The color red, and metaphysics

[JonF]

Energy.

What about universal laws, logic, morals, ethics, etc.

 

[Washington]

What about universal laws, logic, morals, ethics, etc.

Ideas or concepts? I suppose they could be included, although some might say they are merely constructs of synapse firings, all of which are dependent on the material nature of the brain.

 

[JonF]

Ideas or concepts? I suppose they could be included, although some might say they are merely constructs of synapse firings, all of which are dependent on the material nature of the brain.

would you count what it is that we are actually cognizing when we see colors in the life of things that "could be included"

 

[Washington]

would you count what it is that we are actually cognizing when we see colors in the life of things that "could be included"

As something other than a material process? No, because vision appears to be a physicochemical functioning of the brain

 

[JonF]

then this is where you and me disagree, IMHO how our brain experiences objects bares nothing on whether or not they exist in of themselves.

 

[Washington]

then this is where you and me disagree, IMHO how our brain experiences objects bares nothing on whether or not they exist in of themselves.

I think we've gone off track somewhere as to exactly what is being discussed. At least I'm now a bit confused as to where you're going. I agree, "how our brain experiences objects bares nothing on whether or not they exist in of themselves."

 

[JonF]

I think we've gone off track somewhere as to exactly what is being discussed. At least I'm now a bit confused as to where you're going. I agree, "how our brain experiences objects bares nothing on whether or not they exist in of themselves."

wether or not "red" exist apart from humans is relevent to this convo, that is what we are duscussing.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then what do you believe in that is real that lies outside of mater?

Energy.

What about universal laws, logic, morals, ethics, etc.

How are the laws of logic 'real' in the same sense that matter and energy are 'real'? Smells like equivocation.
I also wonder what morals and ethics have to do with anything; are they not just labels ascribed to actions? How are they 'real' in any sense of the word?

 

[Washington]

wether or not "red" exist apart from humans is relevent to this convo, that is what we are duscussing.

Interesting, because in post 13 your said, "im not referring to the physical quality of the object perceived, but the perception itself." From there you asked me if I was materialist, which led to your Q. of what, if anything, is not matter. We then went back and forth about such possibilities. This led to your Q.about the nature of cognition (23). This brought you to your disagreement that cognition is a material process. (24) Now you say we're talking about whether or not "red" exist apart from humans, which I thought I made clear back in post 12. "A red ball is still red even if no one is looking at it." So, unless you find this statement confusing, I think we've established where I stand, which is the same (not different) as your position; "how our brain experiences objects bares nothing on whether or not they exist in of themselves."

 

[JonF]

Interesting, because in post 13 your said, "im not referring to the physical quality of the object perceived, but the perception itself." From there you asked me if I was materialist, which led to your Q. of what, if anything, is not matter. We then went back and forth about such possibilities. This led to your Q.about the nature of cognition (23). This brought you to your disagreement that cognition is a material process. (24) Now you say we're talking about whether or not "red" exist apart from humans, which I thought I made clear back in post 12. "A red ball is still red even if no one is looking at it." So, unless you find this statement confusing, I think we've established where I stand, which is the same (not different) as your position; "how our brain experiences objects bares nothing on whether or not they exist in of themselves."

Sorry, my previous post were prone to equivocate. You affirmed “red” as a point on EM spectrum exist. I was talking about what we perceive when we experience that point.

 

[JonF]

Hey wicca! Long time no debate.

How are the laws of logic 'real' in the same sense that matter and energy are 'real'? Smells like equivocation.

I never claimed they are real in the same way (as in meet the same criteria) and in fact I don’t think they are. That’s why I wanted to see if he holds them as “real” (as in the sense they are part of our objective universe). I personally hold a priori necessary relationships (i.e. universals) as “real”

I also wonder what morals and ethics have to do with anything; are they not just labels ascribed to actions? How are they 'real' in any sense of the word?

This is off topic of our thread. I would be happy to talk/debate in a PM. Or you could start a thread in philosophy?

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

That is what I like to see pages and pages of discussion on the color red, that my friends is metaphysics, it is good for you, good for me, because it's good!

I think there was another school of thought on the color red, I thought it sounded like Topograpy, or Topology, I thought it started with a T?

 

[cantata]

Locke regarded colours as secondary qualities - that is, qualities whereby our experience of them does not in any way resemble the qualities of the object which give rise to our experience of them.

