In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[I_am_not_mafia]

No it isn't, it's the exact same question I posed except instead of using "red"  as an example I'm using actual unknown colors...

I asked you if everyone was blind to the color "red" how would you prove it's existence, you stated essentially 'through the use of instrumentation'.

We know that more than 4 primary colors exist, so show me a fourth primary color, shouldn't be too hard since there are devices that can do so as you just stated.

You have deliberately posed a question in a way that cannot be answered because the question itself is meaningless.

To illustrate, if I give you an answer, specifying the exact wavelength, how will you determine if it is correct or not?

Are you talking about additive or subtractive mixing?

Which specific organism are you talking about?


This is just a disingenuous way to avoid acknowledging the fact that your god cannot be measured objectively and reproducibly.

You asked how we determine reality.

I answered that we can measure it and reproduce those measurements with a device.

You are deliberately equivocating between context specific and universally objective.

do "primary" colors exist?

At bottom, the only justification for primary colors is to minimize the number of components required to mix all colors. This limitation makes biological sense if you are evolving a color sensing eye (and need to minimize the number of photoreceptor cells), mathematical sense if you want to model how that eye works (and want to do it with the fewest variables), economic sense if you are printing a color job (where each color requires a separate printing plate, ink, and pass with the printing press), or technological sense if you are manufacturing color televisions or computer monitors or color film (where each color requires a separate phosphor or dye).

But in every case the choice of primary colors is either arbitrary or imperfect. And if you are not building eyes or modeling color vision responses or running a printing press or designing a computer monitor, and can inexpensively "expand your gamut" with four colors — or six, or twelve, or twenty — on your palette, then "primary" colors are irrelevant to the task before you.

[Anomalocaris]

No it isn't, it's the exact same question I posed except instead of using "red"  as an example I'm using actual unknown colors...

I asked you if everyone was blind to the color "red" how would you prove it's existence, you stated essentially 'through the use of instrumentation'.

We know that more than 4 primary colors exist, so show me a fourth primary color, shouldn't be too hard since there are devices that can do so as you just stated.

You have deliberately posed a question in a way that cannot be answered because the question itself is meaningless.

To illustrate, if I give you an answer, specifying the exact wavelength, how will you determine if it is correct or not?

Are you talking about additive or subtractive mixing?

Which specific organism are you talking about?


This is just a disingenuous way to avoid acknowledging the fact that your god cannot be measured objectively and reproducibly.

You asked how we determine reality.

I answered that we can measure it and reproduce those measurements with a device.

You are deliberately equivocating between context specific and universally objective.

do "primary" colors exist?

At bottom, the only justification for primary colors is to minimize the number of components required to mix all colors. This limitation makes biological sense if you are evolving a color sensing eye (and need to minimize the number of photoreceptor cells), mathematical sense if you want to model how that eye works (and want to do it with the fewest variables), economic sense if you are printing a color job (where each color requires a separate printing plate, ink, and pass with the printing press), or technological sense if you are manufacturing color televisions or computer monitors or color film (where each color requires a separate phosphor or dye).

But in every case the choice of primary colors is either arbitrary or imperfect. And if you are not building eyes or modeling color vision responses or running a printing press or designing a computer monitor, and can inexpensively "expand your gamut" with four colors — or six, or twelve, or twenty — on your palette, then "primary" colors are irrelevant to the task before you.

Show you a forth primary color?

You are seeing a forth primary color all the time.   You can not help but be bathed in it and see it.

The problem is although you are seeing it, you are unable to distinguish it as a primary color because your eyes do not have a particular channel whose sensitivity is at its maximum at that color.   Instead you have three other channels (if you are not color blind) whose maximum sensitivity is elsewhere but get by because sources of the new primary color is not so exact and smear out the color of the light, so you can perceive the near color as a mixture of the other three primary colors your eyes are sensitive to, not as a narrow color to which your eye ball has a dedicated channel.    So although you see those other colors, you can not call them out from a vast range of other possible mixtures of intensities of lights of all different wave length that so happened to combine to stimulate your three channels the same way.

Instruments can treat any color as an additional primary color.  So they can be made to specifically sense intensity at any arbitrary wave length.  What is more is they can be made to sense those colors very precisely and narrowly, What you select as the wave length for another primary color for your instruments can actually afford remarkable vast amount of information forever denied your eyes.  That’s how we can tell what minerals on on the moon.   That’s how we can tell the composition of jutpiter’s atmosphere.   That’s how we can tell at airports whether the molecules hanging around you have a whiff of explosives in them.  But you will need an scientific, not biblical education, to ever profit from it.

So The 4th, 5th, 6th, 167th primary color is being shown to you whenever you open your eyes.  You simply lack both the facility in your eyes to sense it as a specific color rather than a mixture of other colors, and the intelligence and familiarity with science to bypass that limitation of your eyes with instruments already designed and made for you.

[Angrboda]

Meh, colors are a phenomenon of consciousness. They are a construct. Suggesting that a color cannot be detected because there is not a construct available to consciousness is simply conflating multiple meanings of the word color. Color is a side effect of light being perceived and processed by a brain. So whether one can name a specific color or a new primary color is irrelevant because measuring the properties of light does not require the participation of biology and consciousness at that level. That we can detect infrared light makes it clear that we can detect things that there is no conscious construct for. The devices we use to detect such properties of light are themselves based upon things that we can observe and lead us to deduce the existence of infrared light. I don't know what the original point was, but this nonsense about a new primary color seems nothing more than a red herring. No, there is no construct in consciousness which corresponds to a new primary color or infrared light. That doesn't mean we can't detect "color" (strictly speaking, we can't, because it's a feature of consciousness; I rather doubt that fact is relevant to whatever the original point was).

[The Grand Nudger]

A realist or physicalist would counter that color is a property/properties of reflective bodies and their interaction with light that exists independently of any consciousness to perceive them.  If this is true, then color is in no meaningful way a phenomenon of consciousness, a construct, a side effect, or a feature of consciousness.  It is a feature of reality about which we possess representational content, but also, through our eyes, direct detection. In essence, our eyes pick it up, but our brains are more focused on finding uses for that information than the detection and communication of information in the raw. We construct utilitarian stories -about- color, but we don't construct color.

Color constancy and color universality are instructive, in that regard. We call a red object red under a range of illumination - but we do notice the difference, and we can reliably identify red. Deficiencies in either regard are most commonly a defect of the eye, not the brain.. but even when deficient ..they are still detecting properties of the object. This is why color blindness is not random.

It's irrelevant, but it's a much better convo, lol.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I think a good example is a musical note. Huggy could be asking how we could know that the Note A exists if we are not able to hear that frequency.

Radio waves have a frequency as well as sound waves. Given a length of string under tension, there is a continuum of frequencies that it can vibrate at depending on its tension. There is nothing special about it vibrating it at 440 times a second compared to say 430 hz. And in fact historically, instruments did vary in how they were tuned until it became standardised. In the same way red is deemed to have the dominant wavelength of  625–740 nanometres.

With the string, we can see that the more we tighten it the faster it vibrates, and this will include 440Hz. Same with light. Although we can't change the speed of light we can change the length of the wave. We know that the wavelength can be changed continuously from being really long to really short. We use this in lots of applications so it's more than just a theory.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ultimately, the subjectivist or irrealist position hinges on the notion, not entirely fleshed out..that a real property (if there are real properties) is made less real and/or less accurate through abstraction or representation..but how most of our devices (biological and mechanical) would work, if that were the case, becomes an incredible mystery.  

To say that color is a property of consciousness is to say something akin to the notion that temperature is a property of thermometers. 

If it's true, it's true....but it worth mentioning that a conscious sensor is in no way different to an unconscious sensor in the relevant context - as far as we can tell.

[Anomalocaris]

Meh, colors are a phenomenon of consciousness.  They are a construct.  Suggesting that a color cannot be detected because there is not a construct available to consciousness is simply conflating multiple meanings of the word color.  Color is a side effect of light being perceived and processed by a brain.  So whether one can name a specific color or a new primary color is irrelevant because measuring the properties of light does not require the participation of biology and consciousness at that level.  That we can detect infrared light makes it clear that we can detect things that there is no conscious construct for.  The devices we use to detect such properties of light are themselves based upon things that we can observe and lead us to deduce the existence of infrared light.  I don't know what the original point was, but this nonsense about a new primary color seems nothing more than a red herring.  No, there is no construct in consciousness which corresponds to a new primary color or infrared light.  That doesn't mean we can't detect "color" (strictly speaking, we can't, because it's a feature of consciousness; I rather doubt that fact is relevant to whatever the original point was).

The mind can certainly create conscious construct for things that came to the mind entirely through a non-biological sensory instrumentality.   Such constructs can be a world seen with a different set of primary colors, or the forced pleasure of sucking Jesus cock forever after one has turned utterly to dust.   We certainly can imagine a forth color, such as UV or IR, and that is made easier and given guidance rooted in reality from imagine technology, even envision how they would change our visual milieu. The difference is it takes a different and more productively curious, and more critically skeptical of the unmeasurable, outlook to focus on envisioning a world seen through a different combination of colors demonstrated to exist as light carrying information, than to envision the pleasures of sucking Jesus cock after an end that one is too infantile to accept.

[Angrboda]

A realist or physicalist would counter that color is a property/properties of reflective bodies and their interaction with light that exists independently of any consciousness to perceive them.  If this is true, then color is in no meaningful way a phenomenon of consciousness, a construct, a side effect, or a feature of consciousness.  It is a feature of reality about which we possess representational content, but also, through our eyes, direct detection.  In essence, our eyes pick it up, but our brains are more focused on finding uses for that information than the detection and communication of information in the raw.  We construct utilitarian stories -about- color, but we don't construct color.  

