Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 6:56 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 5:48 pm
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:58 pm
Objectively the different light are characterised by different wavelengths.
Of course, but that is not the question. When the wavelength being reflected, transmitted, or emitted by an entity is different, that difference is usually identified as a difference in color. When a prism divides a white light beam into a rainbow-like spectrum of, "hues," the difference in each hue is usually called a color, because each one is different. We are obviously conscious of those differences when observing them with our eyes,
but it isn't our observing them that makes them different. They really are different.
No. You are suffering from naive realism.
Suffering?! I did not know such enjoyment of life was called suffering. When I look around at all those who have fallen for one of the sophists' (from Plato to Kant) attempts to repudiate knowledge of reality as it is, I'm glad I'm not, "enjoying," that kind of delusion.
The belief that the world of direct experience, which is completely explicable in terms of what is directly perceive is the real world is called naive only by those who have been taken in by the lies of the sophists (so sophisticated) and religionists. They are all mystics claiming the real world is some kind of illusion, while the real world is some ineffable thing that can never be perceived or known behind the world that is directly experienced. How they know it, if there is no way to perceive it, is never explained and all their vain attempts to describe it are always only in terms of the world of direct perception. That seems truly naive to me.
For example:
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:58 pm
What you see is different wavelength.
I've seen waves of water and I've seen waves in a rope and I've seen illustrations of compression waves of fluids and powders. I have never seen an electromagnetic (light) wave and neither has anyone else. What would an electro-magnetic wave be a wave of. It used to be thought of as a wave in luminescent aether but science has done away with that fiction.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:58 pm
The retina responds differently according to the wavelength and sends a different code to the brain, where the colour happens.
I have no idea what, "colour happens," means. There are different wave lengths of light and those differences are called different colors. You seem to think it is the brain that makes them different, but they were different long before anyone was conscious of them. Either that or you are thinking how we are conscious of them is the color, but the color directly perceived is only how we are directly conscious of the differences in the wave lengths of light. If all the light appeared the same (there were no differences in color) or the conscious experience was anything other than color, that would be deceptive or an illusion. Being conscious of the differences in the wavelength of light directly is not produced by the brain (how would it know which experiences to produce relative to which wave lengths), it is only how those actual different physical phenomena are directly perceived.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:58 pm
Different people see different colours. Naive realists like to call "colour blind" people as deficient, when in fact they just have differently arranges codes. Many animals do not see any colours at all.
Unless you can read minds you do not know what anyone else's conscious experience is. There are certainly variations in what can be perceived via the neurological system, but what is perceived is always reality exactly as it is in it's entire ontological context which includes the physiology of the perceiver.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:58 pm
Colours are not "out there". Smell is much the same thing. An object does not smell, your brain smells.
So a dog smells a bone, but of course it doesn't smell a bone, because the bone has no smell to smell. You are admitting the dog has a conscious experience of smelling something but denying there is anything for the dog to have that conscious experience of. There is no smell for the dog to smell.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:58 pm
Locke did the world a disservice when he suggested that colors are only in the mind.
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 5:48 pm
No. He opened up people's minds, to the truth.
No one is seriously arguing your case.
That's sadly true. The intellectual world has been taken over by the sophists denying reality and the possibility of knowledge. I'm not actually arguing for the realist view either because it is not possible to argue with those who deny their own consciousness. But I certainly do not care if I am the only one in the whole world who knows the world I directly perceive is the real world because it saves me from being taken in by all the frauds trying to put over some mystical world I'm suppose sacrifice my life and this world for.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:58 pm
Have you heard of monochrome Mary's thought experiement?
Not interested. I discovered what was wrong with idealism a long time ago.