Re: Of colorful scepticism
Re: Of colorful scepticism
- Subject: Re: Of colorful scepticism
- From: Darrian Young <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 18:13:09 +0200
Igor Asselbergs wrote:
>
>
> Let's take a coca-cola can. You 'see' coca-cola red, right? You would
>
> like to reproduce this coca-cola red on a device. But the colour is
>
> subjective: it only exists in your brain. (This is not some wild
>
> hypothesis, I'm talking science here. I'm talking about the essence of
>
> colour constancy) If it only exists in you brain, how can you reproduce
>
> it on a device? You simply can't.
There a quite a few holes in this one. If you take this even further, you
could ask, why try to reproduce color at all since all colors are only in
your brain? That's not a very positive starting point. If you do want to
view things from this point of view, however, here is an answer. The coke
can causes a series of reactions in your brain giving you the impression or
sensation of seeing red. So the goal is not to make the device print this
red, but rather to print something which causes the same reactions to occur
in your brain giving you once again the same subjective sensation of red. I
think I will continue to try and see life from a simpler point of view,
however.
Since Henrik started on the philosophy thing, and I know he likes
Kierkegaard, I will mention a short parable. (Henrik feel free to correct as
I do not have my books here at hand) Two artists went out into the world to
paint portraits of people and after a time both returned. When asking each
other how their experience had gone, the first replied that he had not been
able to paint a single portrait due to the fact that he had not been able to
find even one person worth painting a portrait of. The other exclaimed how
strange this was because he also had not painted a single portrait, but for
the reason that he had seen so many beautiful traits worth painting, that he
could not decide where to start.
Henrick wrote:
>
>
This is one of the most common metaphysical labyrinths unravelled in
>
mainstream Anglo-American 'ordinary language philosophy' since the
>
mid-thirties (a misnomer for descriptive logic that describes what it
>
actually makes sense to say as opposed to normative logic that
>
prescribes cures for the fictitious ailment that we have yet to
>
figure out how to make sense ... sort of an odd project many have
>
embarked upon, when you stop to think about it -:)).
>
Henrick, where do get that this is an Anglo-American thing?
Best regards.
--
Darrian Young
Microgestio Valencia