Sure you don't mean "perspective"? If red looks gray to you it is because of your perspective. It is still a wavelength of 650 nm regardless of perspective or perception. The lord invented the oscilloscope so that the color blind can know the color red in a mathematical way. J. In a message dated 10/27/2008 11:28:07 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
“Black is not red is not subjective it is objective, measurable, observable, testable with instrumentation.” – humanism The topic was truth. I merely gave an example of something that is ‘true’, but since it is relative, it is subjective. The very term red is a learned concept. It is a word and as such is relative/subjective. It is not objective. We are not born with it. Some people are born with no sight. For them, the notion of red is meaningless. Those who are red/green blind have similar issues, even though they can see something, they do not see what you see as being ‘red’. This is what I mean by subjective. The notion is dependent upon something else. It is relative. Like you choose to define ‘objective’ in a different way than I have used it and the result is a disagreement based upon each of our differing thoughts. Subjective. This, by the way is also true. : - ) On Oct 27, 6:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Black is not red is not subjective it is objective, measurable, observable, > testable with instrumentation. > > J. > > “…Is truth not truth? Is it not all or nothing?…” – Stem > > No. > > There are subjective truths…including things like black is not red. > Truths based upon at least one person's apprehension of appearances is > another way of saying this. For the above example, a blind person > would not agree that black is not red is a truth, unless one is only > talking about the words/concepts and not the thing itself. > > There are ultimate truths. Truths having to do with the absolute are > in this category. Things like, all is one. > > On Oct 27, 1:20 PM, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Oran. said this >>> ultimate truth <<< > > > How is that different from omega-truth? A smidgen of truth? etc.? Is > > truth not truth? Is it not all or nothing? How can a woman be a > > little pregnant? > > > stem cell > > > by the way, truthfully, great thread. :-) > > > On Oct 27, 11:40 am, ornamental mind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > “Science is certainly a quest for truth, but that doesn't mean that > > > truth can never be achieved. Isn't it possible that someday we will > > > have explained every observable aspect of nature, and all that's left > > > is engineering? The fact that we keep replacing scientific theories > > > with new ones that are better doesn't mean that this will keep > > > occurring forever.” – Taylor > > > > A few observations here Taylor. First, I'm not sure which ‘truth’ you > > > are talking about when associating the term with science. Is it some > > > sort of ultimate truth? A unified theory? Perhaps you have addressed > > > this elsewhere, but in context your intention is not clear to me. It’s > > > almost a tautology. > > > > As to your apparently rhetorical question about an ontology based on > > > possibilities, perhaps anything at all is ‘possible’? Not wishing to > > > enter into a formal debate here, but it would seem that numerous > > > fallacies are included within that notion. > > > > As to your last speculation, while, again, perhaps anything is > > > ‘possible’, in this context, the reverse is more probable, being the > > > simplest ‘answer’. Perhaps it is a similar thing to one of Zen’s > > > paradoxes? > > > > All of this said, I do appreciate your candor and openness in this > > > discussion. > > > > On Oct 27, 7:56 am, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > <<OK. But Popper?>> > > > > > Quote mining. > > > > > Science is certainly a quest for truth, but that doesn't mean that > > > > truth can never be achieved. Isn't it possible that someday we will > > > > have explained every observable aspect of nature, and all that's left > > > > is engineering? The fact that we keep replacing scientific theories > > > > with new ones that are better doesn't mean that this will keep > > > > occurring forever.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, > no registration required and great graphics – check it out! > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics – check it out! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir= http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
