The color red, and metaphysics

[ShatterSphere]

I hope this next thread will be a smash hit.

I can hardly remember what my philosophy professor was saying about the color red, but I can remember one thing and it was this:

There are three schools of thought on the color red. Meaning there are three different ways to think of the color red, so let's see if someone happens to know what those are and states what those are, and we can argue about, what is the right way to think of the color red.

One school of thought was that, and individual item, might have its own color red, while the other items each have their own red. An Apple has its color red, and the other apples from the tree, each have their own shade of red too.

I think that comes from the topography school of thought on the color red, can't quite remember what they called that, but that is what is coming to mind right now. There is also two other ways of thinkiing of the color red, I can't recall what those were though.

I think, one other way to think of the color red was that, there is an ultimate red, that all other red objects, share in quality from this ultimate red source.

Or it could be there are different distinct shades of red, and the different shades make up all the different colors red in the universe.

Alright, so what else can we say about the color red?

I seem to remember in my LSD days that colors had tastes also. So what does red taste like?

 

[Received]

We seem to forget that we're a part of the world too. Our senses constitute one part of the environment attempting to interpret the environment approximate to it. What we see is a synthesis of how we're made and what the raw materials of the world offers for our perception. Color is the result of rods and cones synthesizing with the world out there; consequently, depending on how we're made with relation to rods and cones (and of course the essential neurological processes in relation to the central and peripheral nervous systems that allow our senses to be) is how the world will be. Reality, after all, isn't absolute; reality is the result of the synthetic process. My reality surely isn't the same as yours on most points, but that's why we have language. And to say that reality is relative isn't to say that the basis of reality, "objectivity", isn't absolute.

I started with the color red and lost myself down the rabbit hole.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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

Existence. If something exists, it is real. No more, no less.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Color is the result of rods and cones synthesizing with the world out there; consequently, depending on how we're made with relation to rods and cones (and of course the essential neurological processes in relation to the central and peripheral nervous systems that allow our senses to be) is how the world will be.

Correction: how the world will appear to be. How the reality is is not necessarily dependant of our percieved reality (though we assume that what we sense is an at least partially accurate representation of the 'real' reality, and not, say, false information fed by some third party).

Reality, after all, isn't absolute; reality is the result of the synthetic process.

Again, your percieved reality is such a result. The distinction is, I think, fundamentally important to the discussion.

I started with the color red and lost myself down the rabbit hole.

Find the red shoes and let the spice flow.

 

[JonF]

Existence. If something exists, it is real. No more, no less.

You are basically saying “real” and “existence” are synonymous , but then was is the necessary criteria for existence? Do only material objects exist?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You are basically saying “real” and “existence” are synonymous , but then was is the necessary criteria for existence? Do only material objects exist?

Well, existence is a property something either has or does not have. If the statement "There is an A at coordinates (x, y, z, t)" is true, then the thing exists. Naturally, (x, y, z, t) is cartesian spacetime, and can be extended to however many dimensions one's model of spacetime uses.

A more implicit way is to consider interactions: if two things can interact, then they must exist. But the vice versa is not necessarily true: two things might be unable to interact, yet still exist.

 

[JonF]

Well, existence is a property something either has or does not have. If the statement "There is an A at coordinates (x, y, z, t)" is true, then the thing exists. Naturally, (x, y, z, t) is cartesian spacetime, and can be extended to however many dimensions one's model of spacetime uses.

So only things that are extended in space and time are real?

A more implicit way is to consider interactions: if two things can interact, then they must exist. But the vice versa is not necessarily true: two things might be unable to interact, yet still exist.

more sufficient conditions! Where are the necessary?

 

[Received]

Correction: how the world will appear to be. How the reality is is not necessarily dependant of our percieved reality (though we assume that what we sense is an at least partially accurate representation of the 'real' reality, and not, say, false information fed by some third party).

