Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Volker.Doormann · 03-26-2003, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Volker: "No one can explain, why there is a color impression in the consciousness, but nevertheless a lot of voices claim color as physical, without any scientific proofs as a known physical process."

You're right; there's a bit of mystery about "why" we see yellow, red, brown, etc.

Yes. I am not satisfied, if the reality to be aware of a light impression or a color impression supported by the brain is explained by the physics of wavelengths. There is no yellow in physics or red, only as a perception of a living creature.

I wrote on 2003.03.24.: "Color has a spiritual existence, color has no physical dimension. It is only to perceive by the spiritual consciousness of a creature."

Volker

Mageth · 03-26-2003, 10:47 AM

I wrote on 2003.03.24.: "Color has a spiritual existence, color has no physical dimension. It is only to perceive by the spiritual consciousness of a creature."

Well, to support this assertion, you're going to have to support the assertion that the spiritual has existence. Consciousness is, to me, a physical phenomenon, or at least an emergent phenomenon of the physical which can't be separated from the physical.

Can you at least define what you mean by "spiritual"?

Once again, you're objectifying "color", and "spiritual", and assigining color a "spiritual" existence. If you can do so, why can't "we" objectify color as having a physical existence? It seems, to me, that the color "green" as perceived in a tree has just as much "physical dimension" as the dimension or distance of the tree as perceived from my current position. Do you claim that dimension and distance also have "spiritual" existence? If not, why not?

It seems like we're going around in circles here...

Volker.Doormann · 03-26-2003, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Can you at least define what you mean by "spiritual"?

I have no problem to distinguish logic or color from a physical force. If one is using the laws of boolean algebra and beliefs, that this reference is 'pure physical' or alternately didn't exist, I can't help.

Quote:

It seems like we're going around in circles here...

That's true. I'm off.

EOD

Volker

Calzaer · 03-26-2003, 11:54 AM

Quote:

I think, that there is a nature to be understand. To this I think arguments on the subject are helpful to find the truth. I think truth is not to find in persons.
From this it is irrelevant what I see. From this the spirit of a person is irrelevant. From this it is irrelevant if a person is claiming something. Relevant is only the truth of nature.

Can you try that again in English?

Valmorian · 03-26-2003, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
The book "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat" by Oliver Sacks

This seems to be a bit of an incompleted thought.

Nevertheless, thanks. I was trying to remember Sacks' name. This and one or two other books by Sacks are highly recommended reading for glimpses into human consciousness and its tight coupling to the physical brain and senses.

Yeah, it was, I got interrupted.

Heh, what I MEANT to say was that the book has a case that is quite relevant to this discussion. A gentleman in the book had suffered brain damage that rendered him unable to even IMAGINE colors. That is, he understood that there were such things, but he not only couldn't see them when they were presented to him, but he couldn't even imagine the colors. The sad part was, he was a painter beforehand..

Mageth · 03-26-2003, 12:30 PM

Yeah; actually, I think I made a reference to that case in an earlier thread. IIRC, the guy had fully functional color eyesight (not colorblind), knew the names of colors (e.g. yellow), but could not associate colors he could physically perceive, or their names, with the concept of colors, or objects with their colors, or something like that. He knew what a banana was, could see them, but could not associate the concept of "yellow" with a banana. It was like he'd lost the concept, sensation or perception of color (whatever you want to call it), though physiologically he could "see" them.

There was a similar case described in one of his books where a subject, due to brain injury, had lost the concept of "leftness." That was a very interesting case, as well.

Other interesting cases include people losing the "perception" of at least parts of their own bodies; their mental projection of their physical bodies is interrupted due to brain injury. In one case I remember, a subject lost perception of one of his legs. He could see his leg, would react to stimulus on the leg, but did not associate it with his body. "Whose leg is that?"

Valmorian · 03-26-2003, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Other interesting cases include people losing the "perception" of at least parts of their own bodies; their mental projection of their physical bodies is interrupted due to brain injury. In one case I remember, a subject lost perception of one of his legs. He could see his leg, would react to stimulus on the leg, but did not associate it with his body. "Whose leg is that?"

Yes, all very compelling evidence to support the physical basis of perception and reason. You rarely find neuroscientists who subscribe to the concept of 'soul' or 'spirit' when it comes to the mind.

Nowhere357 · 03-26-2003, 02:37 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Volker.Doormann

If there is no observer, than there is no color. Color is only a state in the consciuosness (of an observer) and has no relation to physics.

Volker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Surely there can be no objection to this statement. Color is perceived subjectively. That's the point of this thread, the point is correct, so why all the fussing?

Near the top I read "It is only to perceive by the spiritual consciousness of a creature." Ah-ha! The forbidden "s" word! So the fussing was just pre-emptive dogmatic defense, not a pretty sight coming from skeptics.

"Spiritual" need not mean "supernatural". It's a perfectly good word that has been corrupted by religion. Sheesh."

WELL four pages and it hasn't improved much. So much miscommunication. Some, such as Mageth, seem to approach the problem in a spirit(!) of trying to understand and teach. Give allowances for the obvious fact that the original poster has english as a second language, cultural differences, lack of precise definitions, and it is clear that his basic statement ("If there is no observer, than there is no color. Color is only a state in the consciuosness (of an observer) and has no relation to physics. ") IS CORRECT.

What is depressing is the number of "freethinkers" who react negatively to his use of the word "spiritual" to describe "subjective awareness". All this arguing against him, and yet his point was correct! So those arguing against him were basing their arguing points on ... what? Surely not freethought.

I don't know if he was trolling, or what. Maybe, if he got the acknowledgement that his point was correct, he would use that to bolster his next point. Fine - if the next point is wrong, tackle it on its own merit. But attacking a VALID point to pre-emptively derail future arguments, well - that's not freethought.

"Spirit" and "spirituality" are valid and useful words. Reacting to them with automatic dogma and hostility is just wrong. Sheesh.

Mageth · 03-26-2003, 03:08 PM

If there is no observer, than there is no color. Color is only a state in the consciuosness (of an observer) and has no relation to physics.

Well, there have been objections raised to this statement, and I'm not ready to grant it as "valid" as stated.

I could agree with this at least in part, except I might say that "If there is no observer, then there is no color perception or sensation." And I wouldn't go as far as to say (the perception of) color has "no relation to physics", as I think our consciousness can't be separated from the physical.

But the statement evokes the Buddhism puzzler about "If a tree falls in a forest and no one's there to hear, does it make a sound?" Arguments can be made for both sides. In the case of color, the light waves of various lengths are still there if there's no observer.

In that vein, I would also ask for a definition of "observer". One could leave a photographic plate lying around unattended and later observe various colors recorded on the plate. Is the plate an "observer"? If I'm the observer and the colors weren't there when I was absent, how did they get recorded on the plate?

I'm not 100% sure what Volker means by "spirit" and "spiritual". He seems to set "spiritual" existence apart from "physical" existence, and thus seems to be ascribing it supernatural existence. Obviously, many here are skeptical of such a claim, if that indeed is what he's claiming. If he would clearly define what he means by spirit/spiritual, as I've asked him to a couple of times, perhaps we could clear that up (maybe he has and I just missed it?)

If all he means by "spiritual" is subjective awareness, then at least part of my difficulties with his position are answered. But when he invokes "spiritual existence" as opposed to "physical existence", he starts wondering a bit far into metaphysics for me.

I agree that "spirit" can and is used as a substitute for consciousness/awareness, but as I said it's too loaded to generally be used as such, esp. in a thread in the S&S forum of an admittedly skeptical site (or a site with admiteddly skeptical participants).

Fair enough?

Corona688 · 03-26-2003, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Near the top I read "It is only to perceive by the spiritual consciousness of a creature." Ah-ha! The forbidden "s" word! So the fussing was just pre-emptive dogmatic defense, not a pretty sight coming from skeptics.

"Spiritual" need not mean "supernatural". It's a perfectly good word that has been corrupted by religion. Sheesh."

WELL four pages and it hasn't improved much. So much miscommunication. Some, such as Mageth, seem to approach the problem in a spirit(!) of trying to understand and teach. Give allowances for the obvious fact that the original poster has english as a second language, cultural differences, lack of precise definitions, and it is clear that his basic statement ("If there is no observer, than there is no color. Color is only a state in the consciuosness (of an observer) and has no relation to physics. ") IS CORRECT.

What is depressing is the number of "freethinkers" who react negatively to his use of the word "spiritual" to describe "subjective awareness". All this arguing against him, and yet his point was correct! So those arguing against him were basing their arguing points on ... what? Surely not freethought.

I don't know if he was trolling, or what. Maybe, if he got the acknowledgement that his point was correct, he would use that to bolster his next point. Fine - if the next point is wrong, tackle it on its own merit. But attacking a VALID point to pre-emptively derail future arguments, well - that's not freethought.

"Spirit" and "spirituality" are valid and useful words. Reacting to them with automatic dogma and hostility is just wrong. Sheesh.

The problem is, words like 'spiritual' and 'god' mean, well, whatever the arguer WANTS them to mean. They are infinitely redefineable. They are ill-defined terms that make it easy to move the goalposts when nobody's looking. And that Volker's refused to call "subjective awareness" anything else than "spiritual", in particular, puts me on edge. Doesn't he WANT to be clear about what he means?

03-26-2003, 02:37 PM	#78
Nowhere357 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Grand Junction CO Posts: 2,231	Still depressing quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Volker.Doormann If there is no observer, than there is no color. Color is only a state in the consciuosness (of an observer) and has no relation to physics. Volker -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Surely there can be no objection to this statement. Color is perceived subjectively. That's the point of this thread, the point is correct, so why all the fussing? Near the top I read "It is only to perceive by the spiritual consciousness of a creature." Ah-ha! The forbidden "s" word! So the fussing was just pre-emptive dogmatic defense, not a pretty sight coming from skeptics. "Spiritual" need not mean "supernatural". It's a perfectly good word that has been corrupted by religion. Sheesh." WELL four pages and it hasn't improved much. So much miscommunication. Some, such as Mageth, seem to approach the problem in a spirit(!) of trying to understand and teach. Give allowances for the obvious fact that the original poster has english as a second language, cultural differences, lack of precise definitions, and it is clear that his basic statement ("If there is no observer, than there is no color. Color is only a state in the consciuosness (of an observer) and has no relation to physics. ") IS CORRECT. What is depressing is the number of "freethinkers" who react negatively to his use of the word "spiritual" to describe "subjective awareness". All this arguing against him, and yet his point was correct! So those arguing against him were basing their arguing points on ... what? Surely not freethought. I don't know if he was trolling, or what. Maybe, if he got the acknowledgement that his point was correct, he would use that to bolster his next point. Fine - if the next point is wrong, tackle it on its own merit. But attacking a VALID point to pre-emptively derail future arguments, well - that's not freethought. "Spirit" and "spirituality" are valid and useful words. Reacting to them with automatic dogma and hostility is just wrong. Sheesh.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-26-2003, 10:47 AM	#72
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I wrote on 2003.03.24.: "Color has a spiritual existence, color has no physical dimension. It is only to perceive by the spiritual consciousness of a creature." Well, to support this assertion, you're going to have to support the assertion that the spiritual has existence. Consciousness is, to me, a physical phenomenon, or at least an emergent phenomenon of the physical which can't be separated from the physical. Can you at least define what you mean by "spiritual"? Once again, you're objectifying "color", and "spiritual", and assigining color a "spiritual" existence. If you can do so, why can't "we" objectify color as having a physical existence? It seems, to me, that the color "green" as perceived in a tree has just as much "physical dimension" as the dimension or distance of the tree as perceived from my current position. Do you claim that dimension and distance also have "spiritual" existence? If not, why not? It seems like we're going around in circles here...

03-26-2003, 12:30 PM	#76
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Yeah; actually, I think I made a reference to that case in an earlier thread. IIRC, the guy had fully functional color eyesight (not colorblind), knew the names of colors (e.g. yellow), but could not associate colors he could physically perceive, or their names, with the concept of colors, or objects with their colors, or something like that. He knew what a banana was, could see them, but could not associate the concept of "yellow" with a banana. It was like he'd lost the concept, sensation or perception of color (whatever you want to call it), though physiologically he could "see" them. There was a similar case described in one of his books where a subject, due to brain injury, had lost the concept of "leftness." That was a very interesting case, as well. Other interesting cases include people losing the "perception" of at least parts of their own bodies; their mental projection of their physical bodies is interrupted due to brain injury. In one case I remember, a subject lost perception of one of his legs. He could see his leg, would react to stimulus on the leg, but did not associate it with his body. "Whose leg is that?"

03-26-2003, 03:08 PM	#79
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	If there is no observer, than there is no color. Color is only a state in the consciuosness (of an observer) and has no relation to physics. Well, there have been objections raised to this statement, and I'm not ready to grant it as "valid" as stated. I could agree with this at least in part, except I might say that "If there is no observer, then there is no color perception or sensation." And I wouldn't go as far as to say (the perception of) color has "no relation to physics", as I think our consciousness can't be separated from the physical. But the statement evokes the Buddhism puzzler about "If a tree falls in a forest and no one's there to hear, does it make a sound?" Arguments can be made for both sides. In the case of color, the light waves of various lengths are still there if there's no observer. In that vein, I would also ask for a definition of "observer". One could leave a photographic plate lying around unattended and later observe various colors recorded on the plate. Is the plate an "observer"? If I'm the observer and the colors weren't there when I was absent, how did they get recorded on the plate? I'm not 100% sure what Volker means by "spirit" and "spiritual". He seems to set "spiritual" existence apart from "physical" existence, and thus seems to be ascribing it supernatural existence. Obviously, many here are skeptical of such a claim, if that indeed is what he's claiming. If he would clearly define what he means by spirit/spiritual, as I've asked him to a couple of times, perhaps we could clear that up (maybe he has and I just missed it?) If all he means by "spiritual" is subjective awareness, then at least part of my difficulties with his position are answered. But when he invokes "spiritual existence" as opposed to "physical existence", he starts wondering a bit far into metaphysics for me. I agree that "spirit" can and is used as a substitute for consciousness/awareness, but as I said it's too loaded to generally be used as such, esp. in a thread in the S&S forum of an admittedly skeptical site (or a site with admiteddly skeptical participants). Fair enough?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.