Yes. What is the nature of light, and the nature of colours, what do physicists say about this?
Are colours just a illusion or not? Or are they properties of light itself?
Merkabah
- Thread starter Skarekrow
- Start date
Are colours just a illusion or not? Or are they properties of light itself?
Well the redness of red is a quale - it's perspective, like the taste of a food. It's your personal sensation. Red light is light at a specific wavelength though, in that regard it's objectively a property of light you could say.
How light actually works is quite more technical though. It's theorized for example that light doesn't exactly bounce off of things - what happens is that all the photons get absorbed and depending on the wavelengths of the absorbed photons, new copies of some of the photons are produced and cast out. It almost gets into some Star Trek like teleportation type junk - if you're copied somewhere else, is it still you or not?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/color/
1.4 Rival Theories of Color
There are two issues concerning color realism: (1) what sort of properties are colors? (2) do objects really possess those properties? With respect to the first question, there is deep division between color realists (as well as between eliminativists). Setting out the views of major realists and eliminativists, we have the following major rival theories:
We see things in a different light than do certain species of animals and fowl. We must be careful, or our true colors may start showing.
1.4 Rival Theories of Color
There are two issues concerning color realism: (1) what sort of properties are colors? (2) do objects really possess those properties? With respect to the first question, there is deep division between color realists (as well as between eliminativists). Setting out the views of major realists and eliminativists, we have the following major rival theories:
- Colors are ‘primitive’ properties—simple, sui generis, qualitative properties that physical bodies possess or appear to possess: Primitivism.
- Colors are ‘hidden’ properties of bodies—complex, physical properties that dispose bodies to look blue, pink, yellow, etc.: Reductive Physicalism
- Colors are perceiver-dependent, dispositional properties—powers to look in distinctive ways to appropriate perceivers, in appropriate circumstances: Dispositionalism
- Colors are subjective qualities ‘projected’ onto physical objects and light-sources—qualities which visual experiences represent objects as having: Projectivism.
- Colors are subjective qualities—either qualities presented in experience or qualities of experiences: Subjectivism.
- darned computer has put in a six for me: how nice
We see things in a different light than do certain species of animals and fowl. We must be careful, or our true colors may start showing.
Yeah, I think that's one of the times philosophy is outdated in relation to science though. Just think how we have cameras and video recorders and lasers, and xray, night vision, UV remote sensors...
Color and light are one of the things we have pretty well nailed down, actually, and it's demonstrated through what we're capable of doing with it, as opposed to theories of distant things such as black holes.
But yeah I agree, we must be careful.
Stephen Hawking recently fluttered the academic dovecotes by writing in his new book The Grand Design — and repeating to an eager company of interviewers and journalists — that philosophy as practised nowadays is a waste of time and philosophers a waste of space. More precisely, he wrote that philosophy is ‘dead’ since it hasn’t kept up with the latest developments in science, especially theoretical physics. In earlier times — Hawking conceded — philosophers not only tried to keep up but sometimes made significant scientific contributions of their own. However they were now, in so far as they had any influence at all, just an obstacle to progress through their endless going-on about the same old issues of truth, knowledge, the problem of induction, and so forth. Had philosophers just paid a bit more attention to the scientific literature they would have gathered that these were no longer live issues for anyone remotely au fait with the latest thinking. Then their options would be either to shut up shop and cease the charade called ‘philosophy of science’ or else to carry on and invite further ridicule for their head-in-the-sand attitude.
You can read the whole thing, including the rebuttal (which is like four times as large as Hawking’s statement...hmmmm?) here - http://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Hawking_contra_Philosophy
I agree that they should go hand in hand....there is a really great quote (let me find it)...
(what do you know...there is a nice picture for it....)
We should strike a balance between the two.
I love this! This thread made me feel like this too! It also spurred a desire to learn more about things/concepts I've always found intriguing, but thought were way outside of my league to know.
Yes, while a color like magenta doesn't have a specific wavelength. The brain creates this color when there are nearly equal intensity of red and blue wavelengths.
Why does a crow jump on what is different? Philosophers study things like this. It is in the field of science they agree might not be up to date. Do we run down all philosophical people then? Is philosophy bad? Why single out science to bash it all? Many great men have helped to change our world. It was their philosophy on life that had them to step outside their comfort zone.
Last edited:
Nature of light: *giggle*
Color is a property of light. It is a very real phenomena.
The way we process information differs from person to person so we can't say everyone has the same experience of color, but the stimuli is consistent and defined by physics.
The beauty of it is how much it has discovered that actually leans towards the old writings. I think science is catching up. One of the greatest tools of science and our understanding has been the Hubble, imho.
How about this one:I agree that they should go hand in hand....there is a really great quote (let me find it)...
(what do you know...there is a nice picture for it....)
We should strike a balance between the two.
"Philosophy is applied science to Truth".
In order to philosophy to be dead, science must be scientifically proven, but that is impossible. Therefore, philosophy is actually the main drive of science. If there is no philosophy, there is no science either.