Insofar as the sensate in itself is concerned, there's no room for truth. There's sensation. I'm not talking about imagined or hallucinated sensations; I'm talking about sensation in itself. So far as this is the case, there's no room for appearance contra actuality. These things come into the picture when it's questionable whether a certain sensation actually took place (that is, whether it was imagined or not). I'm just saying that sensation is a synthetic process, and this assumes from the beginning that sensation has really taken place.

Anyways, what to you mean by "the" reality as opposed to "our" reality?

 

[Received]

And you shouldn't be so picky and have such an innocent looking pic. Picky people are evillllllll, not innocent.

 

[Received]

Existence. If something exists, it is real. No more, no less.

But, etymologically at least, existence implies unveiling. From Latin, existere, which means "to stand forth, to appear". Reality seems to imply actuality (as opposed to possibility or imagination); that is, something is real if it is actually existent, which means it actually stands forth. Stands forth from what?

The "out there," objectivity. Existence and reality are based in objectivity. My turn to be picky.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So only things that are extended in space and time are real?

Yes, why not.

more sufficient conditions! Where are the necessary?

Because I define them to be. There are no necessary conditions insofar as the definition of the word 'real' is up to us.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Insofar as the sensate in itself is concerned, there's no room for truth. There's sensation. I'm not talking about imagined or hallucinated sensations; I'm talking about sensation in itself. So far as this is the case, there's no room for appearance contra actuality.

Ah, but we are talking about the 'true' reality. The world beyond our eyes and ears.

These things come into the picture when it's questionable whether a certain sensation actually took place (that is, whether it was imagined or not). I'm just saying that sensation is a synthetic process, and this assumes from the beginning that sensation has really taken place.

The sensation did happen, that much is true. But does this have any correlation with reality?

Anyways, what to you mean by "the" reality as opposed to "our" reality?

I mean that the world my mind constructs is almost certainly not the world it senses. For instance, we do not directly sense gamma rays, yet we 'know' they exist. More generally, there remains the possibility of Descartes' Demon.

And you shouldn't be so picky and have such an innocent looking pic. Picky people are evillllllll, not innocent.

Pretty things are often evil

But, etymologically at least, existence implies unveiling. From Latin, existere, which means "to stand forth, to appear". Reality seems to imply actuality (as opposed to possibility or imagination); that is, something is real if it is actually existent, which means it actually stands forth. Stands forth from what?

From non-existant things, I suppose. But arguing from etymology is futile: over time, words distance themselves from their etymological roots.

The "out there," objectivity. Existence and reality are based in objectivity.

Perhaps, but we have no way of truely knowing what reality is like. We can only assume our senses are not lying to us, and work up from there.

 

[JonF]

Yes, why not

Because I define them to be. There are no necessary conditions insofar as the definition of the word 'real' is up to us.

I agree that “real” is a word which we define. But when we define “real” we are attributing a property (that is more than linguistic - note how you apeal to something beyond perception in your discusssion with Received ) to an object via that word. Since “real” defines a class of objects (namely all objects that are real), there are necessary conditions for objects with that property, even if it is just the trivial necessary condition, the intersection of all properties of all real objects. In the first part of this post you tried to give me a necessary condition – being an object that is extended in space and time. Do you want to use this as your necessary and sufficient condition for real? i.e. if an object is extended in space and time it must be real, if an object isn’t extended in space and time It can’t be real? Also, it is perfectly legitimate response to say, I only know sufficient conditions, not necessary – but then this puts you in the plight of being able to say an object is real, but you can’t claim to know when an object is not real.

 

[Received]

From non-existant things, I suppose. But arguing from etymology is futile: over time, words distance themselves from their etymological roots.

I don't think etymology is futile, but I can see why you'd say that. You may as well say that arguing is futile; arguing is based in language; and word meanings change. Etymology is a way of keeping an anchor on things, given that word meanings can be defined interpersonally, and each ring of persons who use certain words can lead to different meanings for each words, and that's the problem. We should stick to etymology, I think, or everything's madness. Granted, the morphology of words clearly deviates from words' etymology. I just think on the "big" questions, we should stick to etymology, or we're all going to be insane.

That said, I consider true reality a redundancy; the word "reality" already implies truth. The same could be said, I would suppose, with the word existence -- which implies standing forth, and this implies based in objectivity.

What I'm essentially saying is that you can't define reality in relation to existence, or existence in relation to reality. Both of these terms imply something deeper -- and this is objectivity. And when you really get down to it, objectivity can't be explained at all; it can't be defined. The instant you start defining, you are seeped in objectivity. But objectivity can't be subjective, or else it ceases being objectivity. Objectivity is the axiomatic, ineffable underpinning to everything potentially true -- for existence and reality are based in our unveiling them. Nothing is true or real or existent in a vacuum; something is true/false, real/imagined, or existent/nonexistent through our interpretation of objectivity.

We're arguing semantics, maybe. But it's important that we don't define reality or existence when objectivity is more appropriate.

 

[Received]

I mean that the world my mind constructs is almost certainly not the world it senses. For instance, we do not directly sense gamma rays, yet we 'know' they exist. More generally, there remains the possibility of Descartes' Demon.

I guess you could define reality according to whether or not what we perceive lines up directly with objectivity, rather than being mediated by a false world constructed by the robots or demons. Obviously, we can't know whether we're deceived in this way. What then? We have to define reality in accordance with the construct the demon or the Matrix creates. "Real" becomes "what the demon/Matrix really intended," even if objectively there is a deeper reality beyond this construct. Delusion or hallucination is still possible; one can be deluded about what the demon/Matrix intends, just as one can hallucinate over what either intended.

Fortunately, pragmatically we have to rule out these possibilities. They're completely unfalsifiable, and so we're wasting our time thinking of them. We have no reason not to assume that objectivity is "right beyond our sensations".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I agree that “real” is a word which we define. But when we define “real” we are attributing a property (that is more than linguistic - note how you apeal to something beyond perception in your discusssion with Received ) to an object via that word. Since “real” defines a class of objects (namely all objects that are real), there are necessary conditions for objects with that property, even if it is just the trivial necessary condition, the intersection of all properties of all real objects.

The same could be said about any adjective. However, the nature of this particular concept lends itself to the impression of an objective measure. Thus, I daresay no necessary conditions will ever be formulated. Sufficient? Sure. Necessary? Nevar!

In the first part of this post you tried to give me a necessary condition – being an object that is extended in space and time. Do you want to use this as your necessary and sufficient condition for real? i.e. if an object is extended in space and time it must be real, if an object isn’t extended in space and time It can’t be real

I should think it fails as a necessary condition for being 'real', since it fails at determining the reality of spacetime. I have a strong urge to give a necessary condition as "Something that just is", but that would be... vulgar .

Also, it is perfectly legitimate response to say, I only know sufficient conditions, not necessary – but then this puts you in the plight of being able to say an object is real, but you can’t claim to know when an object is not real.

Indeed, but we are bound by our inherent epistemological limitations to such a stance. I wonder if a true necessary condition could even be formulated.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't think etymology is futile, but I can see why you'd say that. You may as well say that arguing is futile; arguing is based in language; and word meanings change.

Ah, but it isn't: arguing is (ideally) based on concepts. The words used to describe them change, yes, but this should be obvious to anyone reading an argument from, say, two hundred years ago.

Etymology is a way of keeping an anchor on things, given that word meanings can be defined interpersonally, and each ring of persons who use certain words can lead to different meanings for each words, and that's the problem. We should stick to etymology, I think, or everything's madness. Granted, the morphology of words clearly deviates from words' etymology. I just think on the "big" questions, we should stick to etymology, or we're all going to be insane.

I disagree. If we stick to etymology, then the English language would become incomprehensible. Etymology tells us the semantical roots of a particular word or phrase, but that doesn't tell us what it means now. A prime example is the word 'gay': it meant 'happy' or 'full of mirth' from pre-C13[sup]th[/sup] till only half a century ago, but is now synonymous with 'homosexual' (which has been a secondary meaning since the 1880s).
My point is that as historically instructive as etymology is, it makes no sense to appeal to what a word used to mean in a semantical debate.

