| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Atheistagnostic" |
| Date: |
11 Mar 2005 01:33:43 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Physics and metaphysics |
Alan Morgan wrote:
In article <vsCdnVau0NPRPK3fRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Ed Earl Ross wrote:
Michael Voytinsky wrote:
Craig Franck wrote:
Tomorrow, all life on earth is obliterated by an asteroid impact. Do
the colors we perceived still exist the day after tomorrow?
I say no, because they were an artifact of our nervous systems,
and we are all dead.
So, by your definition of "colour", there will be no colour.
By some other definitions of "colour", there will be colour.
It seems that you are making a statement about language and not about
physics or metaphysics. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to confuse
statements about language with statements about the world.
If it were only about language, how could we translate any color from
one language to another?
Translation is possible because it is the MEANING of a term that
matters, right? Blue in English means the same as blau in German.
Light comes in different wavelengths of the elecromagnetic spectrum.
Look at the visible light segment. See the different colors, depending on
frequency? It is the wavelength that determines the color. --
http://www.yorku.ca/eye/spectru.htm
The wavelength and the struture of the human eye.
No, just the wavelength of the light.
If we had different
eyes then we would see different colors than we do now.
Nonsense. Changing our eyes would not change the elecromagnetic spectrum,
and it is wavelength on the elecromagnetic spectrum that determines color
of light.
Your idea borders on solipsism!
There are a few
tetrachromats in the world (all female) who have a slightly different
set of cones and can thus distinguish between colors that are identical
to every "normal" person and can see shades of (IIRC) green that don't
actually exist for the rest of us.
If they "did not exist" as you put it, then nobody could see them, could
they? But they do exist, even if not discernable using the eyes of some of
the viewers. It's a SPECTRUM (a continuum) of various frequencies, sir.
So, "the wavelength determines the color" doesn't really capture the
complexities of it.
Yes it does. None of your cognitivist/dualist nitpicking changes that. You
do understand what 'determines' means, don't you, sir?
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
11 Mar 2005 05:55:41 PM |
|
|
In article <y5SdnWxruM8Fb6zfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Alan Morgan wrote:
In article <vsCdnVau0NPRPK3fRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Ed Earl Ross wrote:
Michael Voytinsky wrote:
Craig Franck wrote:
Tomorrow, all life on earth is obliterated by an asteroid impact. Do
the colors we perceived still exist the day after tomorrow?
I say no, because they were an artifact of our nervous systems,
and we are all dead.
So, by your definition of "colour", there will be no colour.
By some other definitions of "colour", there will be colour.
It seems that you are making a statement about language and not about
physics or metaphysics. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to confuse
statements about language with statements about the world.
If it were only about language, how could we translate any color from
one language to another?
Translation is possible because it is the MEANING of a term that
matters, right? Blue in English means the same as blau in German.
Light comes in different wavelengths of the elecromagnetic spectrum.
Look at the visible light segment. See the different colors, depending on
frequency? It is the wavelength that determines the color. --
http://www.yorku.ca/eye/spectru.htm
The wavelength and the struture of the human eye.
No, just the wavelength of the light.
And how do we see colors without eyes?
And how is it that we see the same color of, say rass, from differing
commbinations of light spectra at different times of day?
If we had different
eyes then we would see different colors than we do now.
Nonsense. Changing our eyes would not change the elecromagnetic spectrum,
and it is wavelength on the elecromagnetic spectrum that determines color
of light.
Then you are saying that those who are colorblind see the same colors as
those who are not?
Your idea borders on solipsism!
Submoron Simple Septic's ideas border on insanity.
There are a few
tetrachromats in the world (all female) who have a slightly different
set of cones and can thus distinguish between colors that are identical
to every "normal" person and can see shades of (IIRC) green that don't
actually exist for the rest of us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
12 Mar 2005 02:42:08 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <y5SdnWxruM8Fb6zfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Alan Morgan wrote:
In article <vsCdnVau0NPRPK3fRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Ed Earl Ross wrote:
Michael Voytinsky wrote:
Craig Franck wrote:
Tomorrow, all life on earth is obliterated by an asteroid impact. Do
the colors we perceived still exist the day after tomorrow?
I say no, because they were an artifact of our nervous systems,
and we are all dead.
So, by your definition of "colour", there will be no colour.
By some other definitions of "colour", there will be colour.
It seems that you are making a statement about language and not about
physics or metaphysics. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to confuse
statements about language with statements about the world.
If it were only about language, how could we translate any color from
one language to another?
Translation is possible because it is the MEANING of a term that
matters, right? Blue in English means the same as blau in German.
Light comes in different wavelengths of the elecromagnetic spectrum.
Look at the visible light segment. See the different colors, depending on
frequency? It is the wavelength that determines the color. --
http://www.yorku.ca/eye/spectru.htm
The wavelength and the struture of the human eye.
No, just the wavelength of the light.
And how do we see colors without eyes?
Just as a tree falling in the wood makes a hell of a racket (sound waves)
whether there is anyone to hear it or not, electromagnetic radiation in the
visible light part of the spectrum is the same color (wavelength) whether
there is anyone to see it or not, moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
12 Mar 2005 12:18:13 PM |
|
|
In article <G-GdnW1XWZX9Nq_fRVn-og@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <y5SdnWxruM8Fb6zfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Alan Morgan wrote:
In article <vsCdnVau0NPRPK3fRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Ed Earl Ross wrote:
Michael Voytinsky wrote:
Craig Franck wrote:
Tomorrow, all life on earth is obliterated by an asteroid impact. Do
the colors we perceived still exist the day after tomorrow?
I say no, because they were an artifact of our nervous systems,
and we are all dead.
So, by your definition of "colour", there will be no colour.
By some other definitions of "colour", there will be colour.
It seems that you are making a statement about language and not about
physics or metaphysics. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to confuse
statements about language with statements about the world.
If it were only about language, how could we translate any color from
one language to another?
Translation is possible because it is the MEANING of a term that
matters, right? Blue in English means the same as blau in German.
Light comes in different wavelengths of the elecromagnetic spectrum.
Look at the visible light segment. See the different colors, depending on
frequency? It is the wavelength that determines the color. --
http://www.yorku.ca/eye/spectru.htm
The wavelength and the struture of the human eye.
No, just the wavelength of the light.
And how do we see colors without eyes?
Just as a tree falling in the wood makes a hell of a racket (sound waves)
whether there is anyone to hear it or not, electromagnetic radiation in the
visible light part of the spectrum is the same color (wavelength) whether
there is anyone to see it or not, moron.
Since we see the same object as the being the same color under different
light conditions, it cannot be merely the compositon of the light itself
which determines which colors are seen, it has to be partly determined
in the the eye-to-mind connection.
Is color determined by the object being seen or the composition of the
light by which it is seen or the eyes and optical cortex dooing the
seeing? Simple Septic's position ignores the facts on this question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
12 Mar 2005 12:43:04 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <G-GdnW1XWZX9Nq_fRVn-og@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <y5SdnWxruM8Fb6zfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Alan Morgan wrote:
In article <vsCdnVau0NPRPK3fRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Ed Earl Ross wrote:
Michael Voytinsky wrote:
Craig Franck wrote:
Tomorrow, all life on earth is obliterated by an asteroid impact. Do
the colors we perceived still exist the day after tomorrow?
I say no, because they were an artifact of our nervous systems,
and we are all dead.
So, by your definition of "colour", there will be no colour.
By some other definitions of "colour", there will be colour.
It seems that you are making a statement about language and not about
physics or metaphysics. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to confuse
statements about language with statements about the world.
If it were only about language, how could we translate any color from
one language to another?
Translation is possible because it is the MEANING of a term that
matters, right? Blue in English means the same as blau in German.
Light comes in different wavelengths of the elecromagnetic spectrum.
Look at the visible light segment. See the different colors, depending on
frequency? It is the wavelength that determines the color. --
http://www.yorku.ca/eye/spectru.htm
The wavelength and the struture of the human eye.
No, just the wavelength of the light.
And how do we see colors without eyes?
