The Random Crap Thread 2: It Hits the Fan.

[Vrii]

Okay, I think I understand where the crux of this disagreement is. Let me try to sum it up to make sure we're talking about the same things.

The initial point of contention was PatrThom saying that the rainbow has only three colours in it. To Pez, this cannot be correct because, if you take those three colours as being representative of three exact, specific wavelengths of light (or points on a colour wheel, or whatever system you prefer to use to discuss colour theory), there are obvious gaps between those three specific points that would then have to be missing from the rainbow. If you light a room with lights of those three specific wavelengths, there would be swaths missing from the full spectrum of colour that humans perceive. Yes?

If I haven't fundamentally misunderstood the discussion, the hangup to all of this is in that initial assumption that "red," for example, is only representing a singular wavelength of light (which I guess is where the discussion of pixel-created colour came in). The issue with that assumption, and the reason that there have been repeated examples of cultures that view colour differently, is that any of our colour words can be referencing much broader sections of the colour wheel than one specific point on it. "Red" could, given the right language and cultural context, be reasonably applied to a large section of it, say a third of the whole. Then "Green" could cover another third, and "Blue" the last third, leading to a rainbow of three "colours" that still contatins every wavelength of human-visible light, or every point on a colour wheel. It feels horribly imprecise to a first-language-English speaker who was raised in modern Western culture, but that's an effect of our biases, not any inherent trait of the light or of colours. It doesn't require genetic variation to see and describe a three-colour rainbow, even if it contains what we would describe as other visually distinct colours in it.

 

[figmentPez]

If I haven't fundamentally misunderstood the discussion,

Yeah, you missed the point where Patr said that the other colors between the "three" are just your brain lying to you. There's a HUGE difference between saying that we could describe all the colors in terms of signals from the three common types of cones in human vision (and even that can be nit-picked as inaccurate, since rods are involved in color perception) and saying that all other colors are "your brain lying to you". Because "lying" implies some sort of falsehood or misconception.

If PatrThom had just said "Yeah, I'm using a very odd defintion of color here, and this whole thing revolves around defining color in a very specific way." I probably would have let it be, but he doubled down and kept insisting that he was somehow right in saying that colors other than the "three" are somehow only subjective and exist solely in the brain. If you want to define color solely as human experience, and say that light wavelengths are not color, that's weird, but I can accept that. Then sound isn't vibrations, it's only the human perception of vibrations. Whatever. But the moment you say "not really. How many colors are there in a rainbow? All of them. Even the ones we can't see." Then you've moved on from saying "Color is only human perception" to "Color is a concept that applies beyond human perception", and thus we get into the question of "What is the meaning of color when it comes to physics and objective reality?"

And that's the problem with this discussion. Most everyone else has been "Well, the perception of color is a strange thing, and we can't understand what's in each other's minds, and different cultures, and different languages, and yellow means different things to different people..." Fuck that. The moment Patr said "Even the [colors] we can't see." This stopped being about human perception and started being about objective reality. We're talking wavelengths of light. We're talking scientific observation. We're talking objective study. Regardless of what language your culture calls all the various colors on the EM spectrum, to say that "there are only three colors" is a statement that can only be supported by jumping through semantic hoops. Sure, you could divide the spectrum into blues, reds, and greens, but what about "the ones we can't see"?

Of fucking course people are going to disagree on what words to define colors. That's not the fucking point. The point is we need to define fucking terms when we're discussing philosophy, and saying "We don't really need to define terms" is counter-productive. All I've been trying to do since the very start of this is convince people that there is an objective reality that we're talking about, and that the terms we use are in service of talking about that objective reality. Only to get told over and over again that it's somehow possible to define terms when talking about length, and weight, and other physical properties, but that light and color is some unknowable realm where the terms can never be defined.

Looking at how red and green light can trick the brain into seeing yellow and concluding that all color is subjective is like looking at this optical illusion:

And concluding that all length is subjective and that it's pointless to try to measure the dimension of an object, because clearly dimensions are subjective to the viewer.

 

[MindDetective]

This picture contains no red pixels:

We can examine this pixel by pixel and objectively determine this to be true. Non-scientific language fails us here in describing what is here objectively but it is very useful in describing our subjective experience. I am referring to qualia here. Qualia do not always map onto objective reality. Nor does objective reality necessitate certain qualia. This is the whole "your yellow is my blue" thought experiment. Using everyday language, subjective reality rules. But using instruments, carefully controlled and repeated observations, and deductive reasoning, we can use precise language to describe objective reality, even for color.

For everyday conversations, "yellow" approximates reality well enough. We don't need wavelengths or precise language to convey what we mean. The same is true of length, weight, etc. Precision enters when we need it. Most of the time we do not. For length, we will probably use "meters" for the precise as well as the imprecise conversation. For colors, we may adopt different language, such as "nanometers" and "wavelengths", so as to avoid confusion where our visual system fails to convey objective reality accurately.

