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:

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Things do not have a true color. The color is dependent on the method of observation and the observer. ???

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

So what is the definition of true colour?

If colour is not dependent on the method of observation

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".