Stephen Hawking recently fluttered the academic dovecotes by writing in his new book The Grand Design – and repeating to an eager company of interviewers and journalists – that philosophy as practised nowadays is a waste of time and philosophers a waste of space. More precisely, he wrote that philosophy is ‘dead’ since it hasn’t kept up with the latest developments in science, especially theoretical physics. In earlier times – Hawking conceded – philosophers not only tried to keep up but sometimes made significant scientific contributions of their own. However they were now, in so far as they had any influence at all, just an obstacle to progress through their endless going-on about the same old issues of truth, knowledge, the problem of induction, and so forth. Had philosophers just paid a bit more attention to the scientific literature they would have gathered that these were no longer live issues for anyone remotely au fait with the latest thinking. Then their options would be either to shut up shop and cease the charade called ‘philosophy of science’ or else to carry on and invite further ridicule for their head-in-the-sand attitude.
You can read the whole thing, including the rebuttal (which is like four times as large as Hawking’s statement...hmmmm?) here - http://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Hawking_contra_Philosophy
Science is not a thing to prove though. It's abstractly a way of studying things. This is like saying that music can't be proven. Or that literature can't be proven.
Some also argue that science a product of religion (another form of philosophy). Without it, we likely wouldn't have science.
Do you think without religion/philosophy we wouldn't have science because we wouldn't have the questions that they pose, thus the desire to answer the unknown?
Do you think without religion/philosophy we wouldn't have science because we wouldn't have the questions that they pose, thus the desire to answer the unknown?
I’m pretty sure the quote I posted by Dorion Sagan didn’t take side between philosophy and science...it lashed them equally for not considering the other.
We have all been guilty of this in our own personal beliefs.
You shouldn’t, and (if you don’t want to fool yourself) cannot ignore one or the other.
And yes, that’s right LucyJr, I said there was no truth...insomuch as nothing can be concretely proven....there are things we (as humans) think we can prove but in the end, you just have to go with what feels right to you and your heart.
If there is a gap there between what you believe and what science or philosophy tells you should be there...then firstly, study it a bit more...I’m sure you aren’t the first who has had to bridge that gap....and second, who cares? If you are happy with what you believe then just go with it...but I will say, without those tools to back up what you are saying you are left with little more than “because I have faith” which is a fine thing to have, but it won’t win a debate (which is unnecessary most of the time)(and of which I am trying to be involved in to a lesser amount).
On Self-Knowledge
Kahlil Gibran
Your hearts know in silence the secrets of the days and the nights.
But your ears thirst for the sound of your heart's knowledge.
You would know in words that which you have always known in thought.
You would touch with your fingers the naked body of your dreams.
And it is well you should.
The hidden well-spring of your soul must needs rise and run murmuring to the sea;
And the treasure of your infinite depths would be revealed to your eyes.
But let there be no scales to weigh your unknown treasure;
And seek not the depths of your knowledge with staff or sounding line.
For self is a sea boundless and measureless.
Say not, "I have found the truth," but rather, "I have found a truth."
Say not, "I have found the path of the soul." Say rather, "I have met the soul walking upon my path."
For the soul walks upon all paths.
The soul walks not upon a line, neither does it grow like a reed.
The soul unfolds itself like a lotus of countless petals.
We have all been guilty of this in our own personal beliefs.
You shouldn’t, and (if you don’t want to fool yourself) cannot ignore one or the other.
And yes, that’s right LucyJr, I said there was no truth...insomuch as nothing can be concretely proven....there are things we (as humans) think we can prove but in the end, you just have to go with what feels right to you and your heart.
If there is a gap there between what you believe and what science or philosophy tells you should be there...then firstly, study it a bit more...I’m sure you aren’t the first who has had to bridge that gap....and second, who cares? If you are happy with what you believe then just go with it...but I will say, without those tools to back up what you are saying you are left with little more than “because I have faith” which is a fine thing to have, but it won’t win a debate (which is unnecessary most of the time)(and of which I am trying to be involved in to a lesser amount).
On Self-Knowledge
Kahlil Gibran
Your hearts know in silence the secrets of the days and the nights.
But your ears thirst for the sound of your heart's knowledge.
You would know in words that which you have always known in thought.
You would touch with your fingers the naked body of your dreams.
And it is well you should.
The hidden well-spring of your soul must needs rise and run murmuring to the sea;
And the treasure of your infinite depths would be revealed to your eyes.
But let there be no scales to weigh your unknown treasure;
And seek not the depths of your knowledge with staff or sounding line.
For self is a sea boundless and measureless.
Say not, "I have found the truth," but rather, "I have found a truth."
Say not, "I have found the path of the soul." Say rather, "I have met the soul walking upon my path."
For the soul walks upon all paths.
The soul walks not upon a line, neither does it grow like a reed.
The soul unfolds itself like a lotus of countless petals.