Just as a tree falling in the wood makes a hell of a racket (sound waves)
whether there is anyone to hear it or not, electromagnetic radiation in the
visible light part of the spectrum is the same color (wavelength) whether
there is anyone to see it or not, moron.
Since we see the same object as the being the same color
Because the light reflected from it is the same wavelength (color), moron.
under different
light conditions ...
Intensity (brightness) doesn't change wavelength (color), moron. Smarten up.
Look at the visible light segment of the graph in the link below. See the
different colors, depending on frequency? It is the wavelength that
determines the color. -- http://www.yorku.ca/eye/spectru.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
12 Mar 2005 01:48:00 PM |
|
|
In article <jYidnTMIXP2npa7fRVn-ig@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Since we see the same object as the being the same color
Because the light reflected from it is the same wavelength (color), moron.
under different
light conditions ...
Intensity (brightness) doesn't change wavelength (color), moron. Smarten up.
Combination colors, like white, for example, are affected by the
relative intensities of the spectral colors that make them up. These
relative intensities change with the light conditions, but our eyes
manage to "see" the same objects as having a fixed color despite
ci=considerable variations in the relative intensities of incident
light, such as variations at different times of day.
So that what colors we see is, at least in part, not what light shows
us, but what our minds (brains to those with no minds) tell us.
(1) If the color of an object is a property of the object alone, then
the type of incident light should be irrelevant.
(2) If the color of an object is strictly determined by the relative
intensities of each spectral frequency of light reflected from it, then
'colors' of objects should change with every change of incident light
The eyes and visual cortex attempt to compensate for variations in
incident light to make the world look as if (1) were the case.
To deny this it to oversimplify the whole issue.
But since Simple Septic canot deal with any but the simplest of issues
without getting lost, he is forced to oversimplify.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
12 Mar 2005 02:57:21 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
...(brains to those with no minds) ...
Are you ever going to get around to demonstrating a real mind-body duality,
so that anybody can check your observations, or are you just going to keep
on trying to get away with taking it for granted (begging the question), moron?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
12 Mar 2005 05:02:46 PM |
|
|
In article <DeqdnR4Qcfwvyq7fRVn-uw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
...(brains to those with no minds) ...
Are you ever going to get around to demonstrating...
Only when Simple Septic has demonstrated how to detect consciousness as
a purely physical trait of a brain having no mind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jake" |
|
| Title: how to detect consciousness |
13 Mar 2005 03:26:39 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
... how to detect consciousness ...?
Why not just get all the best doctors to come in, have a look, and if the
patient is sitting up and taking nourishment, maybe trying to pinch the nurse
on the *****, we can probably be safe in charting him as conscious at this point?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: how to detect consciousness |
13 Mar 2005 01:21:48 PM |
|
|
In article <or6dnd0LY9TNmqnfRVn-oA@comcast.com>, Jake <j@nospam.net>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... how to detect consciousness ...?
Why not just get all the best doctors to come in, have a look, and if the
patient is sitting up and taking nourishment, maybe trying to pinch the nurse
on the *****, we can probably be safe in charting him as conscious at this
point?
But that uses the minds of the doctors, and I specifically asked how to
do it without using minds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: how to detect consciousness |
13 Mar 2005 03:52:19 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 12:21:48 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com>:
In article <or6dnd0LY9TNmqnfRVn-oA@comcast.com>, Jake <j@nospam.net>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... how to detect consciousness ...?
Why not just get all the best doctors to come in, have a look, and if the
patient is sitting up and taking nourishment, maybe trying to pinch the nurse
on the *****, we can probably be safe in charting him as conscious at this
point?
But that uses the minds of the doctors, and I specifically asked how to
do it without using minds.
I think first you need to consider whether that question has
any intrinsic meaning.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: how to detect consciousness |
13 Mar 2005 04:19:16 PM |
|
|
In article <3fd9315cau9fstvui1k2i653oumvqre6ku@4ax.com>,
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 12:21:48 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com>:
In article <or6dnd0LY9TNmqnfRVn-oA@comcast.com>, Jake <j@nospam.net>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... how to detect consciousness ...?
