How do we know that we know what we know?

[BEAKER]

... When remainders agree it is a congruence relation.

Ok so far?

Copesetic,:naughty: totally!

[questor]

our perception of color, smells, all sensory things should be roughly the same because our senses are developed from the human gene pool which creates human tissue. perception of other interpretive phenomena is subject to the difference in neural pathways formed by genetics and colored by individual

physical and cultural experiences.

[Turtle]

our perception of color, smells, all sensory things should be roughly the same because our senses are developed from the human gene pool which creates human tissue. perception of other interpretive phenomena is subject to the difference in neural pathways formed by genetics and colored by individual

physical and cultural experiences.

 

Yes questor, that is well writ. I see it, so I say it. Now, from what premise does the 'well writ' writing stem. This is no more or less than the perfect time to employ Descarte's Method. We must reduce as far as we may before confidently rebuilding & we agree with the world that there is no smaller reduction than to 1. Tease out more of the truth of your well writ piece & rewrite it. Then post it. Do not discard the other as it is the new benchmark. Continue posting by all means.

 

 

 

 

:naughty:

[HydrogenBond]

I agree that the sensory organs are similar in most people, while things like light and chemical stimuli are fixed by nature into discrete packets. Beyond that there is often some degree of subjectivity as to how one interprets the data, unless one goes along with the party line. This is most obvious when dealing with works of art. Our sensors all see roughtly the same colors emissions, lines and angles, but one will interpret the work of art within the confines of our own subjectvity unless we learned by rote what we are to think about it.

[Pyrotex]

as for the color thing, that's something i've wondered ever since i was a little kid. but i'm sure with the frequency spectrum and all that, it's the same. although i really don't know, and am looking forward to what this thread has to offer.

 

Hello Orb,

I am a recent newcomer to this site, but there are so many interesting questions, that sometimes I cannot help but try to answer.

 

Do we all percieve the color "blue" the same? Let's take this one step at a time.

 

Blue, Green and Red are specific frequencies of light, with Red having the longest wavelength of the three, and Blue the shortest.

 

Our retinas contain three specific varieties of color-detecting cells. They each react to a wide bandwith of colors, but their peak sensitivities are Blue, Green and Red. The colors they respond to overlap to some extent. For example, the Green-sensitive cells will also react to Yellow and Greenish-Blue to a lesser extent.

 

So, in all Humans, the colors have the same affect on the retina. Orange affects my retina electro-chemically the same as it does yours -- by exciting primarily Red-sensitive cells and a few Green-sensitive cells.

 

The electrical input to the Human brain is therefore consistent for all people. Our brains receive the same input for the same color. It is at this point that I have to change logic, for we have no way of knowing if the visual cortex (VC) is hardwired exactly the same in all Humans. Do all VC's react the same way to indentical input signals?

 

What if our VC's did NOT respond the same way to identical input signals? Would we ever know the difference? In at least some cases, YES. People who are color-blind in any of several different ways obviously have VC's that do not respond the same. And we KNOW THIS, that is, we are aware that we (or someone else) are color-blind. The fact that the VC responds differently eventually becomes obvious. People who are color-blind don't have to have this proven to them. Over years of casual conversation, it becomes clear to them that they cannot "see" Red (or Orange, or whatever) the same way that other people do.

 

Therefore, I have shown that identical colors will result in identical signals to the brain's VC. And I have demonstrated that when certain VC's respond differently, we come to eventually be aware of this and often call it color blindness. I know my friend James is Orange color-blind and so does he. We know that his perception of Orange is different than mine.

 

My conclusion is therefore, that if in the general population, each person's perception of "Blue" was "different" in some way, then in the course of normal conversations, and normal activities (such as painting, finding fruit in trees, etc) it would sooner or later become obvious that our perceptions are different.

 

This doesn't happen. Therefore our perceptions are the same.

[Drip Curl Magic]

as for the color thing, that's something i've wondered ever since i was a little kid.

 

I remember discussing the color topic with you like 2 years ago. That was our first deep conversation.

[Pyrotex]

I remember discussing the color topic with you like 2 years ago. That was our first deep conversation.

 

Really? Well blow me down and hello! :naughty:

Two years ago, I was mostly posting in alt.philosophy and a few other news groups. They dried up. What was your handle back then? (If'n you remember)

[Drip Curl Magic]

haha, I was directing that towards Orbsycli. I probably should have specified.:naughty:

[arkain101]

How do we know that the color I call "blue" is perceived the same as your "blue."? With bottom-up processing, how can we be sure that stimuli are perceived in the same way by everybody? One final question: since an atom is mostly empty space (equating to nothing), how does matter emerge from groups of atoms? In other words, how can we have something from nothing?

 

I think the answer lies in a question that goes a little further than this. What for example, causes "US", the power of "I AM", to create color. Color means nothing to anything that is not life. If matter can neither be created or destroyed, then, we have a problem here because color is the very essence of a creation beyond matter and energy. I think we see what our invisible non materialistic part of us see's which is the same as the source in which we eminate from see's. Be atheist you may but, color is just one part of life that is a constant creation from the reality we are surrounded in and in the most likely case is the same experience for one as it is for all. Of course we have physical errors which can defuse our interpratation of certain frequencies and blind us of two colors... ei, color blind. But, simple atoms can not be the reason for creation of color, this is more than material.

[arkain101]

But if we wanted to test the color idea.

We would use things as white and black.

Black must be the same for one as the other because it is the lack of light.

