A smart thread for smart people...

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]Reality is what it is and isn't changed by our perception of itgrounderman

but our perception of reality can be changed, making our understanding of reality something else to what it is. changing it.

this sugar tastes salty

but there is no salt in it

that does not matter...it tastes salty, therefore sugar (CHO) must be salt (NaCl)!!!

No...I dont see that happening...I hate amateur philosophy, all it leads to is stalemates, hurt feelings, and people questioning their existence lol

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Colors are reflected light and registered by our eyes. Color only exists in the minds of humans; everything consists of many colors, but we only see one. What's more, the words "red" and "blue" are simply words; what we call "red" can just as easily be called "blue," with no meaning changed. Therefore, the marker is every color of the spectrum.mrbojangles25

its been a while since I had a class explaining this, but are not colors scientifically categorized in a certain way?

Doesnt the color red reflect at a certain wavelength, and the color green at another? Isnt white the reflection of all colors, and black the reflection of none?

So no, color is not subjective, and they are not just words without real meaning. There is actual real-world physics behind it, and the science has been documented and labels (i.e. red, blue, green) applied to it.

So in 1000 years when the world is run by the Church of Frag, and His children call red markers blue and all kinds of other nonsense, a usurper from the Cult of Bojangles will come forth with an ancient, dusty tome of science and proclaim the ultimate truth! Red is RED! And this is why!

That's precisely the thing...you can change the definition of "blue", you can find a different word to replace the word "yellow".

What you can't do is to take things that are defined as yellow, selectively pick out one of those things, and then decide that that particular thing is now green. That doesn't work. Because if everything else of the same color is still agreed to be "yellow", then the definition of "yellow" has not changed. To then take a yellow banana and arbitrarily choose to call it "red" would simply be wrong.

However, it would be acceptable to say that EVERYTHING yellow is now the color "blorsch".

The average person would perceive it as the wave length that the English language describes as blue, and many other languages use other terms.. The word is not important its merely a name for a perception of ours.sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The label changes, the physical properties of the color do not.

FragStains

I do not understand your question. Labels are arbitrarily defined by humans for the purposes of communication. There are scientifically quantifiable properties of different colors. Those properties do not change with a label change.

[QUOTE="grounderman"]

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]Reality is what it is and isn't changed by our perception of itLJS9502_basic

but our perception of reality can be changed, making our understanding of reality something else to what it is. changing it.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]The average person would perceive it as the wave length that the English language describes as blue, and many other languages use other terms.. The word is not important its merely a name for a perception of ours.LJS9502_basic

Thats just it OUR perceptions can change, its just what we percieve of reality... Especially when genetic disorders of color blindness are included and such.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="grounderman"]

but our perception of reality can be changed, making our understanding of reality something else to what it is. changing it.

grounderman

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]The average person would perceive it as the wave length that the English language describes as blue, and many other languages use other terms.. The word is not important its merely a name for a perception of ours.sSubZerOo

Thats just it OUR perceptions can change, its just what we percieve of reality... Especially when genetic disorders of color blindness are included and such.

[QUOTE="grounderman"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Reality that is distorted is no reality....LJS9502_basic

no. i am speaking hypothetically. like the bulk of philosophical discussions

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] But it is important if the actual perception of blue has not changed. Hence, you now have two markers you are calling blue. One is blue..and one is traditionally red. It's impossible to correlate the two different colors as the same....LJS9502_basic

Thats just it OUR perceptions can change, its just what we percieve of reality... Especially when genetic disorders of color blindness are included and such.

Furthermore, colorblindness is irrelevant.

To a color blind person, a green apple and a red apple might both look gray. However, even the colorblind person could analyze the wavelengths of light being reflected from the apple, and come to the conclusion that neither apple is actually gray.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] But it is important if the actual perception of blue has not changed. Hence, you now have two markers you are calling blue. One is blue..and one is traditionally red. It's impossible to correlate the two different colors as the same....LJS9502_basic

Thats just it OUR perceptions can change, its just what we percieve of reality... Especially when genetic disorders of color blindness are included and such.