For example, objects we regard as red have a particular kind of surface which reflect light in a certain way which gives us the sensation of seeing the colour red. But the quality of the object which gives rise to this experience is a bumpy surface, not inherent redness. In a sense, redness of a red object is actually a "power" (Locke's word) in the object to give us the experience of seeing the colour red.

I think it was G E Moore who pointed out that describing objects as red is kind of like describing stinging nettles as painful. There's nothing inherently painful about a stinging nettle - it just causes us pain when we touch it. And similarly, there's nothing inherently red about a red object. It just has the power to make us have an experience of redness.

 

[Sojourner<><]

That's a good point. A thing might be composed of noumena, but it's not the noumena that define the thing that exists in the mind.

Think of a castle built out of legos. If the castle were disassembled, could we still call the heap of pieces a castle since we're perceiving the same bunch of legos? If not, the idea of 'castle' must have been a form existing in the mind that was derived from a certain arrangement of matter.

In that same sense, 'red' must refer to certain arrangements of noumena that produce similar effects within the mind. Once you begin to break it down in order to classify its parts, you're no longer describing redness but something else entirely.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hey wicca! Long time no debate.

I've been biding my time .

I never claimed they are real in the same way (as in meet the same criteria) and in fact I don’t think they are. That’s why I wanted to see if he holds them as “real” (as in the sense they are part of our objective universe).

Like Plato's Forms?

I personally hold a priori necessary relationships (i.e. universals) as “real”

Real in what sense? I consider the laws of logic (and everything derived thereof: maths, physics, etc) to be true statements, but not 'real' in the sense that my keys are real.

This is off topic of our thread. I would be happy to talk/debate in a PM.

It's certainly be an interesting discussion. I'm up for it if you are.

 

[JonF]

Like Plato's Forms?

Kinda, in the sense he held that his forms were real. More kant than plato though.

Real in what sense? I consider the laws of logic (and everything derived thereof: maths, physics, etc) to be true statements, but not 'real' in the sense that my keys are real.

let me ask you, what criteria do you use to judge your keys are real? But again we are going off topic…

It's certainly be an interesting discussion. I'm up for it if you are.

if you start a thread pm me and let me know!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

let me ask you, what criteria do you use to judge your keys are real?

I can sense them by a variety of means. Assuming my senses are an accurate protrayal of reality, my keys exist. According to established scientific knowledge, my keys are composed of large number of atoms of various elements, and it is their interaction with light that allows me to see them. 'Red', then, is the perception of a particular range of wavelengths of light. A thing is deemed 'red' if it typically emits radiation in that range.

My keys are real insofar as I define matter to be real, but 'red' is not real in the same sense because it is a perception, not a physical thing. It's like thermometers and temperature. The temperature of a system is a property, not a thing in and of itself.

 

[JonF]

I can sense them by a variety of means. Assuming my senses are an accurate protrayal of reality, my keys exist. According to established scientific knowledge, my keys are composed of large number of atoms of various elements, and it is their interaction with light that allows me to see them. 'Red', then, is the perception of a particular range of wavelengths of light. A thing is deemed 'red' if it typically emits radiation in that range.

My keys are real insofar as I define matter to be real, but 'red' is not real in the same sense because it is a perception, not a physical thing. It's like thermometers and temperature. The temperature of a system is a property, not a thing in and of itself.

So sensory perception of an object is necessary for it to be real? Sorry I wasn&#8217;t clear; I want the NECESSARY conditions, not sufficient. Or do you mean that necessarily something must be composed of &#8220;mater&#8221; to be real?

p.s. sorry it took my so long to respond! being pwned by a busy real life.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So sensory perception of an object is necessary for it to be real?[/ Sorry I wasn’t clear; I want the NECESSARY conditions, not sufficient. Or do you mean that necessarily something must be composed of “mater” to be real?

If something is composed of matter, then it is real. This does not preclude other things from being real, of course. Ultimately, something is real if it exists. That is the only requirement for being 'real', I think.

p.s. sorry it took my so long to respond! being pwned by a busy real life.

Well, if the spice must flow, the spice must flow...

 

[JonF]

If something is composed of matter, then it is real. This does not preclude other things from being real, of course. Ultimately, something is real if it exists. That is the only requirement for being 'real', I think.

Okay, material is a sufficient condition for being real, but what are the necessary conditions?