 

[DarkAudit]

I've just been an observer up to now, but @figmentPez, you're getting way too worked up again. Might be a good time to walk away for a little bit.

 

[figmentPez]

This picture contains no red pixels:

As I said in my previous post. Optical illusions don't prove that meters are subjective. Why should optical illusions prove that color is purely subjective?

 

[MindDetective]

As I said in my previous post. Optical illusions don't prove that meters are subjective. Why should optical illusions prove that color is purely subjective?

I didn't say purely subjective. I said subjective experience doesn't always match objective reality. Nowhere in there will you find "color is purely subjective". I really feel like you didn't read what I wrote. Like at all.

 

[figmentPez]

I didn't say purely subjective. I said subjective experience doesn't always match objective reality. Nowhere in there will you find "color is purely subjective". I really feel like you didn't read what I wrote. Like at all.

So, what was your point with bringing that up? Because it's already been firmly established that subjective experience doesn't match objective reality. We've been at that point since the moment someone pointed out that red light and green light trick the brain into seeing yellow.

If we were discussing temperature, and someone pointed out "Oh hey, there's this weird trick where if you feel cool temperature right next to warm temperature your senses will flip out and think it's scorching hot!" they'd immediately get shooed off as being irrelevant to the discussion of what temperature means. Why is color so fucking different for people? We readily accept that objects have temperature, why are we so resistant to the idea that objects have color? Why is everyone so damn insistent on pointing out all the ways that our senses trick us about color, when our senses can trick us about any physical property? It doesn't prove anything to show that our senses can be fooled.

Sensory illusions don't prove that the objective world is just "our brains lying to us" as Patr said. Bringing them up over and over again is irrelevant.

 

[MindDetective]

So, what was your point with bringing that up? Because it's already been firmly established that subjective experience doesn't match objective reality. We've been at that point since the moment someone pointed out that red light and green light trick the brain into seeing yellow.

If we were discussing temperature, and someone pointed out "Oh hey, there's this weird trick where if you feel cool temperature right next to warm temperature your senses will flip out and think it's scorching hot!" they'd immediately get shooed off as being irrelevant to the discussion of what temperature means. Why is color so fucking different for people? We readily accept that objects have temperature, why are we so resistant to the idea that objects have color? Why is everyone so damn insistent on pointing out all the ways that our senses trick us about color, when our senses can trick us about any physical property? It doesn't prove anything to show that our senses can be fooled.

Sensory illusions don't prove that the objective world is just "our brains lying to us" as Patr said. Bringing them up over and over again is irrelevant.

Again, my post was not about saying color was different from other things like length. I was not at all talking about that. If anything, the things I said equated color with length and other things, not demonstrated they were different. I think you are arguing with a strawman while you quote me.

 

[Bubble181]

The difference is semantics at this point.
Dimensions are exactly measurable - you can very precisely say that an object is 1.4x1.3x2.7 meters.
Size is not exactly measurable: the above gives me no information about whether the object is big or small. Is it a really big dog? Or a really small house?
"this light is 589nm" is an exact, clear, true statement. "this light is more yellow" is not, to me. Like "big", "yellow" is not an objective, inherent property. And it's not about using numbers or not - it's equally impossible to say if €10.000 is a large sum of money, without given further context.

 

[HCGLNS]

 

[figmentPez]

The difference is semantics at this point.
Dimensions are exactly measurable - you can very precisely say that an object is 1.4x1.3x2.7 meters.
Size is not exactly measurable: the above gives me no information about whether the object is big or small. Is it a really big dog? Or a really small house?
"this light is 589nm" is an exact, clear, true statement. "this light is more yellow" is not, to me. Like "big", "yellow" is not an objective, inherent property. And it's not about using numbers or not - it's equally impossible to say if €10.000 is a large sum of money, without given further context.

Still missing the point. As I have said over and over and over and over again: Yellow can be precisely defined if you want to. This isn't about "yellow", it's about if colors are "your brain lying to you" and if "even the colors you can't see" exist. Why the fuck is everyone stuck up on the idea that "yellow" isn't precise. "Yellow" is just an example of an in-between color. I have specifically defined "yellow" as 589nm or "the light that a sodium vapor lamp produces" repeatedly during this discussion, only to be told that "yellow" is a vague definition. I fucking tried to define it for the sake of this discussion. This is why I'm so fucking pissed! This all started because I said "it depends on how you define color" and was told I was wrong. Then I tried to prove that definition matters by defining color and showing that defining color makes a huge impact! Only to be told that the definitions I have been putting forth don't matter, despite the fact that the only way they don't matter is if they're completely ignored!

