Ignorant Bliss/Sad Knowledge

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Yorick? I wasn't being specially 'religious' either . And I don't think I'm postmodernist! Reality is reality is reality. But reality (truth) CAN be validly different for everyone. Take another 'for instance' a very small one - a leaf is a leaf: but what colour is it? Green, yes. But the green you see is not the green I see, because the colour we perceive depends on the individual retinas in our eyes. But your green is true to you and mine to me. It CANNOT be Absolute! It HAS to be a subjective truth. And truth in many, many things in this existence is purely subjective. OK. There has to be objective truth, too. If your wife is cheating on you, that is not subjective, it is objective. (What you do about it depends on subjective feelings!) But ABSOLUTE TRUTH is something else again. The term (to me, anyway) implies the coming together of all things, objective and subjective, into one complete, unified WHOLE that cannot again be split into it's component parts. Let's go back to the leaf: if we could see it AS IT ACTUALLY IS, that would be the Absolute Truth about the colour of that leaf. Likewise, if we could know everthing about this universe, that would be the Absolute Truth about that, too. But we can't even know the Absolute Truth about the colour of the leaf, can we? If we could KNOW the ABSOLUTE TRUTH about EVERYTHING - why, then, we would either become the creator, or the universe would vanish, or existence would be pointless... I'm getting out of my depth here!

Well yes that is indeed a post modernist viewpoint . Let's take the leaf. How we percieve light is indeed subjective, so we can never actually indisputably know what the leaf looks like. However whether we percieve it or not, the leaf is an entity that reflects light in a particualar way, consistent with other leafs of it's kind. This has an ultimate appearance/form/shape that whether we correctly percieve it or not, exists.

Take soundwaves. Our ears only hear between certain frequencies. Dogs hear higher (faster) frequencies than humans. There are also subsonic frequencies below what we can hear. We know they are there because we feel them or observe the effects on say a building. We can't purely rely on the applicable human sense to ascertain absolute or objective truth because there are limitations. This is one example of how something is beyond our comprehension. We will never know what the dog whistle sounds like.

Regarding colour, I'm of the opinion that we see colours the same, but I don't know if this can be proved. The way light and colour works though, as in all colours being white, and absense of colour being black, seems to me to indicate consistency of interpretation. As I said, I'm not sure if this can be proved though.

What I find interesting is that colours change under differing lights. Under yellow stage lighting for example, a yellow lead becomes white, and a white lead becomes yellow. Love it.





------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Epona]

Good answer Yorick.
The comment you made about different colour lighting reminded me of the time I worked in a tannery.
My job was to do dye matching - we had a computer and a machine that measured what wavelengths of light were reflected back by samples of dyed leather. The readings given were always consistent, although it was possible that I saw 'olive green' in a completely different way to the person in the next office.
We used to supply various department stores with dye matches, and we had to have fluorescent tubes for each store - because the dye match would look slightly different under each type of lighting, as the available wavelengths were different in each store, making the colours look different.
However, those colours still gave the same readings when tested.

------------------

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

Epona of The Laughing Hyenas

[Yorick]

Fjlotsdale, I'm not sure about your statement re. knowledge of absolute truth of everything = becoming the creator/universe ceasing to exixt.

I don't believe it is possible in this lifetime to know absolute truth about everything. If it is indeed possible it will be in another form of existance.

That knowledge wouldn't necessarily mean becoming the creator. It would just be like being let in on a very big secret, or opening your eyes after being blindfolded all your life, or hearing music for the first time, or being born!

Think how long it takes us to come to terms with the laws of the earth after being sheltered, breathing liquid in the womb. We then have to breath air, fight gravity, percieve light/shapes and human maniplulations of sound waves etc. It takes years. No reason to presume if the knowledge of absolute truth came to us in say an afterlife that a similar pattern wouldn't be possible.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Epona: Good answer Yorick. The comment you made about different colour lighting reminded me of the time I worked in a tannery. My job was to do dye matching - we had a computer and a machine that measured what wavelengths of light were reflected back by samples of dyed leather. The readings given were always consistent, although it was possible that I saw 'olive green' in a completely different way to the person in the next office. We used to supply various department stores with dye matches, and we had to have fluorescent tubes for each store - because the dye match would look slightly different under each type of lighting, as the available wavelengths were different in each store, making the colours look different. However, those colours still gave the same readings when tested.

Thanks Epona,
I believe Dolphins can ascertain the colour of a visually obscured object using their sonar - sending soundwaves and analysing the returning waves.


------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 05-19-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

Regarding colour perception: yes, it is proved we all see colours differently. Something to do with the differing amount of cones in the retina (I think it is the cones, but it might be the rods!) of each individual. I learnt it a long time ago, when I was studying to be a nurse. There must be even better info on it now.
I see the point of your birth example, and you may well be right - but my tiny brain just finds the profundity of knowing so much utterly mind-boggling. I cannot do more than dream of the thought of the concept... To KNOW would be godlike... Hence my comments!

------------------
Smile! Life is too short for bitching

Fljotsdale

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Regarding colour perception: yes, it is proved we all see colours differently. Something to do with the differing amount of cones in the retina (I think it is the cones, but it might be the rods!) of each individual. I learnt it a long time ago, when I was studying to be a nurse. There must be even better info on it now. I see the point of your birth example, and you may well be right - but my tiny brain just finds the profundity of knowing so much utterly mind-boggling. I cannot do more than dream of the thought of the concept... To KNOW would be godlike... Hence my comments!

Fair enough. I prefer the concept of same colour perception though because of the impact on shared experience it has.

(BTW I've heard we have less receptors of "blue" in our eyes.)

Most of those who I've discussed with agree that it can't be proved either way but agree that it's an interesting hypothesis. I'd like to think that we share the experience though.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!




[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 05-19-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

Regarding colour vision: I found this:-
<>1. What is color?
Color is that characteristic of a visible object or light source by which an observer may distinguish differences between two structure-free fields of the same size and shape, such as may be caused by differences in the spectral composition of the light concerned in the observation. In other words, color is that perception by which we can tell two objects apart, when they have otherwise similar attributes of shape, size, texture, etc.

OK, that's the textbook answer. This is admittedly unsatisfying, because color is an inherently subjective experience. Color only exists in our minds, and putting a scientific definition together of no easy task. The usual definition, given above, is really a circular argument. It amounts to: "Color is that attribute of an object leftover when you eliminate all attributes except color." So, if an two objects look different, but have the same size, shape, texture, etc., then the way you are telling them apart is their color.

<>2. How do we see in color?
In the retina of our eye are photoreceptors that are sensitive to light. When light is absorbed by the photoreceptors, the light energy is converted into electrical and chemical signals that the neurons in our eye and brain process. There are two kinds of photoreceptors in the retina: rods and cones. Rods mediate vision at lower levels of illumination. Cones mediate vision at higher levels of illumination. There are three types of cones with each type differentially sensitive to a different region of the visible spectrum. They are known as the Short-wavelength sensitive cones, the Middle-wavelength sensitive cones and the Long-wavelength sensitive cones. Sometimes they are referred to as R-, G-, and B-cones but these are misnomers based on the colors in the spectrum. For example, very short wavelength light can uniquely stimulate the S-cones but the sensation associated with this light stimulation has a reddish and bluish component. Fundamentally our color vision derives from comparisons between the amount of light being absorbed by each cone type. Our visual system compares the outputs of the cone types to process color. In addition, color appearance is influenced by the ratios of cone excitations in surrounding regions and by the overall levels of cone excitation caused by the prevailing illumination. These comparisons occur at different stages of processing that start in the retina and continue to the cerebral cortex of the brain.

This is me
Notice he said 'colour is a subjective experience'. In another article I found, it said that the proportion of the different types of cones affected colour as well, but I can't find the right bit of the right article to post it here - I have skimmed through quite a lot of 'em in the past few minutes!
If you want to run a search yourself, I keyed in 'human color vision variations'.

Added later:
Anyway, that is why if person A puts 2 colours together - say purple and green - he will see them as a terrific combination, while person B says 'Yeuch!'
It is not 'cos A has poor taste, it is 'cos he sees them differently than B.
------------------
Smile! Life is too short for bitching

Fljotsdale

[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 05-19-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 05-19-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 05-19-2001).]

[Jerome]

For the sake of contervesy; Ignorant Bliss!



------------------


My hopes lie dashed,
Crushed from high above,
My dreams lie shattered, my heart broken,
A casulty on a battlefield called love.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Anyway, that is why if person A puts 2 colours together - say purple and green - he will see them as a terrific combination, while person B says 'Yeuch!' It is not 'cos A has poor taste, it is 'cos he sees them differently than B.

Well no not necessarily. We like colours because of association. Positive experiences of calm experiences at the ocean can lead to an appreciation of blue shades. Exposure to the smell and sight of lavender in a positive context leads to an affinity with light purples. Seeing a dead caucasian without makeup could lead someone to feel sick seeing the same light purple.

The fact that we inherit certain genes from our parents/ancestors would indicate we'd recieve similar patterns of interpretations of colour. Just as it can't be proved that we all see the same colour, it certainly can't be provedthat we don't.

We all have different sized ears, yet we hear soundwaves similarly enough to communicate intention adequately. Our voiceboxes are all different sizes, and cranium shape influences variants in tonal colour, yet our vocal projections sound similar to each other compared to say a cow or a sparrow.
Differences in eye receptors mean that blue eyed persons are more sensitive to bright lights.
I don't accept that it follows that one sees "green" where another sees "red".

We are dealing with light falling through an atmosphere and dispersing. Just as soundwaves exist that we don't hear, so I'd presume that though our perception of colour is subjective, there is an absolute in regard to what shades of the spectrum are absorbed and what shades are reflected. I don't limit my definitions of things to that which the human can experience. Sound to me is not the human reception of soundwaves, it is the frequencies of disturbances in the air, that exist whether we recieve them or not. Colour is the particular spectrumal reflection of light an object radiates, not merely our reception of it.

That's my take on it.


------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Fljotsdale]

I don't object to tha Absolute of ACTUAL colour, Yorick - only to PERCIEVED colour. Whilst your argument regarding association influencing the like/dislike of colour is correct, it does NOT follow that colour preception is the same by everyone. A LOT depends on the proportion of the 3 types of cones in the eye. And whilst it is true that humans, on average, have the about the same number as other humans, they do vary. A colour-blind person, for example will be very short on certain receptors, either red or blue, usually. And such people genuinely DO see (for example) both red and green as the same colour.
My son-in-law is red/green colour blind. That is anatomy.

I have trouble with NAMING yellow and pink. I am not colour-blind at all, but as a child I used to confuse the colour of the flowers 'primrose' and 'rose'. I knew rose was a shade of pink, therefore 'primroses must be pink'. But primroses are naturally yellow. Hence my confusion. That is an example of association.

But even SMALL variation in the quantity and distribution of the receptors in the retina will make one person see a colour combination as pleasant or unpleasant, regardless of association. It is a matter of anatomy, not just association.

Fljotsdale

[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 05-20-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 05-20-2001).]