Some one who has color blindness or is in fact BLIND will say OTHERWISE.. Hence it is not impossible.. Our perception can change.. Blue or red is just a name for a wave length of light we can see.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Thats just it OUR perceptions can change, its just what we percieve of reality... Especially when genetic disorders of color blindness are included and such.

MrGeezer

Furthermore, colorblindness is irrelevant.

To a color blind person, a green apple and a red apple might both look gray. However, even the colorblind person could analyze the wavelengths of light being reflected from the apple, and come to the conclusion that neither apple is actually gray.

That doesn't make a difference.. They have no perception what blue or red is.. Meaning the definition is irrelevent to them. And if no one told them that it looked different from grey, would they come to that conclusion? I think not.

The only thing changed is the title of the color, not the color itself.

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]Reality is what it is and isn't changed by our perception of itgrounderman

but our perception of reality can be changed, making our understanding of reality something else to what it is. changing it.

One's physical perception of light waves isn't altered by a label change. So perception does not change here.

It depends on if you believe in semantic realism or semantic nominalism - that linguistic form is causally connected to meaning or that the connection is completely conventional.

Because to me at least the most likely scenario is that the crowd simply changed the way they call the colour (the word they use), not that they suddenly see the colour blue where it is red.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Thats just it OUR perceptions can change, its just what we percieve of reality... Especially when genetic disorders of color blindness are included and such.

sSubZerOo

Some one who has color blindness or is in fact BLIND will say OTHERWISE.. Hence it is not impossible.. Our perception can change.. Blue or red is just a name for a wave length of light we can see.

That doesn't make a difference.. They have no perception what blue or red is.. Meaning the definition is irrelevent to them. And if no one told them that it looked different from grey, would they come to that conclusion? I think not.

sSubZerOo

It doesn't matter if they know the difference. The fact is, their perceptions do not fit the definition. Therefore, if it appears like X to them, when the actual properties make it Y, then they are simply WRONG to say that it is X.

It doesn't matter if they're incapable of determining that it's Y simply by looking at it. It's still defined as Y, regardless of what the blind person perceives.

[QUOTE="grounderman"]

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]Reality is what it is and isn't changed by our perception of itcoolbeans90

but our perception of reality can be changed, making our understanding of reality something else to what it is. changing it.

One's physical perception of light waves isn't altered by a label change. So perception does not change here.

i never mentioned light waves.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="grounderman"]

but our perception of reality can be changed, making our understanding of reality something else to what it is. changing it.

grounderman

One's physical perception of light waves isn't altered by a label change. So perception does not change here.

i never mentioned light waves.

Fair enough.

>Hypothetical

>Same color postulate

>Smart people

>OT

The perfect formula to lure all the pseudo-intellectuals. 10/10 TC.

Red and Blue suck, I see Green.

The marker is what it is....if you all decide to label that as ooga boooga....it's now ooga boooga......the pigmentation remains what it is no matter the label you place on it...Omni-Slash

In "absolute" terms, the marker would still be red, because the fact that every single person on earth agrees it's blue won't change the wavelenghts of light it reflects and all that stuff; we have labeled a certain wavelenght as "red" and a different one as "blue", and those wavelenghts won't change just because everyone suddenly decides "red" isn't red anymore.

However, people don't work in "absolute" terms; everything we do is relative, subjective, and limited by our perception of things. Everyone has their own "reality" which differs from everyone else's based on that particular person's perceptions, ideas, preconceptions, etc.; it doesn't matter what's "really there", because both our senses and our understanding are very limited. We can't see what's really there, we're limited by what our senses can perceive and how our brains interpret that information, which inevitably means we can only work with what we perceive, regardless if it's really there or not.

This is evidenced by the fact that people usually regard what the majority agrees to as acceptable, desirable, and sometimes even as fact, regardless if it's actually true or not. No matter how ridiculous the idea, as long as enough people believe it, it will become the norm, and in a way, reality, because people will perceive it as the truth, and since perception is all we have, perception is our reality, regardless if what we perceive is real or not.