Is all of Halforums collectively trolling me at this point? Or have I gone completely insane?

 

[Dei]

 

[jwhouk]

 

[figmentPez]

Fuck off! Is it too much to ask for people to honestly engage me and not just try to sidestep my issues at honestly communicating?

 

[Sparhawk]

Fuck off! Is it too much to ask for people to honestly engage me and not just try to sidestep my issues at honestly communicating?

I wrote other stuff... almost all of it I “heard” your response and decided to delete it. All measurements are arbitrary, and everyone perceived color differently and names are assigned arbitrarily because we’re all human (or perceive ourselves to be) and inherently think we’re right and they’re wrong.

 

[Dei]

I'm not going to lie, I'm not even reading this whole discussion because it's blocks and blocks and blocks of some giant walls of texts about color perception and I feel at this point it's turned into some weird pedantic argument that maybe belongs in a DM, or maybe a different thread at the size it's gotten to.

 

[Dave]

You know, it never ceases to amaze me what kind of arguments people get into. I mean, in my mind it's not a topic I'd go on about for any length and feel the whole thing is silly. To some there's a need for clarification and getting the point across. But holy crap. I'm with @Dei in that I read a few, then skimmed, then skipped the rest, only stopping by to see what memes or jokes people interjected with to try and lighten the mood. GET IT?!? LIGHTEN?!? Because light?

Nobody gets me.

 

[Dei]

I really just want to be able to ignore the argument without worrying I'm missing something else not related that someone might be saying.

 

[MindDetective]

Fuck off! Is it too much to ask for people to honestly engage me and not just try to sidestep my issues at honestly communicating?

That's what you are doing to me, dude. And I'm not cussing about it.

 

[Ravenpoe]

@figmentPez are you doing ok dude? You're getting really angry about things that really don't matter, and I know at least for me that's usually a sign that I'm worked up or stressed out about something else.

 

[Tiger Tsang]

I just think several small paper bags need to be handed out and people need to do some deep breathing while holding them over their mouths and noses, sans mask of course.

 

[Celt Z]

K-K-K-K-Kermit break!

 

[HCGLNS]

So I was reading an ask reddit post about rejection and some one said "not if you were the last man on Earth."

And I thought about it, it's a common phrase, but it's a horrible thing for a woman to say.

If he's the last man alive, and a decent person, I think it's almost inevitable you end up together.

If he's not a decent person, you better kill him.

 

[Squidleybits]

That’s a horrible thing to say to someone. Apocalypse or no.

 

[Squidleybits]

Is all of Halforums collectively trolling me at this point? Or have I gone completely insane?

Not at all, in my case I just don’t know how to respond to the subject.

 

[blotsfan]

Waking up in a haze after last night. Having to get out of bed to go feed the cat because he gets cranky when his breakfast is late. Make his food before I realize it was actually early for him to eat. But I woke myself up enough where I cant go back to sleep.

 

[Dave]

 

[HCGLNS]

Son of a ....

 

[figmentPez]

Son of a ....

Muppets are just Jim Henson lying to you.

 

[HCGLNS]

Muppets are just Jim Henson lying to you.

WHAT?!?!?! Even Doozers?

 

[Sparhawk]

WHAT?!?!?! Even Doozers?

Especially Doozers. All their “construction” projects are just a cover for their nefarious plans.

 

[General Specific]

Especially Doozers. All their “construction” projects are just a cover for their nefarious plans.

Good thing the Fraggles were there to eat the buildings as they went up..... waaaaaaiiiiiiit, they were in on it, weren't they?

 

[HCGLNS]

1 "H2O = 248.84 Pa

 

[Bubble181]

The local pet shelter (where we volunteer and for who we forster dogs on occasion) just received a police seizure of 68 Cane Corsos.
They're pretty big (100+ pounds fully grown) dogs, of the "really good and loyal if trained well, really vicious and aggressive if not properly socialized" variety.
No idea what's going to happen, there's not enough shelter space to accomodate them all, there's all kinds of different ages, most of them are either underweight or sick (cherry eye, some cancers, festering wounds, worms,...).
And I *said* police seizure, but in fact the police just came for one or two of them - the rest the owner "willingly" gave up...Meaning the shelter doesn't get any financial assistance for taking them. Even spreading them around the country, there's no way to treat them all and give them a proper home - it's a hard breed to keep and not at all suited to appartment/city/busy life.

Anyone in the market for a really big brown fuzzy cuddlemachine/guard dog? Maybe two? maybe 50?

 

[Fun Size]

When places like the Humane Society went over the costs of owning a dog, somehow I missed the section about how many scented candles I would need to deal with the uncontrollable dog farts while I'm trying to work. Also, I've always been a cat person, so can anyone tell me if it's supposed to smell like hot garbage or if my boy is special? We're talking dumpsters in August type odors here.