>So you say. But it's just an unsupported assertion on your part. If >the ping-pong intelligence could do those things without experiencing >yellow then maybe you could too. I would I know?
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying I should question my own experience of seeing yellow in order to give a ping pong ball the benefit of the doubt? >How would you know if they did? The only evidence would be if they >could consistently distinguish the colors of two objects that looked >perfectly identical to other people; just as red-green color blind >people can't tell the difference between green and ripe strawberries. >From the color-blind persons perspective that's just increased >distinction between colors he sees. They can distinguish the colors of objects that trichromats cannot (like they can see that someone's shirt doesn't really match their pants when everyone else thinks it does). Likewise, color blind people may enjoy the full complement of visual beauty that trichromats see, just not in as many distinct tones. Maybe they see in classical piano rather than rock band, but it doesn't mean they are missing out on music. >You're just asserting that perception is mysterious. Just because we >don't have an explanation for something doesn't mean that an explanation >is in principle impossible. If you given terms like "yellow" an >operational definition then you can test those ideas. As it is, you >*define* them to be "first hand encounters". Then you've already >defined them as impossible to replicate - even by other human beings. You're just asserting that perception cannot be mysterious. Just because mysteries have been explained by challenging subjective assumptions doesn't mean that all subjective phenomena are in principle explainable in a-signifying, objective terms. If you define them as something other than first hand encounters, then you disqualify the only evidence that we can possibly have as human beings. Besides, I'm not saying that perception must be mysterious, just that it is a feature of the interior topology of the cosmos rather than the external side, and therefore has dramatically different characteristics. Subjects are not objects. Subjects perceive, objects are perceived. Color is not an object. On Jul 11, 8:56 pm, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/11/2011 5:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > There are humans who have four pigments in their color receptors but > > they do not perceive a fourth primary color. > >http://www.klab.caltech.edu/cns186/papers/Jameson01.pdf > > > They just have increased distinction between the primary colors we > > perceive. I take that to mean that they cannot point to anything in > > nature as having a bright color that ordinary trichromats have never > > seen. > > How would you know if they did? The only evidence would be if they > could consistently distinguish the colors of two objects that looked > perfectly identical to other people; just as red-green color blind > people can't tell the difference between green and ripe strawberries. > From the color-blind persons perspective that's just increased > distinction between colors he sees. > > Brent > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah I don't know the technical descriptions of what constitutes > > primacy in hues, but it's not important to what I'm trying to get at. > > The important thing is that the range and variety of colors we can see > > or imagine is not explainable in purely quantitative or physical > > terms, neither is it metaphysical, random, made up, or arbitrary. It > > constitutes a visual semantic firmament, similar to the periodic > > table. The differences between the color wheel and the periodic table > > is that since experiences and feelings are phenomena that are > > ontologically perpendicular to their external mechanics, they are not > > strictly definable through literal observation and measurement, but > > through first hand encounters which address the subject directly in a > > more uncertain, figurative way. Colors look different depending on > > what colors they are adjacent to, what mood we are in, our gender, > > etc. unlike iron and magnesium which remain the same if placed next to > > each other. > > You're just asserting that perception is mysterious. Just because we > don't have an explanation for something doesn't mean that an explanation > is in principle impossible. If you given terms like "yellow" an > operational definition then you can test those ideas. As it is, you > *define* them to be "first hand encounters". Then you've already > defined them as impossible to replicate - even by other human beings. > > Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" 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/everything-list?hl=en.