So, to answer the question: would the marker suddenly stop being red just because everyone says so? No. Would the marker become blue anyway, despite it's real color? Yes, yes it would.

There's my two cents. :P

I gather every single human on the planet, and I hold up a red marker.FragStains

If we are going by current definitions, then you've held up a marker close to the wavelength of this color.

I say to the people: "This is a blue marker".FragStains

If we are going by current definitions, then you've held up a marker close to the wavelength of this color.

Every single person responds by saying, "Yes. I agree that that is a blue marker."

Is the marker red or blue?FragStains

Not unless the majority are aknowledging that you are redefining the word "blue" to mean the same thing as red, so when people say "blue" they mean blue. If you did, then the marker is both colors, since you've established red and blue as representing the same color. If you did not redefine the word, which the question does not say, then the marker is simply red.

[QUOTE="FragStains"]

If we are going by current definitions, then you've held up a marker close to the wavelength of this color.

[QUOTE="FragStains"]I say to the people: "This is a blue marker".Genetic_Code

If we are going by current definitions, then you've held up a marker close to the wavelength of this color.

Every single person responds by saying, "Yes. I agree that that is a blue marker."

Is the marker red or blue?FragStains

Not unless the majority are aknowledging that you are redefining the word "blue" to mean the same thing as red, so when people say "blue" they mean blue. If you did, then the marker is both colors, since you've established red and blue as representing the same color. If you did not redefine the word, which the question does not say, then the marker is simply red.

Can an absolute consensus redefine things by their acceptance?FragStains

Can an absolute consensus redefine things by their acceptance?FragStains

It happens outside of this hypothetical anyway, just not as swiftly and in that scale as is described in the hypothetical.

Hypothetical:

I gather every single human on the planet, and I hold up a red marker. I say to the people: "This is a blue marker". Every single person responds by saying, "Yes. I agree that that is a blue marker."

Is the marker red or blue?

Now, I see lots of flaws in this question...but instead of adressing them all right now, I'd like you all to discuss the content of the question and the meaning behind it.

This is a discussion forum after all. I can't hold your hands forever.

Think about it before you answer. Bring up other questions or feelings.

Begin.

FragStains

Words are human constructs, with no meaning other than that which humans give it. If every human suddenly decided that what was previously defined as "red" is now defined as "blue" and vice versa, then it would be so. There is no objective basis to define the word "red" to refer to light waves of a given wavelength and "blue" to refer to light waves of a different wavelength rather than the other way around.

The first thing I thought of was just because everyone beleives in the same religion doesn't mean it's true

The first thing I thought of was just because everyone beleives in the same religion doesn't mean it's true

Alacoque72

The names that we give colors are socially constructed. So if every person really decided that "red" were to become "blue", then it would be so. *sits with legs crossed and hands folded in lap*fidosim

its red

if everyone on this planet says one thing (the marker is blue when it wrirtes red) does'nt mean a thing (it will always be red .. why? because we all grew up knowing it as red .... but lets say we grew up in a society where red was always known as blue .... that would be different

its red

if everyone on this planet says one thing (the marker is blue when it wrirtes red) does'nt mean a thing (it will always be red .. why? because we all grew up knowing it as red .... but lets say we grew up in a society where red was always known as blue .... that would be different

zoraluv

What is "red", and what makes it "red"?

