Kaz1983 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:45 pm
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:55 am
A thing is the color that it reflects, refracts, or emits. From Earth in the day the sky is usually blue unless it's hidden by clouds or smog. All that does is describe the hue balance or predominant wavelength that's coming from it.
If everybody on Earth was blind, all 7 billion.
Would the sky be blue or just sunlight that reflects, refracts, or emits?
If everybody went blind today it would still be blue tomorrow.
If nobody had ever seen then we probably wouldn't have the word "blue" but it would still be the same color just minus a word to describe it. It would still be what WE know of as blue.
Kaz1983 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:45 pmHow do we even know if it's our subjective experience of interpretation of like I said the sunlight that reflects, refracts, or emits?
You use the scientific method to separate subjective qualia from objective facts.
For example, the sky might look blue to us even if it were really just gray if other things around us were yellow. But pointing a camera at it would be able to give us the actual color.
Kaz1983 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:45 pmIs because we can see it with our eyes? Objective science is still subjective at the end of the day.
Objective science is not subjective at the end of this or any day.
The nature of scientific methodology controls for human bias and artifacts of perception.
Consider this common length illusion explained here:
https://www.dynamicbrain.ca/long-short.html
Is length then subjective? NO, of course not. Our perception of length is just biased by context because of our monkey brains.
If you take an actual ruler to those to control for that illusion you will find the actual length of them.
You're confusing the subjectivity of very flawed and easily manipulated human perception with the subjectivity of actual fact when measured more reliably.
Kaz1983 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:45 pmColour isn't objective though
Color is objective. It is relative to circumstance, but it's objective. It's composed of different wavelengths of light (which is discussed in physics) giving us HUE. You can search "blue wavelength" and you'll get numerical answers. Then components of saturation and the total relative amount of light giving us lightness or brightness.
It's absolutely based on objective facts of the universe.
Hex code, RGB, and CMYK with standard outputs have only further cemented these definitions.
Now when we talk about specific color names like "coral" or "sea foam" or "eggshell" these things have far less precise definitions. That doesn't mean color as a whole is subjective. That doesn't mean blue is or could be red.
If you're arguing all of color is subjective because we have some more vague terms like "coral" where people might disagree and that don't have specific definitions, that's like saying because we have "arm's length" as a vague length people use sometimes that all length is subjective. It's absurd.
Human perception of color, which can be manipulated by illusions or biases and expectation, can be more subjective. The actual color something is is not subjective. The fact of the existence of more vague terms doesn't invalidate the objectivity of defined terms for colors.
You either completely misunderstand the physics of light and optics, or you're conflating two things.
Kaz1983 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:45 pmWe don't even know if what you call blue isn't red and if I don't see blue as yellow,
If you see light at 450 nanometers and you call it "red", you're simply wrong.
Like I said, you're confusing qualia and delusions with actual fact.
Kaz1983 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:45 pmlike I said the colour isn't free of subjectivity. The definition of subjective:
"Something that you consider as true might not necessarily be considered true by another person"
That's a crude definition of subjective, not used here or in philosophy generally.
People disagree on the fact of the shape of the Earth too, it doesn't make it subjective.
People can disagree on ANYTHING. People can think 1+1=4. People can think contradictions are true. People can think any kind of nonsense you can imagine.
When people disagree on something *objective* then one or both of them are wrong because there is a truth to the matter independent of their opinions or beliefs. When they disagree on something *subjective* then neither of them are wrong and they're just expressing their opinions or subjective perceptions on a matter. THAT is the difference between subjective and objective.
If you're claiming that anything anybody can disagree on must be subjective and defining subjective as such, you're just begging the question with a special definition.
Kaz1983 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:45 pmThe weight of something isn't subjective, your right.
Why? Because it's not something that you consider to be true might, that might be true to another person.
That's asinine.
People can easily disagree on the weights of things. You can also create illusions that make things *seem* to weigh more or less based on bulk, appearance, a shifting center of gravity, of leverage.
I could give you two carefully designed items that each weigh exactly 50 lb in this location and have you swear one weighs much less than another.
Kaz1983 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:45 pmThe reason weight isn't objective, is because it's veritable by another person and not open to opinion. If there were nobody on earth, the rock would still weight the same as it does not.
The exact same with color.
Kaz1983 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:45 pmColour is subjective tho, yes it admits properties but it's a subjective experience at the end of the day.. what is blue for me might be actually yellow and what it is blue for you might be red, there is no way of telling.
Again, that's qualia, not the actual fact of something's color. Color is not limited to a qualia, it involves defined colors with specific wavelength.
Kaz1983 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:45 pm
Check out Mary's room thought experiment, I posted it above.
Your'e talking about this:
http://www.philosophy-index.com/jackson/marys-room/
Even the person who made up the thought experiment eventually realized it was a poor argument and changed his mind on it:
It is important to note, though, that years later, Jackson reversed his stance on the argument, explaining that the knowledge argument and Mary’s Room are deeply rooted in our intuitions about the matter, but that science can offer other explanations for the apparent discrepancy.
It's rare to have an argument so bad even the original author comes to his or her senses.
Wikipedia goes into much more detail on the refutations...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument
But it's not even an argument relevant to what you're trying to argue here. Mary's Room is an argument against the
physicalism of QUALIA, not against the physicalism of color or against its objectivity outside ourselves. To the contrary, it maintains the fact of the objectivity of colors as scientifically knowable and only questions whether the
experience of color can be accounted for by physical sciences.
AGAIN I tell you that you're confusing the qualia with the thing itself.
I'm not very keen on being sent on wild goose chases for a thought experiment which not only has nothing to do with your argument, but actually (if you look into it) casually contradicts your claims as part of its setup.
Kaz1983 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:45 pm
Just replace the way a person experiences/takes in different colours, for the way a person experiences weight. It does make sense, a person doesn't experience/take in the weight of an object. It weight the same, regardless of whether a person is on earth or not unlike the perception of colour.
No, that's mass. Do you not even know the difference between mass and weight?
You're wrong about everything. Please stop and take some time to do more reading and reconsider this issue.