Objects And Properties

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

MMP2506
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 12:11 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;162736 wrote:

The next time you guys run a red light, argue with the police officer by saying, "Well actually kind sir, color is dependent on the observer, and that particular light doesn't actually have a particular color. My colorblind friend in the back here sees it as grey, by the way". Know why you wouldn't do that? Because you know the damn light was red, and you know he wouldn't buy that awful argument! :perplexed:


The universal concept of Red is inter-subjectively known to be what red lights represent. Only because of this inter-subjective agreement does the light become recognized as red and therefore as a symbol to stop.

Where people seem to be disagreeing with you concerns the implications that follow the way you are using your words. Whether or not people see the light as red, we know that it is "Red" because we have communicated to each other the meaning of "Red" and the meaning of a red light. The redness/"Red" has nothing to do with the existence of the object outside of any experience of it.

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 01:14 AM ----------

Zetherin;162745 wrote:
People do experience the world under normal circumstances. That's why we study it. I don't know exactly what you mean by "as everyone's experience of things is different, but related", but it sounds too "relativistic" to me. There's definitely intersubjectivity in regards to the things we experience. But of course, you already know that. The entirety of this conversation will be just reminding you guys what you already know, while you continue to argue contrary.

Do you stop at red lights? Do you even know what a red light is? And no, those questions are not sarcastic. You are quite literally telling me that people cannot view traffic lights under normal circumstances and see when the light is green, yellow, or red. And this scares me. Especially if you're a driver.



This statement has nothing to do with anything I or anyone else has said:

"You are quite literally telling me that people cannot view traffic lights under
normal circumstances and see when the light is green, yellow, or red."

People can grasp what a color is without having an identical experience of it with someone else.

So you believe everyone's experience of the color red is exactly the same?

If that is true my friend then that is far scarier than not being able to be normal.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 12:18 am
@Pythagorean,
MMP2506 wrote:
he universal concept of Red is inter-subjectively known to be what red lights represent. Only because of this inter-subjective agreement does the light become recognized as red and therefore as a symbol to stop.


Do you know why this intersubjectivity is present? Because people see the colors under normal circumstances.

Quote:
The redness/"Red" has nothing to do with the existence of the object outside of any experience of it.


But that doesn't mean that it isn't a property of the object, is the point. It is an observed property. A pan can have the property of being hot. A note can have the property of being low. A piece of candy can have the property of being sour.

Quote:
So you believe everyone's experience of the color red is exactly the same?


No, I do not believe this. As noted, people can be colorblind, and in this instance, people could see the color differently than I (if that is what you mean by "experience the color X"). It is similar to the fact that some people can taste things that others cannot. For instance, some people simply cannot taste really, really sweet things (I forget the threshold index). And so the same really, really sweet thing could be experienced differently between someone who can taste the higher threshold of sweetness, and someone who cannot.
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 12:24 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;162751 wrote:
Do you know why this intersubjectivity is present? Because people see the colors under normal circumstances.


The inter subjectivity makes seeing colors possible. A baby doesn't start to see things in terms of the colors that we use to describe them because he can't yet comprehend what a color is.

People see things similar, but no two sets of eyes could possibly see the exact same thing simply because of their biological/structural differences.


Zetherin;162751 wrote:

But that doesn't mean that it isn't a property of the object, is the point. It is an observed property. A pan can have the property of being hot. A note can have the property of being low. A piece of candy can have the property of being sour.


Locke is the one that began using properties to describe accidental aspects of things, and that is not the definition of property that I am using.

I am using the Aristotelian concept of property which is distinguishable from a things accidentals. If we are to have any sort of meaningful conversation we need to get over our communicative differences.

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 01:28 AM ----------

Zetherin;162751 wrote:




No, I do not believe this. As noted, people can be colorblind, and in this instance, people could see the color differently than I (if that is what you mean by "experience the color X"). It is similar to the fact that some people can taste things that others cannot. For instance, some people simply cannot taste really, really sweet things (I forget the threshold index). And so the same really, really sweet thing could be experienced differently between someone who can taste the higher threshold of sweetness, and someone who cannot.


