[AnotherAvatar]

Discuss?...or should we just default to arguing the premise, no matter how scientifically evident?

[Dru]

the sky only appears a bluish hue to our eyes, and even that may not be a constant; people may have just learned to call what they see the sky as on a clear day "blue".

same for grass, except different types of grass can be different colors, though i suppose that distinction is mostly irrelevant as there are almost always elements of green.

and, well, i can't really find anything about the wetness of water to argue, because by definition for something to be wet it has to be doused in water or some other liquid, which likely has water in it.

this isn't very fun.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by AnotherAvatar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Discuss?...or should we just default to arguing the premise, no matter how scientifically evident?

I don't know about your science but the science of Dr. Beau Lotto is fairly straight forward - '
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is not a color of the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.'

I would guess you are of the school of thought that this reality is an 'objective reality out there'. Not me.

[nettneu]

All right then. I wonder what "scientifically evident" means? The scientific method involves testing with repeatable experiments the predictions derived from hypotheses. So how does that relate to being evident? Surely if you say something is evident, you're claiming that it doesn't need testing. So science isn't relevant to it.

Whether it's evident at all depends on your definitions. Grass which has been dried up in the summer tends to be brown rather than green. And is Blue Grass green? Is the sky blue at night? Is water wet when it's frozen? You could have definitions which eliminate these problems, but it's not evident that you do, considering people don't usually define the terms with the necessary precision. A precision which would, incidentally, also be desirable if you wanted to treat the "premise" as a hypothesis and test it scientifically.

If the statement is supposed to be a premise, that suggests that it's intended to be used in deriving a conclusion. But a single premise on its own isn't much use for that. You either need some more premises, or else some axioms, and in any case you need some rules of inference. And I would suggest that the description "evident" would be more useful applied to a conclusion rather than a premise. A premise is something you assume to be true for the sake of argument; from the point of view of its function as a premise, it's irrelevant whether it's evident or not.

[thebrainpolice]

Bertrand Russell would beg to differ.

To make our difficulties plain, let us concentrate attention on the table. To the eye it is oblong, brown and shiny, to the touch it is smooth and cool and hard; when I tap it, it gives out a wooden sound. Any one else who sees and feels and hears the table will agree with this description, so that it might seem as if no difficulty would arise; but as soon as we try to be more precise our troubles begin. Although I believe that the table is 'really' of the same colour all over, the parts that reflect the light look much brighter than the other parts, and some parts look white because of reflected light. I know that, if I move, the parts that reflect the light will be different, so that the apparent distribution of colours on the table will change. It follows that if several people are looking at the table at the same moment, no two of them will see exactly the same distribution of colours, because no two can see it from exactly the same point of view, and any change in the point of view makes some change in the way the light is reflected. For most practical purposes these differences are unimportant, but to the painter they are all-important: the painter has to unlearn the habit of thinking that things seem to have the colour which common sense says they 'really' have, and to learn the habit of seeing things as they appear. Here we have already the beginning of one of the distinctions that cause most trouble in philosophy—the distinction between 'appearance' and 'reality', between what things seem to be and what they are. The painter wants to know what things seem to be, the practical man and the philosopher want to know what they are; but the philosopher's wish to know this is stronger than the practical man's, and is more troubled by knowledge as to the difficulties of answering the question. To return to the table. It is evident from what we have found, that there is no colour which pre-eminently appears to be the colour of the table, or even of any one particular part of the table—it appears to be of different colours from different points of view, and there is no reason for regarding some of these as more really its colour than others. And we know that even from a given point of view the colour will seem different by artificial light, or to a colour-blind man, or to a man wearing blue spectacles, while in the dark there will be no colour at all, though to touch and hearing the table will be unchanged. This colour is not something which is inherent in the table, but something depending upon the table and the spectator and the way the light falls on the table. When, in ordinary life, we speak of the colour of the table, we only mean the sort of colour which it will seem to have to a normal spectator from an ordinary point of view under usual conditions of light. But the other colours which appear under other conditions have just as good a right to be considered real; and therefore, to avoid favouritism, we are compelled to deny that, in itself, the table has any one particular colour. The same thing applies to the texture. With the naked eye one can see the grain, but otherwise the table looks smooth and even. If we looked at it through a microscope, we should see roughnesses and hills and valleys, and all sorts of differences that are imperceptible to the naked eye. Which of these is the 'real' table? We are naturally tempted to say that what we see through the microscope is more real, but that in turn would be changed by a still more powerful microscope. If, then, we cannot trust what we see with the naked eye, why should we trust what we see through a microscope? Thus, again, the confidence in our senses with which we began deserts us.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[thod]

	this isn't very fun.

Sure it is.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[MrFlaneur]

Yeah. Beautiful isn't it?

[Oros Ull]

The Sky, Grass, Water and all other forms of physical phenomenon are only illusions cast by the parameters of your material existence. There is no color, there is no wet, they are subjective traits appearing as objective while only maintained within the scope of our human perceptions.

OUR REALITY IS A LIE!!!!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


LOL!

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sure it is. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

From the above link -
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
:

	Perhaps the thorniest issue is whether consciousness can be understood in a way that does not require a dualistic distinction between mental and physical states or properties.

The answer, in the affirmative, can be found in cutting edge consciousness research; consciousness is fundamental.

And it's falsifiable through empirical methods.

