Does atheism inspire people?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Colour is perception,and apparently varies with species, and even within species (ours,at least)


Does sound as 'noise' exist? A snake has no ears, it feels the vibration of sound waves.,but not as 'noise'.

Perhaps the answer is; No,a tree falling in a forest makes no sound (noise) unless there is something there which perceives sound waves as noise

[Brian37]

I hate that analogy,. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, the laws of physics and nature WILL STILL HAPPEN. All it would mean is that the vibration will still happen without it being detected.

[Cyberman]

It's also very anthropocentric. Wouldn't there also be other creatures around that tree that might be in a position to intercept the vibrations and translate them into sound?

(My point may be invalid, as I just noticed that Pad has already incorporated it into his previous comment.)

---

How about this for a revised version:

If a tree falls in the woods, and there is nothing around to hear, will it bother?

[Jackalope]

Colour is perception,and apparently varies with species, and even within species (ours,at least)

Perception of color varies, yes. However, color is defined not by our perception of it, but by the wavelength of the reflected light, which is somewhat less subjective.

ETA: Actually, we're both correct. Color can be described by both visual perception as well as by the wavelength of reflected light. Perception can vary not only per observer but on environmental conditions.

From experience as a diver, I can relate that a red fish (or rather, one that would appear red at the surface) at 100' depth does not appear red unless a light is shined on it - but only because the red portion of the spectrum from sunlight is fully absorbed at shallower depths. Is it still red? I suppose that depends on your perspective.

[Angrboda]

It varies more than just that. The color we perceive can be influenced by many things independent of wavelength of light, from intensity, to the presence of neighboring colors, the perception of edges in the visual field (which occurs partly in the retina itself), to visual inferences based on other things in the visual field, to our mood or even something we smell. Visual perception is a process involving many layers, and it doesn't all flow from front to back, but can have interactions both forward and backward in the chain, with low level features and processing determining higher-level features, but also the reverse, with high-level "conclusions" influencing how the lower levels process their information, ultimately determining what we see independent of what is actually there in the visual field. A particular wavelength of light is a standard for scientific measurement, not a complete determination of perception. Basically, both sound and color are mental constructs, and in that sense, they are neither a representation of the reality, nor tightly constrained by it. And just as true and false don't exist in the real world, and melody doesn't exist in the notes of a song, our qualia are every bit as much abstractions and interpolations constructed by the mind as any other. Sound doesn't exist in the real world. Color doesn't exist in the real world. But phenomenon which give rise to the experiences we call color and sound do.

An interesting side bar to this is experiments where they have created a matrix of tactile stimulators, hooked up to a camera, and placed the stimulators on a blind person's skin. With some practice, the blind person learns to "see" via the stimulators in a way that is described as visual. If we can have visual experience resulting from tactile sensation, it would appear prima facie obvious that the physical manifestation which gives rise to the experience of color vision and its process, is doing a lot more than simply translating certain wavelengths of light into certain experiences.

[Brian37]

Look guys, even atheists. POV is not lost on scientists, but anything that cannot be compared in a lab of study to be tested and falsified is nothing but mental masturbation. It is good for Hollywood, but but is meaningless without the reason of method to test it.

[Anomalocaris]

Actually, if something is in principle testable and falsifiable, then it doesn't need to mental masturbation. There is nothing wrong with advancing a conjecture, and specify how it can in principle be tested, even if the principle can't be put into practice immediately, and acknowledging it remains a mere conjecture until it can be tested, by which time it becomes a theory.

Mental masturbation occurs when a conjecture is given without thought to how even in principle it could be tested, or asserted to be true when no persuasive test for its truth is done, or asserted to be true in defiance of results of tests.

In principle, the perception of color, just like the wave length of light, is testable. In the extreme, one may catalogue all possible neurological states of the brain, and enumerate all states that correlate to mental determination of "green", and probe the brain for when such states occur. It can't be done now, but at least it is suggested how it can be done, thus giving the conjecture at least an avenue towards attainment of the status of a theory.

[Tobie]

Every possible testable prediction of a theory or model is important - the smallest thing may be what makes of breaks a theory.

[Brian37]

Actually, if something is in principle testable and falsifiable, then it doesn't need to mental masturbation. There is nothing wrong with advancing a conjecture,

Where did I say scientists don't or should not guess? I said don't call scientific method a philosophy.

Scientists are people, scientific method is a tool. Don't confuse the person with the tool the person uses.

Philosophy is dead. The "guessing" that scientist do is not based on philosophy, it is based on the tool of method.

The history of thought back then was limited and most of the time wrong, but philosophy has been surpassed and replaced by modern tools.

Again, would be like rubbing sticks together mentally when you have a lighter.

[LastPoet]

Brian, I think you are taking philosophy by how people use it. Just because religionists pretend to use it, doesn't make it invalid. I am no fan of it, but you cannot deny that easily the influence of philosophy in our seek for knowledge. And your last post really seems like you have a pet peeve in this.