Interesting debate

[DankNuggets]

Color-blind people are incapable of seeing certain colors, but that doesn't mean colors don't exist. Imagine a world without color - it's not our world. Color is a problem for the rational school of thought because defining "Blue" is impossible (afaik), and definitions are the building block of reason - if you can't nail down a concept directly, then you can't use it to make further logical implications. So things like "color" have an odd irrational quality about them in that sense, but science is busy handling that question and I think they've provided sufficient answers about "wavelength" and "light", etc - as well as being able to explain why certain people can't see colors.

i'm not sure i can agree exactly

i've got a friend who's colorblind (can't truely distinguish red, green, brown)
but he knows what color is what, based on some sort of connection his brain has made. for example he knows that grass is green, so even if it looks red, he knows its green. He can distinguish most shades except if they happen to look exactly the same (he says this hasn't happened yet).

Red has a definition: whether it be the pigment, or the electromagnetic wave
This definition doesn't change no matter what. Personal definitions change.

What i don't get is that supposedly, we see all colors in the visible spectrum. This leaves no room for a color to exist that we can't see, where as it can exist for those who are colorblind but can't see it. (though they do see it, just don't percieve it the same way). So I'd say that's an argument that because it's a defined object, say a table, it'll be viewed the same way by everyone who's physically capable of understanding what a table is. If you can't, then you can't have a subjective definition because you can't comprehend the alternative (the table existing). I guess i don't define color as subjectively because it's not based on subjective (opioned based?) definitons, but on objective ones (scientific defs). I'd also say that language by definition is subjective.

[Jerome Scuggs]

i'm not sure i can agree exactly

i've got a friend who's colorblind (can't truely distinguish red, green, brown)
but he knows what color is what, based on some sort of connection his brain has made. for example he knows that grass is green, so even if it looks red, he knows its green. He can distinguish most shades except if they happen to look exactly the same (he says this hasn't happened yet).

Red has a definition: whether it be the pigment, or the electromagnetic wave
This definition doesn't change no matter what. Personal definitions change.

What i don't get is that supposedly, we see all colors in the visible spectrum. This leaves no room for a color to exist that we can't see, where as it can exist for those who are colorblind but can't see it. (though they do see it, just don't percieve it the same way). So I'd say that's an argument that because it's a defined object, say a table, it'll be viewed the same way by everyone who's physically capable of understanding what a table is. If you can't, then you can't have a subjective definition because you can't comprehend the alternative (the table existing). I guess i don't define color as subjectively because it's not based on subjective (opioned based?) definitons, but on objective ones (scientific defs). I'd also say that language by definition is subjective.

there's no disagreement, i hate to sound arrogant or condescending but you basically just said the exact same argument in layman's terms.

[Summa]

I'm not sitting here trying to argue against the existence of a table, yes it exists and yes most people do normally perceive it as a table (aside from people who are insane). I'm arguing that each person perceives the world uniquely. What people say comes off differently to different people, shades of color appear differently to different people, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" (corny shit). The table is an extreme case that is highly unrealistic, but heres a more common one. Your gf says something that you think is no big deal, but it is to her. The same objective and literal words hold different meanings to different people. Based on perception we all have our own slightly different realities that do hold many common threads.

[Jerome Scuggs]

I'm not sitting here trying to argue against the existence of a table, yes it exists and yes most people do normally perceive it as a table (aside from people who are insane). I'm arguing that each person perceives the world uniquely. What people say comes off differently to different people, shades of color appear differently to different people, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" (corny shit). The table is an extreme case that is highly unrealistic, but heres a more common one. Your gf says something that you think is no big deal, but it is to her. The same objective and literal words hold different meanings to different people. Based on perception we all have our own slightly different realities that do hold many common threads.

read the first reply to this thread

[Squeezer]

there's an objective world we subjectively perceive.

thread/discussion over.

who wants cookies?

There are objects. They exist. Their meanings and interpretations/notions about them do not until we personally give them value.

[Fluffz]

if colours are still to abstract, think of the feeling heat which is the subjective understanding of the motion of atoms. it is an imput we receive trough our skin, like we see the colour blue with our eyes like we can understand a table. imagine an eskimo and an hawaiian argue about whether it is warm or cold, they wont find an answer.

Now imagine 2200 AC a kid with a brain altered by electronics that remove the image of the table and replace it with the image of a candy. And not only the image but also the feeling of touch when you hit the table, the taste of the table, the feedback of the arms when the kid tries to lift if. Imagine one of this kids being you, how can you be sure the table is an object out of an objective world.

So yes, if you can trick your senses the table will get candy in your reality - how can it be different. And even tho something like a table most likely exixts we shouldnt look at it and assume we know its objective eternal purpose, or else the sun would still spin around the earth.