Why not just get all the best doctors to come in, have a look, and if the
patient is sitting up and taking nourishment, maybe trying to pinch the
nurse
on the *****, we can probably be safe in charting him as conscious at this
point?
But that uses the minds of the doctors, and I specifically asked how to
do it without using minds.
I think first you need to consider whether that question has
any intrinsic meaning.
It is Simple Septic who is claiming that there is such a thing as
consciousness but that there is no such thing as mind.
As far as I can see, the evidence for either is no better or worse that
for the other, so I plump for w=either both or neither.
And in the case of Simple Septic himself, I plump for neither.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Franck" |
|
| Title: Re: how to detect consciousness |
13 Mar 2005 06:35:36 PM |
|
|
Jake <j@nospam.net> wrote
Virgil wrote:
... how to detect consciousness ...?
Why not just get all the best doctors to come in, have a look, and if the
patient is sitting up and taking nourishment, maybe trying to pinch the nurse
on the *****, we can probably be safe in charting him as conscious at this
point?
[Note: Verizon's up-feed to Usenet for NY has been interrupted
for the last several days. You may see some replies to a couple
of your posts come thru on Monday, possibly in duplicate. If not,
I'll send them from Google.]
The problem is you are inferring consciousness. I am conscious, I
behave in certain ways, other people behave similarly; therefore,
they are in all likelihood conscious as well.
This is a valid scientific inference. But to a total skeptic of
mind, it is inconsistent to allow it in this case, and not in the
case of inferring the brain has a mind. You should say it is all
just behavior in the same way you state all mind is brain function,
or all color is wavelength.
It is not a coincidence that you repeatedly have these battles
with people over basic terminology: you hold mutually contradictory
views, and then play-off the confusion they create.
There is no way to budge you toward the conscensus since you have
developed what you consider an invincible debating style.
Only someone in love with their ability to type would engage in a
prolonged debate with you, since I may as well be e-mailing this
post off to the null file for all the good it will do.
I am awaiting your total refutation of everything I just wrote.
PS: If you are not Simple Skeptic, nevermind.
Craig Franck
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: how to detect consciousness |
13 Mar 2005 05:06:13 PM |
|
|
Jake wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... how to detect consciousness ...?
Why not just get all the best doctors to come in, have a look, and if the
patient is sitting up and taking nourishment, maybe trying to pinch the nurse
on the *****, we can probably be safe in charting him as conscious at this point?
Pith Clinton - what would be different? Hell, pith either Clinton -
what would be different?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: how to detect consciousness |
13 Mar 2005 11:08:01 PM |
|
|
In article <4234C765.481FEA22@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Jake wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... how to detect consciousness ...?
Why not just get all the best doctors to come in, have a look, and if the
patient is sitting up and taking nourishment, maybe trying to pinch the
nurse
on the *****, we can probably be safe in charting him as conscious at this
point?
Pith Clinton - what would be different? Hell, pith either Clinton -
what would be different?
*
Hey Al! What the hell are you doing over here among the great
intellectually unwashed?
Slumming?
earle
*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: how to detect consciousness |
13 Mar 2005 11:54:27 PM |
|
|
In article
<earle.jones-F5AE5E.21080113032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <4234C765.481FEA22@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Jake wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... how to detect consciousness ...?
Why not just get all the best doctors to come in, have a look, and if the
patient is sitting up and taking nourishment, maybe trying to pinch the
nurse
on the *****, we can probably be safe in charting him as conscious at this
point?
Pith Clinton - what would be different? Hell, pith either Clinton -
what would be different?
Pith GW, or has it already been done?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ninewands" |
|
| Title: Re: how to detect consciousness |
08 May 2005 09:51:42 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article
<earle.jones-F5AE5E.21080113032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <4234C765.481FEA22@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Jake wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... how to detect consciousness ...?
Why not just get all the best doctors to come in, have a look, and if the
patient is sitting up and taking nourishment, maybe trying to pinch the
nurse
on the *****, we can probably be safe in charting him as conscious at this
point?
Pith Clinton - what would be different? Hell, pith either Clinton -
what would be different?
Pith GW, or has it already been done?
Done ... it had ZERO effect!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