See we are getting somewhere.

What we mean by "experience of red" is what is different between individuals, and because it is different between individuals, nobody experiences red objectively/normally.

You must be able to follow that Logic.

The experience of red is always subjective, and we can bridge understanding about our subjective experience inter-subjectively. This is where concepts such as colors are created. Before that, they cannot exist. What is bridged, however, is different then our experience of red, but it is still connected with it.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 12:31 am
@Pythagorean,
MMP2506 wrote:
The inter subjectivity makes seeing colors possible.


Our eyes make seeing colors possible. Along with our brain, I think.

Quote:
A baby doesn't start to see things in terms of the colors that we use to describe them because he can't yet comprehend what a color is.


I didn't know that. At what age do children begin seeing color? I honestly haven't done any research on this, but I don't see how this is relevant.

Quote:
Locke is the one that began using properties to describe accidental aspects of things, and that is not the definition of property that I am using.

I am using the Aristotelian concept of property which is distinguishable from a things accidentals. If we are to have any sort of meaningful conversation we need to get over our communicative differences.


I am using the definition of property: Any attribute, feature, characteristic, quality of a thing. A thing must have at least one property to exist; conversely, things which do not have properties do not exist. Does that help?

Let me know if you think this conversation can be productive. If not, I will take your word for it and be on my way. I really don't mean that harshly at all. I am sure you don't feel like playing ring around the rosie, either.
 
prothero
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 12:31 am
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;162712 wrote:
This does not make all aspects of things relative, however, as some properties are essential parts of things dependent upon the observer. Otherwise you will find yourself stuck in solipsism and that is never a good foundation for a philosophy..

Well they are more relative and observor dependent than you might like to think. For instance mass and volume are both dependent on observational method and frame of reference for the observer. Try the Lorenz transformations in special and general relativity. In fact you will have a hard time describing a property that is not observer and method of observation dependent. For space and time themselves are flexible observer dependent and not fixed. The speed of light is theorectically fixed. Planck lenghts and a few other universal constants. Most of what you think of as the properties of objects though are in fact observer and method of observation and frame of reference dependent not fixed or constant at all. Of course for me objects are just enduring events anyway and all events are at least partially experiential (mental). The implications of quantum collapse and general relativity are more extensive then we experience in our everyday world.
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 12:37 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;162760 wrote:
Our eyes make seeing colors possible. Along with our brain, I think.


Im not saying that is wrong, Im saying it is incomplete. Our eyes, brain, and linguistic capabilities are all necessary to experience color because what a color is is something that is experienced in these ways. It is what is essential to being a color, and only a linguistically focused mind can comprehend essentials.


Zetherin;162760 wrote:

I didn't know that. At what age do children begin seeing color? I honestly haven't done any research on this, but I don't see how this is
relevant.


Well I have, and children cannot differentiate between colors until they are able to name them. This shows the importance of inter-subjectivity in mental processes. It seems directly related to me.



Zetherin;162760 wrote:

I am using the definition of property: Any attribute, feature, characteristic, quality of a thing. A thing must have at least one property to exist; conversely, things which do not have properties do not exist. Does that help?
r.


Yes it does because I am not using that definition. By property I mean what Aristotle meant, and that is the potentiality within an object. You can call it it's purpose or final cause if you like. It is quite different than your definition.

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 01:40 AM ----------

prothero;162761 wrote:
Well they are more relative and observor dependent than you might like to think. For instance mass and volume are both dependent on observational method and frame of reference for the observer. Try the Lorenz transformations in special and general relativity. In fact you will have a hard time describing a property that is not observer and method of observation dependent. For space and time themselves are flexible observer dependent and not fixed. The speed of light is theorectically fixed. Planck lenghts and a few other universal constants. Most of what you think of as the properties of objects though are in fact observer and method of observation and frame of reference dependent not fixed or constant at all. Of course for me objects are just enduring events anyway and all events are at least partially experiential (mental). The implications of quantum collapse and general relativity are more extensive then we experience in our everyday world.


