should be there based on the primary colours and comparisons to adjacent colours in any scene. So there's a method in the madness so to speak. And its even more complex than that as we don't fully understand what is going on.

But I don't think colour is subjective in the same way tastes or feelings are. We know certain colours are universal like red for stop and green for go. We see landscape art and it always contains a blue sky, green vegetation and yellow, orange sun sets. Colour is also important in nature like red being a sign of danger for predators and certain bright colours for mating.

Insects see colours different because they have fewer or more cones but still nature relies on certain colour that creatures can recognize. If colour was subjective and it could vary according to each person then we could not use universal colours and it would be chaos.

And of course, that is assuming that the cones in someone's eyes are going to react to a specific colour in exactly the same way that the cones in someone else's eyes will. Since cones do not roll off a production line in neat little units all identical to each other, that is far from the way it really works.

They actually do. We have 3 cones that specifically are designed to pickup the wave lengths of “blue,” short wave (S) “green,” medium (M) wave and “red,” long (L) wavelength cones. Other primary colours have a specific nanometers range on the spectrum as well. Its when colours step outside the primary ones that it gets a bit murky.

But basically we all have the same cones and range. Its only when there is a problem where people may have 2 or 4 cones instead of three or the cones are reversed and other biological and neurological problems that people will see completely different colours to the norm. But there is a degree of variation with the illumination, positioning of colours that can cause people with normal colour sight to see slight variations in the same colours but not completely different colours.

 

[Kylie]

Actually we have 3 eye cones that pick up red, green and blue on the colour spectrum. So colours in this range are not interpreted because the eye cones are designed to pick up that specific measure on the spectrum. Its the colours outside this range and a number of other factors where the brain has to interpret colour.

But it isn't really interpreting these colours but rather estimating what the colour should be based on the primary colours and comparisons to adjacent colours in any scene. So there's a method in the madness so to speak. And its even more complex than that as we don't fully understand what is going on.

But I primarily I don't think colour is subjective in the same sense tastes or feelings are. We know certain colours are universal like red for stop and green for go. We seen landscape art and it always contains a blue sky, green vegetation and yellow, orange sun sets. Colour is also important in nature like red being a sign of danger for predators and certain bright colours for mating.

Insects see colours different because they have fewer cones but still nature relies on certain colour consistency that creatures can recognize. If colour was subjective and it could vary according to each person then we could not use universal colours and it would be chaos.

Actually, you're wrong here.

All we know is that the colour you call RED is the same as the colour I call RED.

But what I call red might be the colour you call blue. All we know is that we both call the particular colour the same name. Doesn't mean we see the colour the same way.

They actually do. We have 3 cones that specifically are designed to pickup the wave lengths of “blue,” short wave (S) “green,” medium (M) wave and “red,” long (L) wavelength cones. Other colours on the spectrum have specific nanometers range on the spectrum as well. Its when colours step outside the primary ones that it gets a bit murky.

But basically we all have the same cones and range. Its only when there is a problem where people may have 2 cones instead of three or the cones are reversed where red becomes green ect and other biological and neurological problems that people will see completely different colours to the norm. But there is a degree of variation with the illumination, positioning of colours that can cause people with normal colour sight to see slight variations in the same colours but not completely different colours.

But my RED cone might be more sensitive to 640 nanometers, and yours might be more sensitive to 660 nanometers. So, even when looking at the same object, we'd still have the red cones firing different amounts.