Sufficient conditions of knowledge

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 11:42 am
@fast,
You confused him when you said this:

kennethamy wrote:

After it rains, snow turns a slushy gray. Does that mean the snow is not white? No, it does not.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 12:09 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;107587 wrote:
You confused him when you said this:

It occurs to me that I was talking about what I "know" about actual snow... not snow as a concept. But I think we've been around the ferris wheel and back on that issue, huh?

I wasn't trying to say anything startling. To me it's pretty obvious that snow has bands and dots of white, but how we answer the question of what color it is depends on the conversation. If I was trying to teach somebody English, I could point to snow and say "white" and then point to a piece of paper and say "white" and be pretty sure that he'd understand.

If I was teaching Kennethamy to paint, I'd wouldn't explain it at all. I think his art would be a literal impression of conventions of thought. I love that kind of art.

For a decade, I argued with a friend about objective truth. Anymore, I find that I'm not really sure what I was saying all that time. I think we were talking cross purposes. My friend was talking about how we anchor ourselves to what's outside of us. I was assuming that I'm tied to an anchor that goes down inside me. Truth appears against a backdrop of untruth... just like the whiteness of snow appears as highlights in the context of shadow.
 
ACB
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 12:58 pm
@Arjuna,
I agree with Arjuna that even newly fallen snow, as it actually appears to the eye, is often not pure white. It reflects the colour of the sky, so on a cloudy day it will appear a very pale grey, and at sunrise or sunset it may have a reddish tinge. You would need to take this into account if you were painting a realistic snow scene.

However, there would be intersubjective agreement about the colour of a particular patch of snow under given light conditions. So I don't think this point has anything to do with the subjective/objective distinction.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 01:13 pm
@fast,
We say snow is white in much the same way we say strawberries are red, peaches are orange, and lemons yellow. Never will you find a strawberry that is pure red, a peach that is pure orange, or a lemon that is pure yellow. But that's not the point.

We refer to snow as white because we associate the thing with the descriptor, color. We can do this while simultaneously acknowledging that observing the exact frequency and wavelength that makes a pure color, over the entirety of a large surface, in real life, may be rare.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 01:13 pm
@ACB,
ACB;107598 wrote:
I agree with Arjuna that even newly fallen snow, as it actually appears to the eye, is often not pure white. It reflects the colour of the sky, so on a cloudy day it will appear a very pale grey, and at sunrise or sunset it may have a reddish tinge. You would need to take this into account if you were painting a realistic snow scene.

However, there would be intersubjective agreement about the colour of a particular patch of snow under given light conditions. So I don't think this point has anything to do with the subjective/objective distinction.



Sometimes, when I purchase a suit of clothes, the shop has fluorescent lighting, and I know that distorts the color of the material. So, if it is a nice day, I take it outside to see the actual color of the material. And it is often quite different from the color it had in the store. But that is the real color of the material. The real color is the color it appears to have under what are considered the normal conditions of observation.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 01:45 pm
@kennethamy,
Zetherin;107602 wrote:
We say snow is white in much the same way we say strawberries are red, peaches are orange, and lemons yellow. Never will you find a strawberry that is pure red, a peach that is pure orange, or a lemon that is pure yellow. But that's not the point.

We refer to snow as white because we associate the thing with the descriptor, color. We can do this while simultaneously acknowledging that observing the exact frequency and wavelength that makes a pure color, over the entirety of a large surface, in real life, may be rare.
It sounds like you're saying that when we say an apple is red, we're taking for granted that when we say red, we mean red blended to brown with yellow dots and a little violet and black in the shadows. In other words, saying it's red is a shortened symbol. That's all I was saying.

ACB;107598 wrote:
I agree with Arjuna that even newly fallen snow, as it actually appears to the eye, is often not pure white. It reflects the colour of the sky, so on a cloudy day it will appear a very pale grey, and at sunrise or sunset it may have a reddish tinge. You would need to take this into account if you were painting a realistic snow scene.

However, there would be intersubjective agreement about the colour of a particular patch of snow under given light conditions. So I don't think this point has anything to do with the subjective/objective distinction.
Sorry if I took the conversation astray. I think we all agree knowledge involves a dynamic between subjective experience and objective impressions.

kennethamy;107603 wrote:
Sometimes, when I purchase a suit of clothes, the shop has fluorescent lighting, and I know that distorts the color of the material. So, if it is a nice day, I take it outside to see the actual color of the material. And it is often quite different from the color it had in the store. But that is the real color of the material. The real color is the color it appears to have under what are considered the normal conditions of observation.
I understand what you're saying. Can you imagine that to me, the real color is whatever color it happens to be when I'm observing it?
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 01:54 pm
@kennethamy,
I think maybe what Arjuna is trying to say is that color isnt really 'out there' so to speak, but rather its what wavelength our eyes are interpreting. White isnt an intrinsic property of snow; in fact wouldnt it be more accurate to say that every color but its apparent color is actually 'in' the object? This is kinda hard to say but pure light from the sun contains all the colors of the spectrum (this is why you see rainbows) and what wavelength our eyes are interpreting is what is being reflected from the given object, while the rest of the colors arent reflected but rather absorbed by the object.

Maybe an example would be better: watching pictures emitted from a projector on to a wall display several different types of colors, but you wouldnt say that all those colors are a part of the wall. Rather its what the wall is reflecting back to your eyes is what we perceive -not the 'actual' color of the wall.

This probably doesnt make much sense right now because Im a little low on glucose. Wink
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 01:57 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;107616 wrote:
It sounds like you're saying that when we say an apple is red, we're taking for granted that when we say red, we mean red blended to brown with yellow dots and a little violet and black in the shadows. In other words, saying it's red is a shortened symbol. That's all I was saying.

Sorry if I took the conversation astray. I think we all agree knowledge involves a dynamic between subjective experience and objective impressions.

I understand what you're saying. Can you imagine that to me, the real color is whatever color it happens to be when I'm observing it?


I can imagine it, of course. But that is not what is meant by "the real color" of an object. It is a deviant use of that phrase. Can you mean that each time you change the conditions of observation, the real color of the object also changes? But we use "real color" to contrast the color of the object with colors changing with conditions of observation. X's real color is the color it is despite appearing to change with conditions. So your use of "real color" is in opposition to the use of that expression in ordinary language. Why not, instead of using the term, "real color" in that way, why not just say, "the color it appears to me now"? Why say, "real color".
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 02:04 pm
@fast,
Arjuna wrote:
It sounds like you're saying that when we say an apple is red, we're taking for granted that when we say red, we mean red blended to brown with yellow dots and a little violet and black in the shadows. In other words, saying it's red is a shortened symbol. That's all I was saying.


We do have to take into consideration that real objects most often have other hues blended, but when we say apples are red, we are saying that under normal, ideal conditions, apples are red. Why do you think we call apples red? I think it's because predominantly apples have the property of red; they resemble the color that we call red. And we join the property with the thing for easy categorization. It is not wrong to illustrate to children that apples are red, despite the truth that there may be other hues blended in actual apples. If you look in a children's book, you will see that the apple is absent of all hues; it is colored in pure red. This helps children understand what we mean when we say red and refer to those things we associate as being red.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 02:50 pm
@Zetherin,
Kielicious;107618 wrote:
I think maybe what Arjuna is trying to say is that color isnt really 'out there' so to speak, but rather its what wavelength our eyes are interpreting. White isnt an intrinsic property of snow; in fact wouldnt it be more accurate to say that every color but its apparent color is actually 'in' the object? This is kinda hard to say but pure light from the sun contains all the colors of the spectrum (this is why you see rainbows) and what wavelength our eyes are interpreting is what is being reflected from the given object, while the rest of the colors arent reflected but rather absorbed by the object.

Maybe an example would be better: watching pictures emitted from a projector on to a wall display several different types of colors, but you wouldnt say that all those colors are a part of the wall. Rather its what the wall is reflecting back to your eyes is what we perceive -not the 'actual' color of the wall.

