Qualia and the Mystery of Colors

It’s “relevance”??!!

Color is the very subject of this thread. If you cannot tell me what you mean by “color”, then you literally do not know what you are talking about, because color IS THE SUBJECT.

If that is what YOU mean when you say “color”, then in this thread, you are talking about a “property of an object”. You are NOT talking about a mentally assigned value or qualia. A property of an object can be objectively measured.

But is that what everyone else is talking about?
Probably not (hence senseless bickering).

I am pretty sure that everyone already knows what color is. Whether or not they can define it. It is certainly not true that you cannot know what something is without being able to express it using language or without being able to compare it to some other thing to which it is related.

You asked for a definition and I gave you one.

If you read my previous posts, instead of simply ignoring them, you would know that I am speaking of color qua quality.

My suspicion is that you are making no point whatsoever.

Logically you gave a definition by taking it from Google which in essence means that Google gave you one and therefore Google gave James a definition of Color/Colour - how about you offer one from your own brain/mind. I think that would be more interesting actually.

How are you “pretty sure that everyone already knows what color is”? That is a rather peculiar thing to say given that you can only be sure about what you know or would you disagree? I am not trying to be mean here Magnus - just trying to make some sense of what you are saying. I would be interested to know if you are completely sure about what you know.

Anyway . . .

:-k

Define “define”.

I see.

:astonished:

:laughing:

=D>

Nice one . . .

Rational discourse it seems has become unlikely for the time being. Those who partake in this thread need to ask themselves a particular question if a plausible result for conversation is to be had. The beginning view, from what I see, falls upon being able to definitively give an answer(preferably to yourself) to whether you care about the original post.

Let me quote a key pair of sentences:

:-k

Well, I didn’t think you were trying to be mean until you told me you weren’t trying to be mean.

He asked for a definition. I gave him one. He didn’t like it. Apparently, he’s asking for a specific definition. I don’t know what kind of definition he’s asking for and I don’t know for what purpose. In fact, I suspect he doesn’t know either.

We already know what color is. I am sure there is no ambiguity here. For those of us who have an experience of colors, at least.

One of the questions posed in the OP is whether qualities are real or not.

My approach is based on my judgment that we already know what qualities are but that we don’t know what the word “real” means.

The problematic word is not “color” but “real”.

OK Magnus. It seems to me that you care more about what you are saying than the original post however I have been known to be wrong on occasion.

Anyway, I have a question for Frankenstein:

Is the last word supposed to be interact instead of interest? My apologies if this seems like nitpicking.

Regarding your post Frankenstein, I found the opening sequence of words “Mary, Quite Contrary: Consciousness Unexplained” rather enjoyable to read - I like how it mirrors the same amount of syllables as the nursery rhyme - rather creative in my opinion. Is this opening sequence an object of your imagination or some other persons?

I will do my best to ask as many sensible questions as possible.

:smiley:

I expect better from you (although I can’t think of a good reason to).

You have a very strange notion of what it means to care.

Apparently, the fact that I am not answering his questions – basically doing what he wants me to do – means I am not caring.

The fact that I am trying to solve – and not only trying to solve but also actively solving – the problems presented in his paper is not caring enough.

Apparently, what is caring enough is asking questions that have nothing to the with the content and everything to do with the form such as “did you mean interact instead of interest?” and “how did you come up with the title of your paper?”

Good thing you show to him how much caring you are by doing what you imagine to be caring.

You might have to dumb it down a bit for me Magnus - you are using too many big words. I am not that smart.

Maybe you shouldn’t be on a philosophy forum then.

Maybe you are right - it was fun while it lasted. Farewell.

:smiley:

That’s it for affect, James? The definition[s] isn’t/aren’t complete.

It could be more wordy, but it is complete.

Personally, I agree with the definition you gave. Others seem to be thinking of something else … undefined (hence the senseless bickering).

^^^ case in point.

Real == the property of potential to have affect.
:sunglasses:

Yeah, is about that time it seems (a little too common around here).

…and vice versa.

I thought my reply smart :wink:

Yes, I am sure that you do.

Thank you. I am the original writer and yes it is meant to be interact. I had to change my name because I forgot my password when I went absent for a year.

@ Stephen C Pedersen

I did not even check the date - oh well.

:smiley:

Just out of interest, how did the presentation go?

I don’t think there is any “senseless bickering” in this thread.

I am also pretty sure the problematic word isn’t “color” but “existence”.

There are words that have no reference to something that has been experienced in the past. We simply call them meaningless words. Some philosophers use technical terms such as “empty signifiers” to refer to them.

These are not merely words that refer to something imaginary. No, these are words that have no reference point whatsoever.

I have no idea what you mean when you say “undefined” but one possibility is precisely this, I mean, “having no reference point in experience”.

Usually, such words are formed when something we expect to be there turns out not to be there.

Sort of like expecting to see a circle only to end up seeing a square. Unable to admit that there is no square, one settles for something meaningless such as “square circle”. It’s not exactly a circle but it’s not something other than the circle either!

There are questions that have no answers. We like to believe otherwise.

Mathematicians ask “how many [straight line] units are there in the circumference of a circle with a diameter that is d [straight line] units long?”

There is no answer to this question because such a relation does not exist. You cannot construct a boundary of a circle using straight lines.

There is no C = d * Pi where Pi is at least a decimal or a rational number (none of which are numbers.)

There is no exact equality between C and d * x, only approximate equality.

There is no Pi. Noone ever saw Pi. We imagined that it exists because we needed it to exist. But it does not.

Instead, what there is is a set of decimal numbers, or more precisely, an algorithm for calculating the multiplier based on some desired degree of precision.

Now, I want you to compare the concept “Pi” to the concept “color qualia” and look me in the eye and tell me that the latter is undefined when it’s pretty fucking clear that most of us have an experience of it.

But who knows what you’re speaking of when you say “undefined”. Perhaps you don’t know what colors are qualitatively? I can’t tell.

The problem that troubles the concept “Pi” does not trouble the concept “color qualia” but it does trouble the concept “existence”.

Many say existence is mind-independent. Which is a ridiculous claim, if you think about it.

How can we know anything that is mind-independent?
Is that some sort of “out-of-body(or should I say mind?) experience”?
Seriously?

And if I deny mind-independence I am automatically a subjectivist who thinks that anything goes?

@ Magnus Anderson

Fair enough, seriously though I was not trying to be mean. I just looked at my own words and thought that maybe they could possibly come across as being mean.

I will let you and James sort any ambiguity out that the pair of you may or may not have. I was personally interested in your definition as opposed to google’s - I get the picture that they are the same.

As far as the rest of our interaction is concerned - people have different ideas - I see that as quite a usual occurrence. To say that I have a very strange notion of what it means to care I think is a little rough given that we do not know each other very well but then I was being a little rough myself so I guess I deserved that.

“did you mean interact instead of interest?” and “how did you come up with the title of your paper?”

I think the first question is reasonable - I just wanted to be absolutely sure. I don’t think it was me who asked the second question unless you are referring to the following:

Just a minor curiosity - not really important to the overall topic but not a completely terrible conversation starter. Put it this way, I have seen worse.

Well I have been known to be wrong on occasion - it is true - in fact I have lost count of the amount of times I have been wrong. I do try to learn from my mistakes however.

I only ask that you excuse my sarcasm on this occasion.

The thread still remains interesting from what I can tell.

:smiley: