Interesting article didnt know where it fit best so I wanted to share it here.

  • Pinklink@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why does philosophy constantly twist things into an over complicated mythical mess, and then act like it’s some novel insight? Like the things with colors: they only exist subjectively so they aren’t real in any other sense than being observed, so it’s only the observation that makes them real, and does that mean they are even real???

    Yes, they are. Subatomic particles vibrate (or absorb vibrations) at specific frequencies, and therefor emit electromagnetic waves at certain frequencies when stimulated. That is real and objective. Evolution has left us with sensors and neurons that can detect and interpret some of these frequencies that appear to us as colors. That is subjective, but the science behind it is not. That’s what happens. Is the color real? Well, define the question better and there is an actual answer. The vibrations are real. Your interpretation is also real, but in a different way. Does the color exist without an observer? Well, what’s your definition of color? Does a tree falling in the woods with nothing to hear it make a sound? Well, what’s your definition of a sound?

    • TylerDurdenJunior@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The argument is not that they don’t exist.

      A color is an example that not all perceived can be described using terms of the physical world, and has variables that can only be experienced rather than described

      • Stovetop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It all exists in some capacity. Color is either the electromagnetic frequency emitted by particles when stimulated by radiation, or it is the electrochemical signals firing through your brain which process an image based on the way cells in your eyes absorb those frequencies. Or, more precisely I suppose, the intersection of both is where “color” exists, as one cannot occur without the other.

        • Poteryashka@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Another aspect of this conversation was what was posited by the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis. The experiential differences in perception of color can also be attributed to differences in culture / upbringing which influenced one’s processing of the stimuli itself. I tend to oversimplify it to the firmware analogy. Sometimes you get raw input and the languages provide different libraries for comtextualizing this input.

      • DeusHircus@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Red is light at the 480 THz range. Blue is light at the 670 THz range. I think that’s perfectly described using terms of the physical world. If you’re talking about “what we experience as color” as being difficult to describe in our consciousness, then sure but that’s the case for every single thing we experience. Same way I can describe the musical note A as 440 Hz. Does an A to you sound the same to me? My tongue is sensing a sugar molecule, does the experience of tasting it feel the same to you?

        Not a single human perception can be described in words, but we can all compare perceptions to other perceptions and agree on the same answer. Perceptions are simply us recognizing patterns in our environment. Red is me recognizing my eyeball is looking at an object reflecting light in the 480 THz range. You look at that red ball and you also recognize it as reflecting light at 480 THz. Does it need to be described any further?

    • Kyle@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I love this, it’s an emotionally regulated rant that’s so eloquently written that it’s more intelligent and informative than the article in question.

      • TomBishop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Only if you stopped reading after the first paragraph and that’s a position held by Galileo which, as comes immediately after, is outdated.

    • Affine Connection@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Does a tree falling in the woods with nothing to hear it make a sound?

      It’s probably № 1 on my list of stupidest questions. The answer is yes.

      • CountZero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah, but is a pressure wave propagating through air truly a sound if it does not interact with something that can hear? Or is it just the movement of air???

        LoL, I’m sorry I couldn’t help myself.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I mean, it’s a pretty settled question, but I don’t know if I’d say “stupid”. How do you prove something you cannot ever measure exists? I think there’s rough agreement that you can at least be very confident the sound does, although how exactly varies by school of thought.

        • 0xD@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not sure if I understood you correctly, but in that case you cannot measure the tree falling and therefore you would not be able to even ask or think of that question.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            So that’s a point against it existing, but maybe you find the fallen tree later and ask if it was loud when it fell. Most people would agree a tree works the exact same way watched or not, though. There’s different justifications why. Some people would say ontological momentum; I’d point to Occam’s razor, which can be mathematically derived from Solomonoff calculus, and the laws of physics we have which can fit on a pamphlet and are supposed to apply anywhere at any time.

    • Affine Connection@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why does philosophy constantly twist things into an over complicated mythical mess, and then act like it’s some novel insight?

      I cannot stand that either, but this sort of pseudo-profundity is more common in some specific schools of thought, rather than philosophy in general.

    • Bob@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I suppose what it is is that smaller questions are answered, bringing along with these answers jargon and special terms, then these special terms are used to define greater special terms, and so on until you end up with a big twisty answer to a seemingly simple question, and people who haven’t read the answers with the smaller special terms look at the twisty answer in understandable bemusement.

      Edit: This also happens to be one of life’s big unanswered questions. I had an assignment on it for my MPhil a couple of years ago.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It does seems like philosophers do that sometimes, but how do you know there’s electromagnetic radiation in the first place? You can’t sense it unless if happens to vibrate in a narrow frequency range and even then only imperfectly. So, there’s also really necessary philosophy. I guess it’s just hard to objectively separate the quality stuff from the wankery.