This probably doesnt make much sense right now because Im a little low on glucose. Wink
Eat something yummy! Yea, the idea of the "actual" color of the wall versus what we see when we "actually" look at it, was pivotal for me philosophically.

kennethamy;107619 wrote:
I can imagine it, of course. But that is not what is meant by "the real color" of an object. It is a deviant use of that phrase. Can you mean that each time you change the conditions of observation, the real color of the object also changes? But we use "real color" to contrast the color of the object with colors changing with conditions of observation. X's real color is the color it is despite appearing to change with conditions. So your use of "real color" is in opposition to the use of that expression in ordinary language. Why not, instead of using the term, "real color" in that way, why not just say, "the color it appears to me now"? Why say, "real color".
I understand what you mean by "real color." What I see is real. Conventions are real. To me, what's not real is fiction. I saw a woman drowned in a movie. It wasn't real.

My gusto flags at the prospect of explaining how I think about the reality of color and the nature of conventions.

Zetherin;107626 wrote:
We do have to take into consideration that real objects most often have other hues blended, but when we say apples are red, we are saying that under normal, ideal conditions, apples are red. Why do you think we call apples red?
I know apples are red. Smile
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 03:04 pm
@fast,
Kielicious wrote:
White isnt an intrinsic property of snow; in fact wouldnt it be more accurate to say that every color but its apparent color is actually 'in' the object?


What is in an intrinsic property? If I picked up snow and said a property was that it was cold, would you call this an intrinsic property? It seems as though, with your logic, most properties would not be intrinsic because we realize many properties with sensory perception. Is this what you're saying - that all properties which are acknowledged through sensory perception are not intrinsic?

Quote:

Maybe an example would be better: watching pictures emitted from a projector on to a wall display several different types of colors, but you wouldnt say that all those colors are a part of the wall. Rather its what the wall is reflecting back to your eyes is what we perceive -not the 'actual' color of the wall.


Well, apples can certainly come in different colors, like green, for instance. But when we say apples are red, we are clearly referring to red apples. And, if the wall was painted beige, regardless what color the projector was projecting onto the wall, we would still say it is a beige wall. If green was projecting onto a beige wall, wouldn't you say that there was green projecting onto the beige wall, not that the beige wall is now green?
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 03:44 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;107645 wrote:
What is in an intrinsic property? If I picked up snow and said a property was that it was cold, would you call this an intrinsic property? It seems as though, with your logic, most properties would not be intrinsic because we realize many properties with sensory perception. Is this what you're saying - that all properties which are acknowledged through sensory perception are not intrinsic?


Im not saying all properties; I never said that. We are only talking about color. With that being said, apples being red is what we perceive, not the 'actual' color of the apple. Color is only represented to us because the light is bouncing off the object. For example, the light coming from traffic lights are not green, red, and yellow. Instead the light is being passed through a medium (the 'colored' lens) and most of the light is absored by the medium. What doesnt get absored is perceived by us and that is what is 'green' or 'red' or 'yellow' about the traffic light: the reflected wavelength.



Zetherin wrote:
Well, apples can certainly come in different colors, like green, for instance. But when we say apples are red, we are clearly referring to red apples. And, if the wall was painted beige, regardless what color the projector was projecting onto the wall, we would still say it is a beige wall. If green was projecting onto a beige wall, wouldn't you say that there was green projecting onto the beige wall, not that the beige wall is now green?


Of course when we say apples are red they appear red to us, but redness is not a property of the apple -its only a reflected wavelength that our eyes interpret. That would be like saying 'bentness' of a straw in water is a property of the object, its not. The straw doesnt bend, its only a distorted reflection of light.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 04:14 pm
@fast,
Kielicious wrote:
Of course when we say apples are red they appear red to us, but redness is not a property of the apple -its only a reflected wavelength that our eyes interpret. That would be like saying 'bentness' of a straw in water is a property of the object, its not. The straw doesnt bend, its only a distorted reflection of light.