Right, a things mass and volume are both accidentals that are relative. Other things, such as properties and essentials, are necessary for a thing to be a thing, and are universal.

In my opinion having a brain is an essential aspect of being a live human being. A human being cannot live without a brain. Therefore, having a brain is not a relative aspect among human beings.

That is why I said that not all aspects of things are relative, but you are right, some are.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 12:42 am
@Pythagorean,
MMP2506 wrote:
Yes it does because I am not using that definition. By property I mean what Aristotle meant, and that is the potentiality within an object. You can call it it's purpose or final cause if you like. It is quite different than your definition.


Can you provide me a link so that I can study the definition you're using?

Thanks,

Zeth
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 12:53 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;162768 wrote:
Can you provide me a link so that I can study the definition you're using?

Thanks,

Zeth


I can refer you to a book that I read which put the whole thing into context for me. Phenomenology of the Human Person by Robert Sokolowski.

Aristotle talked about a things final cause and this was the things ability to change, or its potential.

Husserl picked up on this idea of teleology and purpose, and he incorporated it into his inter-subjective description of metaphysical reality.

A property is not merely what a thing is presently presenting, but also all potential aspect which that thing could possibly present. Therefore, to reduce the color of a thing to merely how it is presenting at a certain time, i.e. an accidental aspect of it, is to allowing yourself to be ignorant of all other possible ways in which that thing can appear. In different lightings, it has the property to manifest as a different color. It is not solely dependent upon the thing itself, but upon its relatedness to its surroundings.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 03:08 am
@prothero,
prothero;162708 wrote:
Things do not have a true color. The color is dependent on the method of observation and the observer. ???


I suppose that is an argument. But it is an enthymeme. An argument with a missing premise. The missing premise is that if the color is dependent on the method of observation and the observer, then it is not a "true color". Thus, the complete argument is:

1. If color is dependent on the method of observation and the observer, then things do not have true color.
2. Color is dependent on the method of observation and the observer.

Therefore, 3. Things do not have true color.

The argument is valid. But the question now arises, are the premises true? In particular, is premise 1. true?

Your turn.

P.S. And, for about 5 minutes, can we just forget what Aristotle, or Husserl, or some other philosopher wrote (or did not write) and just consider the issue? . For about five minutes? Is that too much to ask? It might even be fun. It would certainly be refreshing.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 09:42 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;162736 wrote:


You believe that if I shine a green light on a carrot and the carrot appears green, it is now a green carrot? Maybe I'm kidding myself, but I believe that the carrot is orange, but that a green light is shining on it which makes it appear green.


Your analogies make no sense and your logic is flawed. I don't know why you think the perceived color of an object can be compared with a certain spectrum of light or why you distinguish the green light of your flashlight from the yellow light if the sun as somehow secondary but clearly you do not possess the faculties required to understand some very basic truths.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 10:17 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;162956 wrote:
Your analogies make no sense and your logic is flawed. I don't know why you think the perceived color of an object can be compared with a certain spectrum of light or why you distinguish the green light of your flashlight from the yellow light if the sun as somehow secondary but clearly you do not possess the faculties required to understand some very basic truths.


You really can't help but insult me, can you? That's practically all you've done the entire thread. No, I suppose I "do not possess the faculties required to understand some very basic truths". There, I've voiced it, and you need not reply, since I probably wouldn't be able to understand anything sophisticated you write (since I don't possess the faculties required).

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 12:23 PM ----------

premise for consideration wrote:
If color is dependent on the method of observation and the observer, then things do not have true color.