So if we got some test subjects and asked them, would you describe blue as a color that blends with black and stands out in white?

would you describe yellow as a color that stands out in black and blends with white? and so on.

Colors that lean towards the begginning and end of our color spectrum seem deeper, or darker in nature than the central frequency colors, since they are leaning towards black frequencies we cant interpret which leavse us in blackness.

So I guess if a very concise experiment was organized im sure we could prove color is same for one as it is for all.

[Doctordick]

Therefore, I have shown that identical colors will result in identical signals to the brain's VC. And I have demonstrated that when certain VC's respond differently, we come to eventually be aware of this and often call it color blindness. I know my friend James is Orange color-blind and so does he. We know that his perception of Orange is different than mine.

 

My conclusion is therefore, that if in the general population, each person's perception of "Blue" was "different" in some way, then in the course of normal conversations, and normal activities (such as painting, finding fruit in trees, etc) it would sooner or later become obvious that our perceptions are different.

 

This doesn't happen. Therefore our perceptions are the same.

This post shows how inaccurate (due to invalid assumptions) some seemingly logical deductions can be. You have apparently failed to notice my post (message #22 page #3 of this thread). :confused:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[Pyrotex]

You guys need to read the article "Color Perception Is Not In The Eye Of The Beholder" B)

...they manage to model the source of totally undefined data (the universe is undefined until they comprehend it) transcribed by an undefined process (their senses, which are only defined after the model is created)....By the way, do "we all share the same world" or is that just an assumption we make? The question is a lot deeper than it appears.

 

Well, here we are in message #22 on page 3.

Well, here we are deep within the bowels of existentialism's unlighted sub-basement. There are trap doors leading even deeper into the abyss. The message on the wall (written in eons-old dried blood) says that the trap doors and the levels go on down forever without end.

"Let's get to the bottom of this" is looking like a dubious proposition at best.

 

Do we all share the same world? No. We all live inside the mental model of the world that we built in our childhood when we were too young to understand or even remember how we were building that model. We live in our mental worlds and pretend that we are living in the 'real world'.

 

As Alfred Korzybski told us so eloquently, "The map is not the territory". It's worse than that; all of our maps have defects and wrinkles and flaws and holes and smudges here and there.

 

"Look HERE!" I say, pointing to a spot in my mental world-map, "It's BLUE!"

 

"Look HERE!" you say, pointing to the associated spot in your mental world-map, "It's obviously GRUEN!"

 

Sigh. There is a way around and out of this infinite regress of withdrawals into ever-deeper existentialist levels. But it requires a cooperative spirit and a willingness, nay, a LOVE of mutual and collaboratively supportive world-map building.

 

Unless of course, this is all bullsh*t. :confused:

[Turtle]

Sigh. There is a way around and out of this infinite regress of withdrawals into ever-deeper existentialist levels. But it requires a cooperative spirit and a willingness, nay, a LOVE of mutual and mutually supportive world-map building.

 

We have such a map; it is called a dictionary. Ever updating new editions, new words, associations, etc.. You have hit the nail on the head. Now let's build something. If I see a word in your post Pyro that I don't know, I stop & look it up, & then come back & re-read the sentence/paragraph/post with my new defintion. I have re-mapped my understanding of the world.

I think the way to lessen mis-understanding is to make sure everyone has a dictionary & knows how to use it & further does use it.

 

We do have to & must agrre on the simplest "thing", & that is "one".

 

one___adjective. 1. Designating a single entity, unit, object, or being. 2. Characterized by unity; of a single kind or nature; undivided. 3. Designating a person or thing that is contrasted with another or others. 4. Designating a specified but indefinate thing or time. 5. a. Designating a certain person, especially a person not previously known or mentioned. b. Designating an indefinate time or occassion. 6. A or an. Used informally as a substitute for the indefinate article for emphasis. 7. Single in kind; alike or the same. 8. Being unique of a specified or implied kind.

___noun. 1. a. The first cardinal number; the first positive whole number after zero. b. A symbol representing this such as 1, I, or i. 2. A size or thing designated as one. 3. A single person or thing; a unit. 4. The first in a series. 5. A one dollar bill or coin. b. One hour after midnight or noon. 7. British Informal. A humorous or jocular person. 8. -a rightone. British Informal. A fool or nuisance.

___Pronoun. 1. A certain person or thing; someone or something. 2. Any person or thing; anyone or anything. 3. a. Any person representing the same, usually priviledged social class as the speaker. b. The speaker. 4. A single person or thing among persons or things already known or mentioned. -at one. In accord or unity. -in one. At the first in a single attempt. -one and all. Everyone. -one another. Each other. Used to describe a reciprocal relation or action. -one by one. Individually and in succession.:confused:

[Pyrotex]

We do have to & must agrre on the simplest "thing", & that is "one".

 

That is one incredible definition. One couldn't do better than to accept that. Obviously, one should use the dictionary, and for more than just that one word. Well done, Turtle. You're one up on me. :confused:

[arkain101]

Our invention of reality as a child is surly a correct interpratation. but, our creation of anything is that of ego. One who is egoless can only be one thing and all who are one thing unite in egolessness. Ego can be changed, ego can be choice. What is left if one does happen to grow to learn to operate without ego? , the same thing as which you originated from and began as.

 

If what you realize agrees with reason and benifits one and all than it is your knowing. We all came from the same place, nowhere, and came here, somewhere, and we shall all die and go, nowhere.