|
Posted by stan on August 22, 2008, 12:26 am
Please log in for more thread options
John Popelish wrote:
> John Larkin wrote:
>
>> What causes "red" is the predominant wavelength of the light that
>> bounces off the apple. That can be measured and quantified, if there's
>> any doubt.
>>
>> There's nothing subjective about "red."
> (snip)
>
> The experience of red is what is subjective. There is no
> way to know that anyone else experiences red exactly as you
> do. I suspect that most people experience red about like I
> do, but I also suspect there are some interesting (various
> flavors of colorblindness) and even some extreme exceptions,
> especially in those who experience synesthesia.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia
We can be very certain that the same parts of the eye responds the same
way to the same wavelength in different people. The tangible parts of
the eye aren't totally unkown. The workings and chemical reactions in
the rods and cones is reasonably well understood. The failings in the
rods and cones that lead to at least some color blindness has been
observed and even induced but so far there is no sucessful intervention.
We can know that the signals sent to the brain are the same but we can't
know what happens exactly after the brain receives the signals but there
is promosing research that sends signals directly to the brain and
bypasses the optic nerves and stimulates the visual processing area of
the brain.
I'm a little surprised that some still consider that we may be just
brains in vats. Between Neo and Descartes I thought the matter was well
settled.
Is our knowledge incomplete? Absolutely and in that sense does it need
further justification and refinement? Of course. Are we limited to
things that come through our senses to stimulate our brains? Not really.
There once was a guy who tried really hard to understand the world
through subjective thoughts alone. One of those fellows was Aristotle
and his incorrect conclusions were used for a very long time. Some
lingered for nearly a thousand years. We've tried using human intellect
alone and it didn't work real well. We've had better luck with a pure
empirical system.
Let me say this about the human experience with the idea that empirical
experience might not be all that. We've tried the alternative or
Been there,
Done that,
got the t-shirt.
| 
Yahoo!
Google
Windows Live
del.icio.us
digg
Netscape
Re: Empirical Beliefs & Hypothesis; Do they terminate in some beliefs that need no further justification, go on infinitely - on belief being justified by other that then need justification, or circle back upon itself in some way - constituting a sort o
>