If the straw was in fact bent, bent would be a property of the straw. If the straw was not actually bent, it would not be a property of the straw. An apple can actually be red, and an apple can just look red and not actually be red. If the apple is in fact red, redness would be a property of the apple. I don't know why you think redness can't be a property. It certainly can.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 05:31 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;107640 wrote:

I understand what you mean by "real color." What I see is real. Conventions are real. To me, what's not real is fiction. I saw a woman drowned in a movie. It wasn't real.


Smile


What matters is what "real" is contrasted with. What is the real color of Marjorie's hair? It is the color she had before she dyed it. What is the real color of Marjorie's hair. It is the color it has when she isn't under all those glaring lights. And now, in that context, it is the color she had after she dyed it. The question is, what would the "not real" color be in that context. The opposite is what the "real color" is. The real color of her hair (before she dyed it) was mousy-brown. The color now, a flaming red, is not a fiction, although it is not the real color of Marjorie's hair.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 05:43 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;107662 wrote:
What matters is what "real" is contrasted with. What is the real color of Marjorie's hair? It is the color she had before she dyed it. What is the real color of Marjorie's hair. It is the color it has when she isn't under all those glaring lights. And now, in that context, it is the color she had after she dyed it. The question is, what would the "not real" color be in that context. The opposite is what the "real color" is. The real color of her hair (before she dyed it) was mousy-brown. The color now, a flaming red, is not a fiction, although it is not the real color of Marjorie's hair.


But whatever color her hair was, even if it wasn't what we call her real hair color, would be a property of her hair. If she dyed her hair blue, blue would be a property of her hair.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 05:49 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;107654 wrote:
If the straw was in fact bent, bent would be a property of the straw. If the straw was not actually bent, it would not be a property of the straw. An apple can actually be red, and an apple can just look red and not actually be red. If the apple is in fact red, redness would be a property of the apple. I don't know why you think redness can't be a property. It certainly can.



No an apple cannot actually be red, hence the point of my example.

What is 'red' about the apple is the reflected wavelength that our eyes interpret. Therefore, if there is no light to reflect then there is no color. There is only the surface structure.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 06:37 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;107665 wrote:
But whatever color her hair was, even if it wasn't what we call her real hair color, would be a property of her hair. If she dyed her hair blue, blue would be a property of her hair.


Yes, it would be a property of her hair now. But that would not make blue the real color of her hair if someone said, in amazement, "I don't think that's the real color of her hair". No one's hair is originally blue.

---------- Post added 12-02-2009 at 07:41 PM ----------

Kielicious;107666 wrote:
No an apple cannot actually be red, hence the point of my example.

What is 'red' about the apple is the reflected wavelength that our eyes interpret. Therefore, if there is no light to reflect then there is no color. There is only the surface structure.


Then what is the color of the apple? We do not see the color of apples, or anything else, in the dark. But why to you think that they have no color in the dark? Do they also have no shape (round) when we don't see or feel the shape?
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 07:03 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;107671 wrote:

Then what is the color of the apple? We do not see the color of apples, or anything else, in the dark. But why to you think that they have no color in the dark? Do they also have no shape (round) when we don't see or feel the shape?


We arent talking about our sense of touch, we are talking about sight, and color is only a reflected wavelenght of light. That example isnt equivalent.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 07:18 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;107680 wrote:
We arent talking about our sense of touch, we are talking about sight, and color is only a reflected wavelenght of light. That example isnt equivalent.


But analogous. Why say that there are no colors in the dark, but say there are shapes in the dark. They physiology of detecting shapes is analogous to that of detecting colors. We have to receive sensations in both cases. Do you think there are sounds you don't hear but dogs do hear?
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 07:35 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;107683 wrote:
But analogous. Why say that there are no colors in the dark, but say there are shapes in the dark. They physiology of detecting shapes is analogous to that of detecting colors. We have to receive sensations in both cases. Do you think there are sounds you don't hear but dogs do hear?



Ok, the analogy isnt equivalent.

There arent any colors in the dark because color is defined by what wavelength is being reflected off of the said object. So no light means no color. Similarly if there was no auditoy frequency then there wouldnt be sounds.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/20/2021 at 02:51:15