[QUOTE="zoraluv"]

its red

if everyone on this planet says one thing (the marker is blue when it wrirtes red) does'nt mean a thing (it will always be red .. why? because we all grew up knowing it as red .... but lets say we grew up in a society where red was always known as blue .... that would be different

GabuEx

What is "red", and what makes it "red"?

red is the color ... are what the maker represents (if its a deeper meaning)

what make it red? hmm i don't un derstand this fully (probably should'nt of gotten into this right after school )

[QUOTE="zoraluv"]

its red

if everyone on this planet says one thing (the marker is blue when it wrirtes red) does'nt mean a thing (it will always be red .. why? because we all grew up knowing it as red .... but lets say we grew up in a society where red was always known as blue .... that would be different

GabuEx

What is "red", and what makes it "red"?

red is the color ... are what the maker represents (if its a deeper meaning)

what make it red? hmm i don't un derstand this fully (probably should'nt of gotten into this right after school )

zoraluv

Actually, no. In linguistics it's important to differentiate between "lexemes" and "phonemes". A "lexeme" is a word in a language; a "phoneme" is an abstract concept that may be described by a word. The phoneme in question here is electromagnetic waves with a wavelength between 630-740 nm. However, that is not "red"; "red" is the lexeme used to describe that phoneme. "Red" is nothing more than an artificial identifier invented by humans to refer to that abstract concept. If tomorrow humans decided to instead attach the lexeme "blue" to this phoneme, then "blue" would now be the correct lexeme to use to refer to that phoneme.

One should always take care to separate the language used to describe something from that which is being described.

[QUOTE="zoraluv"]

red is the color ... are what the maker represents (if its a deeper meaning)

what make it red? hmm i don't un derstand this fully (probably should'nt of gotten into this right after school )

GabuEx

Actually, no. In linguistics it's important to differentiate between "lexemes" and "phonemes". A "lexeme" is a word in a language; a "phoneme" is an abstract concept that may be described by a word. The phoneme in question here is electromagnetic waves with a wavelength between 630-740 nm. However, that is not "red"; "red" is the lexeme used to describe that phoneme. "Red" is nothing more than an artificial identifier invented by humans to refer to that abstract concept. If tomorrow humans decided to instead attach the lexeme "blue" to this phoneme, then "blue" would now be the correct lexeme to use to refer to that phoneme.

One should always take care to separate the language used to describe something from that which is being described.

Lexeme is the abstract notion behind a word and phonemes is what the form (the word) is made out of.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="zoraluv"]

red is the color ... are what the maker represents (if its a deeper meaning)

what make it red? hmm i don't un derstand this fully (probably should'nt of gotten into this right after school )

Teenaged

Actually, no. In linguistics it's important to differentiate between "lexemes" and "phonemes". A "lexeme" is a word in a language; a "phoneme" is an abstract concept that may be described by a word. The phoneme in question here is electromagnetic waves with a wavelength between 630-740 nm. However, that is not "red"; "red" is the lexeme used to describe that phoneme. "Red" is nothing more than an artificial identifier invented by humans to refer to that abstract concept. If tomorrow humans decided to instead attach the lexeme "blue" to this phoneme, then "blue" would now be the correct lexeme to use to refer to that phoneme.

One should always take care to separate the language used to describe something from that which is being described.

Lexeme is the abstract notion behind a word and phoneme is what the form (the word) is made out of.

Lexeme is definitely the word; however, it would seem I was thinking of something else for the latter. Regardless, the technical language is irrelevant to the point being made.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Actually, no. In linguistics it's important to differentiate between "lexemes" and "phonemes". A "lexeme" is a word in a language; a "phoneme" is an abstract concept that may be described by a word. The phoneme in question here is electromagnetic waves with a wavelength between 630-740 nm. However, that is not "red"; "red" is the lexeme used to describe that phoneme. "Red" is nothing more than an artificial identifier invented by humans to refer to that abstract concept. If tomorrow humans decided to instead attach the lexeme "blue" to this phoneme, then "blue" would now be the correct lexeme to use to refer to that phoneme.

One should always take care to separate the language used to describe something from that which is being described.

GabuEx

Lexeme is the abstract notion behind a word and phoneme is what the form (the word) is made out of.

Lexeme is definitely the word; however, it would seem I was thinking of something else for the latter. Regardless, the technical language is irrelevant to the point being made.

And further on you said ""red" is the lexeme used to describe that phoneme.", which seems like a description of the form (the word in quotes) under the term "lexeme" which is not correct.

Unless I misunderstood something.