And the physicalist would, in the main, be wrong. Color does not properly exist independent of consciousness because color itself is qualia. Light of specific wavelengths may or may not correlate with perception of color, it is still the perception upon which the identification of color is based. All other concepts of color, such as that it is specific wavelengths of light, are derivative of this fact. If we did not perceive certain wavelengths of light to correspond to the color red, we would not label that wavelength as red, or, at minimum, such a labeling would be an arbitrary assignment of a label to a phenomena. It is because those wavelengths of light give rise to the qualia of redness that we describe those wavelengths of light as being red.

---

---

Meh, colors are a phenomenon of consciousness.  They are a construct.  Suggesting that a color cannot be detected because there is not a construct available to consciousness is simply conflating multiple meanings of the word color.  Color is a side effect of light being perceived and processed by a brain.  So whether one can name a specific color or a new primary color is irrelevant because measuring the properties of light does not require the participation of biology and consciousness at that level.  That we can detect infrared light makes it clear that we can detect things that there is no conscious construct for.  The devices we use to detect such properties of light are themselves based upon things that we can observe and lead us to deduce the existence of infrared light.  I don't know what the original point was, but this nonsense about a new primary color seems nothing more than a red herring.  No, there is no construct in consciousness which corresponds to a new primary color or infrared light.  That doesn't mean we can't detect "color" (strictly speaking, we can't, because it's a feature of consciousness; I rather doubt that fact is relevant to whatever the original point was).

The mind can certainly create conscious construct for things that came to the mind entirely through a non-biological sensory instrumentality.   Such constructs can be a world seen with a different set of primary colors, or the forced pleasure of sucking Jesus cock forever after one has turned utterly to dust.   We certainly can imagine a forth color, such as UV or IR, and that is made easier and given guidance rooted in reality from imagine technology, even envision how they would change our visual milieu. The difference is it takes a different and more productively curious, and more critically skeptical of the unmeasurable, outlook to focus on envisioning a world seen through a different combination of colors demonstrated to exist as light carrying information, than to envision the pleasures of sucking Jesus cock after an end that one is too infantile to accept.

Perhaps, but it is also true that there is a fundamental difference between actual constructs of consciousness based upon perception and those one might imagine. The former are directly perceived, whereas the latter are inferred based upon independent perceptions. While they both may ultimately depend upon inference, in most epistemologies, direct perception is given a privileged status which imagination and inference do not enjoy.

[The Grand Nudger]

A realist or physicalist would counter that color is a property/properties of reflective bodies and their interaction with light that exists independently of any consciousness to perceive them.  If this is true, then color is in no meaningful way a phenomenon of consciousness, a construct, a side effect, or a feature of consciousness.  It is a feature of reality about which we possess representational content, but also, through our eyes, direct detection.  In essence, our eyes pick it up, but our brains are more focused on finding uses for that information than the detection and communication of information in the raw.  We construct utilitarian stories -about- color, but we don't construct color.  

And the physicalist would, in the main, be wrong.  Color does not properly exist independent of consciousness because color itself is qualia.  Light of specific wavelengths may or may not correlate with perception of color, it is still the perception upon which the identification of color is based.

Is it, or is it the difference between objects reflective properties and their interaction with light?  The objection above begs the question from the outset whereas the realist/physicalist contention at least has the support of evidentiary data. We've yet to find the entities of color in the brain. Hell, we can't even find qualia. It's important to note that the realist/physicalist position does not contend that the brain isn't doing anything, on top of or with the reality of color. Only that objects really do have the property which we call color. Is red red and are some objects red? Well..yeah.

All other concepts of color, such as that it is specific wavelengths of light, are derivative of this fact.  If we did not perceive certain wavelengths of light to correspond to the color red, we would not label that wavelength as red, or, at minimum, such a labeling would be an arbitrary assignment of a label to a phenomena.  It is because those wavelengths of light give rise to the qualia of redness that we describe those wavelengths of light as being red.

All consistent with the realist/physicalist position..that concepts of color are derivative of observable properties and simultaneously expressed as contents in representational systems...which do exist, nevertheless, independantly of those representational systems..just as temperature is a property of x even when there's no thermostat around to measure it...just as trees really do make a sound when they fall regardless of whether or not anyone hears it.

The eyes directly perceive. Yes the brain interprets...but these things can be simultaneously true and it's at least possible that the brain interprets what the eyes see...accurately.

[Drich]

Fewer than 25% believe religion is a force for good. Over 50% believe atheism a force for good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFvon0Fr1L4

duh! 
Morality= man's version of right

Righteousness= God's version of right. we have an obligation to God not man's idea of what is right and wrong.