Originally posted by dottewellYou've missed my point entirely, as I thought you would. I'll try just once more. DOTTY
"Association" was your word.
You've missed my point entirely, as I thought you would. I'll try just once more.
Our concept "blue" has nothing to do with wavelengths. It may well be that our current scientific explanation of why things appear blue (in terms of wavelengths etc.) is correct; I have no reason to doubt it. Nevertheless, that doesn ...[text shortened]... tches of land, or sea, or whatever; and a mountain might be a mile high. So what?
I know what you are trying to say. You think that if red was called blue and vice versa we would still call them red and blue. The labels and words are what we have come up with to describe light.
This doesn't change the fact that there is still a physical phenomenon going on and that is a specific wavelength of light. The labels may change but the phenomenon doesn't. BUT with a mile the phenonmenon can be anything . With colour there is always a specific wavelength of light involved.
Try this thought experiment...
Imagine two children. One was brought up with no concept of what a mile was or even any unit of measurement. The other one was brought up with the concept of what a mile was BUT had no labels for colours and didn't know what the word blue meant.
Questions- Would they both be able to see a mile as a property of a piece of land.? Would they both be able to see the blue sky?
Think about it.
Originally posted by dottewellI can understand your frustration in trying to explain this point. . . Some people understand with a spark of realisation and at the other end of the "spectrum" some people consider it to be a matter of belief.
"Association" was your word.
You've missed my point entirely, as I thought you would. I'll try just once more.
Our concept "blue" has nothing to do with wavelengths. It may well be that our current scientific explanation of why things appear blue (in terms of wavelengths etc.) is correct; I have no reason to doubt it. Nevertheless, that doesn ...[text shortened]... tches of land, or sea, or whatever; and a mountain might be a mile high. So what?
I think for anyone wanting to explore the realisation that colour, sound and all other sensory experiences are a subjective conscious interpretation of physical information entering the sense organs (i.e light does not hold a property of colour and vibrations of air molecules have no property of a sound) should look for a good explanation of the question "If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound if there is not a person there to hear it?" on the web.
All I can say to a reader is this is not a trick question or a philosophical point. It is simply a teaching questions posed by scientists as a means to start a student thinking. Leading to a counter intuitive deeper understanding of science.
On the surface if you tell a person the universe is colourless and silent, they immediatly consider it to be a point of belief.
I gave up along time ago trying to explain. . . .
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou think that if red was called blue and vice versa we would still call them red and blue.
You've missed my point entirely, as I thought you would. I'll try just once more. DOTTY
I know what you are trying to say. You think that if red was called blue and vice versa we would still call them red and blue. The labels and words are what we have come up with to describe light.
This doesn't change the fact that there is still a physical perty of a piece of land.? Would they both be able to see the blue sky?
Think about it.
That's not what I said at all.
This doesn't change the fact that there is still a physical phenomenon going on and that is a specific wavelength of light.
That may be so, as I said, but is irrelevant as to what the word "blue" means, what it describes. Even if by some miracle the wavelength measurements were suddenly inverted - but NOTHING else changed, such as our experience of and interaction with blue objects - we would continue to call blue things blue, and rightly so.
Imagine two children...
What language a child acquires has nothing to do with the question whether "being a mile long" is a property of a thing in the world or not. Even on unpopulated planets there are stretches of ground that are a mile long.
Both children would, assuming no blindness etc., be able to see the blue sky.
Originally posted by dottewellAlso your blue could be my red . . . .Is not possible to know as we are still in our infancy in terms of probing the mysteries of conscioncess. . . .
You think that if red was called blue and vice versa we would still call them red and blue.
That's not what I said at all.
This doesn't change the fact that there is still a physical phenomenon going on and that is a specific wavelength of light.
That may be so, as I said, but is irrelevant as to what the word "blue" means, what it d ...[text shortened]... le long.
Both children would, assuming no blindness etc., be able to see the blue sky.
Until we do, the inside of every human mind will remain a very strange island.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterOf course it isn't. And there's no need to keep repeating the science. The science isn't in dispute.
You can say that the wavelength might change but in reality it ain't going to happen...
It's a thought-experiment designed to question is what do we mean by "blueness"; i.e. what it means to say something is blue. And the point is simply that if the wavelength readings on ALL machines were to change radically, or go into some unreadable flux, BUT all our experiences of, and interactions with, blue objects stayed the same, we would CONTINUE to use the word blue in precisely the same way. Why wouldn't we? And why wouldn't we be right to do so?
That tells us that "blue" doesn't simply MEAN "wavelength xxxx". It means something else. Blueness is something else. And that is true whether science can give us a good explanation of why things appear blue or not.
Originally posted by EAPOEI think for anyone wanting to explore the realisation that colour, sound and all other sensory experiences are a subjective conscious interpretation of physical information entering the sense organs (i.e light does not hold a property of colour and vibrations of air molecules have no property of a sound)EAPOE
I can understand your frustration in trying to explain this point. . . Some people understand with a spark of realisation and at the other end of the "spectrum" some people consider it to be a matter of belief.
I think for anyone wanting to explore the realisation that colour, sound and all other sensory experiences are a subjective conscious interpretati ...[text shortened]... ly consider it to be a point of belief.
