“Red is a word used to refer to a light wavelength of about 650 nm. Whether you can see it or not or whether it looks purple to you does not change the wavelength. We use different words to refer to different wavelengths for simplicity sake. Red is red regardless of ones perception of it.” - J.
Apparently you are using a limited and pseudoscientific epistemology. ‘We’ don’t even know what waves nor light are. Tell me you don’t accept the uncertainty principle. You further suggest that ‘we’ know what a color is even if we can’t see it and don’t use a word for it. A strange view indeed! Earlier the notion of scientific dogma arose. Please tell me it ain’t so Joe! And, of course, your belief about what red is certainly ‘works’, similar to how those who thought the world was flat found that model to work too. Seen any gravitons recently? Oh, and those who followed relativism thought that matched ‘reality’ for a while too. Now some are crunching mathematical formulas from the 1800’s and proposing such mental machinations tell us what ‘reality’ is…as in M-branes, etc. In the future, these ontological views will become relegated to the same bin as voodoo. Oh, wait, that system still exists and is at the center of different groups of human being’s ontology today! “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. No, I would have used the term ‘perspective’ if I had meant it. And, of course red is not “a wavelength of 650 nm” at all. One can use devices to measure what may appear to be waves and find a specific measurement, one that is relative too, and say that is what light is. It isn’t. It is a measurement of an appearance and nothing more. For some, it is found to be a useful belief to hold in that it can result in some predictable outcomes. So, this is all fine. It isn’t what light is. “…so that the color blind can know the color red in a mathematical way…”???? Well, yes, you can give the association of what can be seen in a measuring device, by those with eyes as being something that furthers knowledge. However, again, it is not what light is. Any scientist will tell you this. Your words even tell us that it is not what ‘is’. It is a knowing “in a mathematical way”, whatever that is. We all know that analogies are analogies. An analysis is an analysis. As useful as these methods are, they do not tell us ‘what is’. For once I would appreciate the materialists to look at their own words: “Black is not red is not subjective it is objective, measurable, observable, testable with instrumentation.” – humanism While a bit of the semantics can obfuscate, in the context of my original posting, any concept is subjective/relative by definition. ‘Black’ is a concept. Red is one too. Even the phrase “Black is not red.”, being composed of words, is subjective. One can believe that they know this to be true, thus hold to a dogma about notions of the day, imposed or accepted, it makes little difference. And, when tools are brought in and observed by humans, whether repeatable or not, the result, while perhaps ‘true’, as I’ve already said, such testing, based on learned methods, measurements and generally quaint epistemological views, is subjective/relative in nature. All such notions/beliefs are dependent upon other notions. Being dependent, they have no inherent existence of their own. This is a very old yet tried and true understanding of what appearances are. Only the absolute (a noun) is objective. How else could it be in any ultimate sense? On Oct 27, 9:44 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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?red... 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 - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