Well, how about we replace "color" with other secondary properties here. Does this sound true? "If temperature is dependent on the method of observation and the observer, then things do not have true temperature" Or this, "If sound is dependent on the method of observation and the observer, then things do not have true sound (things cannot truly make high or low notes, for instance).
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 10:26 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;162964 wrote:
Y

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 12:23 PM ----------



Well, how about we replace "color" with other secondary properties here. Does this sound true? "If temperature is dependent on the method of observation and the observer, then things do not have true temperature" Or this, "If sound is dependent on the method of observation and the observer, then things do not have true sound (things cannot truly make high or low notes, for instance).


Originally Posted by kennethamy
If color is dependent on the method of observation and the observer, then things do not have true color.

I did not originally post that. Indeed, I think it is nonsense. And I agree with you. Where on earth did you get that post imputed to me?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 10:30 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;162967 wrote:
Originally Posted by kennethamy
If color is dependent on the method of observation and the observer, then things do not have true color.

I did not originally post that. Indeed, I think it is nonsense. And I agree with you. Where on earth did you get that post imputed to me?


No, I know you didn't. I was quoting the premise that you are laying out for consideration. Prothero is the one who believes it. There, I edited the quote. Sorry about that.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 10:32 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;162972 wrote:
No, I know you didn't. I was quoting the premise that you are laying out for consideration. Prothero is the one who believes it. There, I edited the quote. Sorry about that.


Good, I was considering an action for defamation of character. You avoided it just in time.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 10:33 am
@Pythagorean,
But do you think that to show that the premise is not true, we could compare color to other secondary properties (for instance, if we use temperature, the premise just looks silly)? Is that a fair evaluation?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 10:34 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;162976 wrote:
But do you think that to show that the premise is not true, we could compare color to other secondary properties? Is that a fair evaluation?


Why not?.............
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 10:36 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;162845 wrote:
I suppose that is an argument. But it is an enthymeme. An argument with a missing premise. The missing premise is that if the color is dependent on the method of observation and the observer, then it is not a "true color". Thus, the complete argument is:

1. If color is dependent on the method of observation and the observer, then things do not have true color.
2. Color is dependent on the method of observation and the observer.

Therefore, 3. Things do not have true color.

The argument is valid. But the question now arises, are the premises true? In particular, is premise 1. true?

Your turn.






If colour is not dependent on the method of observation and the observer then there must exist a definition of "true" colour that is universally verifiable. So what is the definition of true colour?

-
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 10:38 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:

So what is the definition of true colour?


The true color of an object is the color which an object is, observed under normal cirumstances.

Quote:

If colour is not dependent on the method of observation


And remember, I don't think anyone is claiming this. What is being argued is that just because this is true, it does not follow that things do not have a true color.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 10:53 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;162979 wrote:
If colour is not dependent on the method of observation and the observer then there must exist a definition of "true" colour that is universally verifiable. So what is the definition of true colour?

-


The color that something has rather than only seems to have? What that will turn out to be will, of course, depend on context. "The true color of Sandra's hair (before she dyed it) was brown. It is now black". "The true color of my coat is navy blue. But under those store lights, it looks purple". "The true color of objects in the Emerald City varies. But since everyone in the Emerald City has to wear green tinted glasses, everything looks green".
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 10:55 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;162991 wrote:
The color that something has rather than only seems to have? What that will turn out to be will, of course, depend on context. "The true color of Sandra's hair (before she dyed it) was brown. It is now black". "The true color of my coat is navy blue. But under those store lights, it looks purple". "The true color of objects in the Emerald City varies. But since everyone in the Emerald City has to wear green tinted glasses, everything looks green".


Yes. The pan I just pulled out of a 500 degree oven is not now cool simply because I am using oven mits to move it to the dining room. It is truly hot. But, with the use of oven mits, it appears cooler to me than it really is. How we perceive things, and what truly is, are sometimes different.

And I think that applies here.

If a green light is shining on a carrot, the carrot may appear green. But the true color of the carrot is not green. It's orange.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/22/2019 at 03:24:58