That said, I consider true reality a redundancy; the word "reality" already implies truth.

It is to distinguish what we percieve to be from what actually is. The former is our percieved reality, and the latter is the real reality. Naturally, the latter is synonymous with 'reality' in the truest sense of the word.

What I'm essentially saying is that you can't define reality in relation to existence, or existence in relation to reality. Both of these terms imply something deeper -- and this is objectivity. And when you really get down to it, objectivity can't be explained at all; it can't be defined. The instant you start defining, you are seeped in objectivity. But objectivity can't be subjective, or else it ceases being objectivity. Objectivity is the axiomatic, ineffable underpinning to everything potentially true -- for existence and reality are based in our unveiling them. Nothing is true or real or existent in a vacuum; something is true/false, real/imagined, or existent/nonexistent through our interpretation of objectivity.

Or, to put it another way, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem has buggered us all.

I guess you could define reality according to whether or not what we perceive lines up directly with objectivity, rather than being mediated by a false world constructed by the robots or demons. Obviously, we can't know whether we're deceived in this way. What then?

What then? Our would journey be finished, my friend. We would have defined reality, albiet uselessly.

We have to define reality in accordance with the construct the demon or the Matrix creates. "Real" becomes "what the demon/Matrix really intended," even if objectively there is a deeper reality beyond this construct.

I disagree. The whole reason such difficulties exist is because 'reality' is taken to mean the ultimate reality, the fundamentals obeyed by the 'top-level' demon (even if such demons are our own minds).

Fortunately, pragmatically we have to rule out these possibilities. They're completely unfalsifiable, and so we're wasting our time thinking of them. We have no reason not to assume that objectivity is "right beyond our sensations".

Nor do we have any reason to assume that our sensations allude are any indication of what reality is like. Yes, those scenarios are remotely unlikely, but they are nonetheless possible. In an absolutist discussion such as this, who are we to arrogantly dismiss them?

 

[JonF]

The same could be said about any adjective. However, the nature of this particular concept lends itself to the impression of an objective measure. Thus, I daresay no necessary conditions will ever be formulated. Sufficient? Sure. Necessary? Nevar!


I should think it fails as a necessary condition for being 'real', since it fails at determining the reality of spacetime. I have a strong urge to give a necessary condition as "Something that just is", but that would be... vulgar .


Indeed, but we are bound by our inherent epistemological limitations to such a stance. I wonder if a true necessary condition could even be formulated.

S o we are in agreement that you are incapable of formulating a necessary condition?

If that is the case can you give a necessary condition for things being not real? If not, why are you so certain that you can say “red” isn’t real.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

S o we are in agreement that you are incapable of formulating a necessary condition?

I want to backpedal somewhat: the 'if it has a spacetime coordinate, then it is real' definition seems good enough. After all, what thing is considered 'real' but not in spacetime?

If that is the case can you give a necessary condition for things being not real?

If it is a sensation, a perception, and not a thing unto itself.

If not, why are you so certain that you can say “red” isn’t real.

See above.

 

[Received]

Nor do we have any reason to assume that our sensations allude are any indication of what reality is like. Yes, those scenarios are remotely unlikely, but they are nonetheless possible. In an absolutist discussion such as this, who are we to arrogantly dismiss them?

My point is that it's useless to speculate on the potential illusory nature of reality if we have no way at all of whittling down whether or not, say, the Matrix or the Cartersian demon is running amuck. We have to be pragmatic and assume that there is a deeper reality, or else we're lost in an infinity of speculation, and we get nowhere.

It isn't arrogance -- !!! -- to dismiss these ideas in order to sustain our sanity. I'm delighted to see that you seem to grasp the frightening nature of reality (not many seem to), but there are a potentially infinite number of possibilities. A chocolate baker man could be funnelling existence through a cosmic cookie cutter. Or the Dawkinsian Flying Spaghtetti Monster. Or, or, or, or,....