PS: sounds like u were stoned, im calling the police.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Now imagine 2200 AC a kid with a brain altered s by electronics that remove the image of the table and replace it with the image of a candy. And not only the image but also the feeling of touch when you hit the table, the taste of the table, the feedback of the arms when the kid tries to lift if. Imagine one of this kids being you, how can you be sure to look at an objective world.

So yes, if you can trick your senses the table will get candy in your reality - how can it be different. And even tho something like a table most likely exixts we shouldnt look at it and assume we know its objective eternal purpose, or else the sun would still spin around the earth.

this is fallacious, because in reality, there is still a table - you're just altering one's perception of that table. if you can show that his subjective perception is being manipulated - which you show - then the logic becomes fallacious because your experiment variables are compromised.

tables don't have "eternal purpose". what the heck are you trying to say?

edit: oh, it would just be like growing up and being taught that what we commonly know as a "fork" was a "spoon", and so you just always thought that a fork was a spoon. in your reality that could be true - but the fact that it was done by intention erases the logical or scientific validity of your hypothesis.

[Fluffz]

tables don't have "eternal purpose". what the heck are you trying to say?

He said that if he were to call the table candy, it would still function and be a table. That is its eternal purpose and it will never be anything else. It is a table to all.

this is what this is about, no?

reality? you assume that you perceive is reality because of what? when you dream are you always aware that you dream? i for my part am not. maybe the guy in the machine chewing on candy is by a chaotic coincidence perceiving reality. The only truth can be logic and by supporting what you call priori knowledge as in a flat earth you could as good as believe in god.

also if you are consequent with your argument you must also assume that your existence had no intention which is kind of weird since you were born to keep a race alive and a culture at work.

[Summa]

now heres one for you jerome

Firstly tell me if you believe this is possible.

I have a friend named Jerome. One day he kills my wife. I decide I no longer want him to exist. Thus I trick my senses into not hearing, seeing, feeling, smelling, etc Jerome, so that thus in my reality he no longer exists. But does he still exist? If he does, then how can you prove it to me? he no longer exists in my reality yet he does in other's.

[Squeezer]

now heres one for you jerome

Firstly tell me if you believe this is possible.

I have a friend named Jerome. One day he kills my wife. I decide I no longer want him to exist. Thus I trick my senses into not hearing, seeing, feeling, smelling, etc Jerome, so that thus in my reality he no longer exists. But does he still exist? If he does, then how can you prove it to me? he no longer exists in my reality yet he does in other's.

He proves it by killing you too.

[Summa]

He proves it by killing you too.

can something that doesn't exist to me actually kill me?
because something that doesn't "exist" to other people can kill someone if they believe it exists, take hypochondriacs who convince themselves of their ills or people who have tricked their brains into believing they are on fire.

[Jerome Scuggs]

this is what this is about, no?

Well he was flawed when using the adjective "eternal", though it could be argued it is the eternal purpose. A table is nothing more than an embodiment of an idea or concept - a human needed to re-arrange material to provide him a purpose, and the table was built to supply that purpose. Subjectively tables have different purposes to different people (for example, rich people have rooms full of nice tables, none of them ever used, their purpose being 'hey! i have money and you don't!)

reality? you assume that you perceive is reality because of what? when you dream are you always aware that you dream? i for my part am not. maybe the guy in the machine chewing on candy is by a chaotic coincidence perceiving reality. The only truth can be logic and by supporting what you call priori knowledge as in a flat earth you could as good as believe in god.

also if you are consequent with your argument you must also assume that your existence had no intention which is kind of weird since you were born to keep a race alive and a culture at work.

To even begin to explain why what I perceive is reality would take quite alot of work on my part to explain. It's a question that, if you cannot answer yourself, should be what you need to be focusing on, considering its answer is the crux of your argumentation. This thread starts with the assumption that reality exists, and we're a part of it.

My argument is consistent, as you are ambiguous between the philosophical differences between intention and purpose and you also make a fallacious causal relationship which does not exist in my argument.

[Fluffz]

suma: if he existed before you forgot about him he still exists after. By forgetting about him you dont change anything other than your world. and you can do whatever you want in your world, i guess there is no need to argue about that...

[Summa]

suma: if he existed before you forgot about him he still exists after. By forgetting about him you dont change anything other than your world. and you can do whatever you want in your world, i guess there is no need to argue about that...

but if everyone has their own world is reality not subjective since each person has their own world that they can perceive and act in how they want?

[Jerome Scuggs]

can something that doesn't exist to me actually kill me?

ask any pacifist that "doesn't believe in guns".

it's possible to have a subjective experience where, because of your circumstances, you grew up living not in the US, and never playing subspace. to you, I would not exist - you would have no way of knowing Jerome Scuggs existed.

until we started posting on this forum, subjective experience told me there was no such thing as a person named Summa, and yours told you Jerome Scuggs did not exist either.

But subjective perception of objective reality changes frequently on many levels and you really are consciously aware of only a handful of those changes.