---------- Post added 04-08-2012 at 02:25 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Oros Ull To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The Sky, Grass, Water and all other forms of physical phenomenon are only illusions cast by the parameters of your material existence. There is no color, there is no wet, they are subjective traits appearing as objective while only maintained within the scope of our human perceptions. OUR REALITY IS A LIE!!!! To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. LOL!

Na
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
not a lie, hehe, just
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
:

	in Indian religions, has multiple meanings, usually quoted as "illusion", centered on the fact that we do not experience the environment itself but rather a projection of it, created by us.

[nettneu]

	Originally Posted by AnotherAvatar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Discuss?...or should we just default to arguing the premise, no matter how scientifically evident?

If the premise is evident, and there are no other premises or axioms which we might combine with it to reach conclusions, what is there to discuss?

[AnotherAvatar]

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If the premise is evident, and there are no other premises or axioms which we might combine with it to reach conclusions, what is there to discuss?

Maybe that in your earlier post you fought the premise...but more importantly 'why'.

[nowt]

'the' is retarded, as there are more skies than Earth's day; more phases to water than liquid state; more to grass than blade.

[nettneu]

	Originally Posted by AnotherAvatar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Maybe that in your earlier post you fought the premise...but more importantly 'why'.

Fought? I don't particularly have anything against the title of the thread as such, if it happens to be a fine spring day where you are. I just pointed out difficulties with your first post, questioning (a) the statement that the "premise" was "scientifically evident", and (b) the usefulness of a single allegedly evident premise as a basis for discussion.

Why? Because you invited us to.

[thod]

The marked squares in the image below are exactly the same color. You can test this yourself if you have a means of showing the RGB value. A sort of brown like the one on the right.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Yet on the left we see blue. So light of a particular frequency is not blue, that frequency just induces the qualia of blueness in the mind. Here brown is doing so.

[RBM]

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The marked squares in the image below are exactly the same color. You can test this yourself if you have a means of showing the RGB value. A sort of brown like the one on the right. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Yet on the left we see blue. So light of a particular frequency is not blue, that frequency just induces the qualia of blueness in the mind. Here brown is doing so.

If you are are UK resident you can dig up the BBC, 'Is Seeing Believing' in which Dr. Lotto demonstrates this illusion among others.

For qualia advocates:

What is the mechanism of qualia ?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
:

	But what kind of mechanism could account for qualia? Though we strongly suspect that the physical system of the brain gives rise to qualia, we do not have any understanding of how it does so. The problem of accounting for qualia has thus become known, following Chalmers, as the hard problem of consciousness.

I have linked to Chalmers in the past on this board before for those interested. In addition, in this thread it's mentioned because this is the best answer that exists to identify a mechanism.

Otherwise offering the explanation of 'Oualia did it' is no answer at all, because a mechanism responsible for cause is not specified.

[thod]

	Otherwise offering the explanation of 'Oualia did it' is no answer at all, because a mechanism responsible for cause is not specified.

One does not need to provide an alternative explanation to show that something is not true. All one need do is provide a single counter example.

[Straynger]

	Originally Posted by Schrödinger
	The sensation of colour cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so."

One wonders, is this 'Qualia' v object question even answerable? Maybe it requires that we 'step out of' our perceptive faculties to observe reality not as it appears, but in itself. I have a hard time imagining a way in which such a step would possible possible.

[Paul Siraisi]

	Originally Posted by thebrainpolice To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Bertrand Russell would beg to differ. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

All his examples can still be sufficiently replicated by 99+% of humans such that he enjoys our agreement with what he is saying. We're in lock-step on these claims of subjectivity.

[thebrainpolice]

	Originally Posted by Paul Siraisi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	All his examples can still be sufficiently replicated by 99+% of humans such that he enjoys our agreement with what he is saying. We're in lock-step on these claims of subjectivity.

True, but based on the wording of the thread title and first post the OP seemed to at least imply that grass is green by some objective standard. If he would have said "The grass is green for all intents and purposes* and anyone who disagrees is only niggling over minor details" I would have agreed with him. I don't object to people saying the grass is green, I just object to them saying its "scientifically evident" that the grass is green.

*Excluding the intents and purposes of a tiny handful of philosophers and scientists.

[AnotherAvatar]

I am wondering when someone will understand the intent of this thread.

That's OK, I can wait for the light to come on.

[Oros Ull]

Are you trying to make some naturalistic point?

Symbols of Earth, Water and Wind?

I don’t know… Is the answer Fire?

Lol...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[AnotherAvatar]

No. Read the first post.

[nowt]

Since arguing the premises is discussion, it's doubtful you understand your own OP.

	Originally Posted by AnotherAvatar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No. Read the first post.

[Dru]

	Originally Posted by AnotherAvatar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I am wondering when someone will understand the intent of this thread. That's OK, I can wait for the light to come on.

i'd like to know when certain people are going to say what it is they have to say. guessing games and the like are allocated to the lounge.

[AnotherAvatar]

Dru, I get that. I wince at the inefficiency of this as well.

But when you understand the Socratic method, why it's employed, the reasoning, then it's really a choice...to have the pedestrians come to their own conclusions, or to force them through reason and logic to come to the same conclusion.

Since I can't tie someone to a chair and force them to come clean, then this unfortunately is the only way to deal with the subject matter. Do tell if there is a better way.

Meanwhile, you and I, have to sit here, for years, if that's what it takes, whilst we watch poster after poster fight the obvious, because they can in the comfort of their own homes, at their leisure...fundamentally evade, deny, justify away, not be held accountable to the most obvious of subjects.