Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2281Re: fear of red clam beach and docketed ministers of 'objectivity'

Expand Messages
  • thebookdoc@aol.com
    May 31, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      <<... you measure a color as being y = 0.29 and x = 0.70 which is a
      red color ... this kind of measurement is done everyday in a number of
      industries...>>

      Oh, poo.

      What made red ...red?

      I can see there are devices and measurements...but who is to say how
      accurate a device, how consistent...Is it affected by weather, by
      altitude, by speed, by time? And MORE IMPORTANTLY: what IS red. You
      have a definition of red created by people who saw red. Is the
      definition of this thing 'red' inate? Why is it red rather than
      orange? I have the feeling that someone's senses got in there and
      said "Hey, this is red!" rather than red naming itself or because of
      a property of the wave measure that said "precisely here is red."
      This means it was somehow created by observation. That would be a
      subjective point-of-view. Here is a dictionary definition...you like
      these:

      "The hue of the long-wave end of the visible spectrum, evoked in the
      human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of approximately
      630 to 750 nanometers"

      Why, ahem, the word 'approximately'? If this is a science and an
      exacted objective notation, red would ALWAYS be red...'evoked by a
      human observer' would seem to suggest there are at the very least
      snails looking at the darned redness (because we know snails are more
      human than dead people via the book of 'duard) and I would know it as
      red as would a color-blind person, instead of one like myself (who is
      completely blind). If a blind person 'measured' what is red, he would
      have a quantity of measurement (if he could see the instrument), but
      would no more understand red than a brick would. You can have
      measurement without understanding...and understanding would seem to
      come through...senses. Which in some chain of events are interpreted.
      There is a measurement, and I see the measure and then DECIDE what it
      means. The quality 'red' is a consensus that may or may not be held
      by everyone to differing degrees. And when does the mighty signal of
      the synapse turn into belief and raise the flag of triumph in 'duard
      town? The meaning is not inherent...it is not inate...and if it were
      'obvious' there would be no need for testing, confirmation, etc. Tell
      me, and sticking with light, if our observations are so darned
      accurate, why is it that we can't see the bulbs that flicker 60 times
      a second? And if we don't see that...what the heck else are we
      missing?

      You keep arguing that we have to just accept certain things...well, I
      guess. If we play a game, we accept the rules and move on. However,
      that is in a rather confined situation where there are a small set of
      rules that are defined. But I can't find the rule book (well, except
      yours, oh, godot-de-'duard). I can't even see how a rule can be made.
      Considering the potential error in observation born(e) by the need to
      interpret, it seems that there are exceptions, and that everyone can
      make matter of their own observation, and that those observations
      might just not match the observations of Le 'duard. Yet every one of
      those perceptions and perspectives is valid...if nothing else, FROM
      that perspective. Which, daresay, is subjective.

      There is nothing real about society, or about the fictitious
      constructs that generations have created to manufacture 'society.'
      There is nothing real in objective 'science' that has no prediction
      for every existing case.

      It is quite another thing to say: "I can't solve that, so I am moving
      on." Which is an understandible acceptance of ignorance. However,
      that you want to make your perspective the basis of so much fact only
      dearly explains why you need your own personal god with which to
      'order' the universe. Personally, I think that would make it pretty
      easy to do. You have to be able to deceive yourself into believing
      the god. However, I find accepting ignorance distasteful somehow. I
      can't brush the lack of proof under the rug and say "ah, so there is
      nothing to base this on...but what the heck!" It creates a
      dementia...and if you build a building on no cornerstone, I guess you
      just will it to stand?

      I.see.said.the.blind

      --------------------------------------------
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic