I'm confused. We all know there's no such thing as color, there's just varying wavelengths of reflected light. Names given to specific wavelengths are totally arbitrary as is the choice of wavelength band to which that name applies. There's no reason not to call all the visible wavelength "blue". It you can see it, it's blue. But we have found it useful to ascribe arbitrary names to arbitrary bands of wavelengths. And, of course, what "color" one sees -- such as the green of grass -- is an outright lie, grass isn't green, the wavelength corresponding to what we call green is the wavelength that grass rejects, throws off, dispenses with -- green is grass's trash wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Be glad it's not orange. Here's my question. We live analog lives but we know that physics is discrete. As an analog being I give wide berth to the blues. Were I a physicist, I can imagine denying any "shades of blue" in favor of claiming each discrete wavelength within the " blue" wavelength band a different color, however many hundreds, thousands, millions that might be wouldn't matter, precision matters in physics. But I'm not a physicist, thank God, and never could be given my propensities, nor a philosopher and never could be given my lackadasicalness. But this question seems to me to transcend physics and philosophy. It's about interior decoration. Mike Geary Memphis ----- Original Message ----- From: <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 1:02 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Hume's Missing Shade of Blue Okay, so now our resident Bremen-children having W. O. -- Russian philosopher -- says it's grue. In a message dated 7/1/2009 10:12:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rpaul@xxxxxxxx writes: >Hume's words are deceiving. There is no _single_ shade of blue that is >the missing shade. Any shade of blue may be missing from a color chart >that ranges from the darkest to the lightest shade, so any shade may >turn out to be a missing shade: there will be a long disjunctive list of >'shades,' and whether a certain one is 'missing' is in the eye and the >imagination of the beholder. >So, there cannot be a missing shade of blue until one has found it to be >missing. Even Mr. Trogge cannot tell from looking at his prize garment >if it's one of the missing ones, let alone _the_ missing one. Only by >examining Hume's original chart, which is in the Mutton archives, can >this be known. >How to get out of this predicament is a second-order philosophical >problem; but not for everyone. I see. Yes, I await with anticipation. I hope he likes it anyway, missing or not. I see Hume was slightly confused in parts. I for one, cannot think that one person SHOULD HAVE seen all shades of blue. They (i.e. the shades of blue) as the wiki entry notes, are possibly INFINITE, since (as Fogelin notes) it is a continuum. And surely I cannot have an INFINITE number of impressions. Nor can Herr Trogge. --- I think Hume was so _scared_ about this concession -- that an idea may not derive from sensory input -- that he wanted to minimise it by talking of 'shade' of _blue_. Now, consider the way Geary learned 'blue'. "SKY BLUE" "Yes, Michael, the sky is blue", replied his mother. "CHINA BLUE" "Yes, the china is Dresden blue; very well Michael", replied his grandmother. "I'm blue" -- B. B. King. "Very well, B. B. King", said Young Michael. We _assume_ the spectrum Geary _saw_ includes both light- and deep-shades of blue and medium blue in between. Should we assume that Geary has seen ALL (infinite) shades of blue? Surely not! (Only Berkeley's GOD could have perceived that). So there have to be A FEW (maybe an infinite number) of shades of blue that Geary is unware of. There may be a whole new colour that he has never perceived in Memphis. When I studied the Birds of Paradise, for example, -- in the Museum of La Plata --, I noticed that some shades of blue were not found in La Pampa birds. Hume also supposes that we have genial memories. Surely Geary may have FORGOTTEN about a shade of blue. So, to assume that, when exposed to the shade of blue, Geary will retrieve a remembered impression seems optimistic. Consider apples and cardinals. Surely I have an idea of 7,689,878 apples. Although I do not have an _impression_ of that. Geary and Hume and McEvoy and Kant will say that cardinals are _synthetic a priori_ but as a Millian I disagree. And what's sauce for the cardinals, should be sauce for other birds, too. ------ Later, J. L. Speranza Buenos Aires, Argentina **************Dell Summer Savings: Cool Deals on Popular Laptops – Shop Now! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222696924x1201468348/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2D1) ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html