I gave up along time ago trying to explain. . . .
I agree with this entirely and I understand it completely. Blue is a subjective interpretation of physical information entering the eye. I also know that technically the image that falls on our retina is upside down and it's out brain that helps us interpret it the right way round.
However, your patronising approach has lead you to miss the vital point. The physical information entering the eye is still a wavelength of light , and having wavelengths is still a scientific property of light itself. It exists existentially. This is a very different thing from saying a "mile" exists as a property of a piece of land. The mile does not exist existentially or scientifically as a wavelength or anything else , the land does though. Saying a piece of land has a mile in it is not the same thing as saying there are blue wavelengths of light coming from the sky. One is an arbitrary unit of measurement invented by humans the other is attached to a very real scientific phenomenon.
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellBoth children would, assuming no blindness etc., be able to see the blue sky.DOTTY
You think that if red was called blue and vice versa we would still call them red and blue.
That's not what I said at all.
This doesn't change the fact that there is still a physical phenomenon going on and that is a specific wavelength of light.
That may be so, as I said, but is irrelevant as to what the word "blue" means, what it d le long.
Both children would, assuming no blindness etc., be able to see the blue sky.
But they wouldn't both see the mile. Let's say one of them has a measuring system of "nargots" . He might say "look at that canyon it's two nargots wide " , your mile doesn't exist any more. you try doing the same thing with blue.
Originally posted by dottewellEven if by some miracle the wavelength measurements were suddenly inverted - but NOTHING else changed, such as our experience of and interaction with blue objects - we would continue to call blue things blue, and rightly so.DOTTY
You think that if red was called blue and vice versa we would still call them red and blue.
That's not what I said at all.
This doesn't change the fact that there is still a physical phenomenon going on and that is a specific wavelength of light.
That may be so, as I said, but is irrelevant as to what the word "blue" means, what it d ...[text shortened]... le long.
Both children would, assuming no blindness etc., be able to see the blue sky.
I think this is a mistake. You can say "but nothing else changed" but it would change. If the wavelengths DID actually change miraculously then the information that hits the eye would be different and the brain would not be able to interpret the new information as blueness at all. Find a piece of blue card and then replace it with a piece of red card. Keep looking at it and tell yourself that it's actually blue . Does it change colour? Of course not. Your brain is receiving different red wavelengths of light and thus it is not able to see blue but it sees red instead. However much you conceptualise it and use your imagination you would still not see blue (unless you took some wacky backy and started hallucinating)
Now with a mile (which is what we were talking about as well as time) it is very different . I can easily change my conceptualisation of measurement and see the kilometre instead with no effort. All I have to do is conceptualise it differently .
It's like I told you it's a catagory error . You think that blue exists as an arbitrary concept in the mind like a mile but it isn't . It's intimately connected to the very real properties of how molecules reflect light.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou are confusing units of measurements with actual dimensions. Note also that you have quite happily said that blue is a particular wavelength meaning that its spacial dimension is an absolutely essential property of it.
Saying a piece of land has a mile in it is not the same thing as saying there are blue wavelengths of light coming from the sky. One is an arbitrary unit of measurement invented by humans the other is attached to a very real scientific phenomenon.
The piece of land has several properties.
1. Dimensions in space.
2. Dimensions in time.
3. Energy in a specific distribution and form.
A photon of blue light you see coming from it is emitted as a specific point in time and space and is emitted because of the specific configuration of energy at that point in time and space. The time and space are as essential to the emmision of the photon as the energy is.
Are you denying this or do we just not understand each other?
[edit]
when the photon enters your eye it have various properties which provide us with information about its source.
These include:
wavelength.
a point in time (timestamp)
an angle of incidence.
Without all these properties we have no idea what we are 'seeing' and infact it is necessary to use the information from a large number of photons to determine anything about the object emitting the photons.
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt remains a true property of the land that it is a mile long. This would be the case even if everyone stopped using "mile" as a unit of measurement.
Both children would, assuming no blindness etc., be able to see the blue sky.DOTTY
But they wouldn't both see the mile. Let's say one of them has a measuring system of "nargots" . He might say "look at that canyon it's two nargots wide " , your mile doesn't exist any more. you try doing the same thing with blue.
Originally posted by knightmeisterA child brought up with no names for length or color would idntify that the sky has a particular color but would not know it is blue. He would also see that a piece of land has length but would not know it is a mile. Please explain how his observation of color is fundamentally different from his observation of length.
But they wouldn't both see the mile. Let's say one of them has a measuring system of "nargots" . He might say "look at that canyon it's two nargots wide " , your mile doesn't exist any more. you try doing the same thing with blue.
Originally posted by dottewellYour thought experiment would have consequences and would refute my argument no doubt. But a thought experiment that is based on ludicrous science is only meaningful if one is trying to establish an abstract philosophical position . However , our debate is existential and about the reality(or science) or non-reality of certain properties of existence. If you depart from existential reality/science then it becomes a purely abstract argument that can only prove an abstract point.
It's a thought experiment.
"...but it would change!" is just a way of avoiding its consequences.
It's like having a debate about the nature of logic and then saying "let's do a thought experiment...now imagine we put logic aside for a second.." DUH!