It's really nonsense, I mean some people are blind and not just color
blind, so should we then conclude that vision is useless ? Blind people are
dependent on seeing people much or most of the time.
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Perhaps we might want to know how color is different from some other kind
of visual perception then, since any visual perception can be plausibly
presented as: " the perception of wave lengths of electromagnetic
radiation as reflected onto the retina of a sighted creature." Such alleged
illusions can help to distinguish edible food from inedible e.g., or
perhaps closer to the concerns of modern materialists, the color of money.
It might help in an 'exigency.'
O.K.
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx
wrote:
Omar writes: "If we were to conclude that all ascriptions of color were a
priori false we would have Tarski trying to derive a definition of truth
from an impossible proposition."
I would say that it is not a question of "truth or falsity" but of
assertability. If color is the perception of wave lengths of
electromagnetic radiation as reflected onto the retina of a sighted
creature -- human or otherwise, then I contend that "color" as an ens
realis doesn't exist -- a perception (a biochemical process occuring in the
brain of creature, endered as a response to a specific stimulus occurs,
yes, but we have no way of knowing if each person perceives the
wavelengths in the same way. How one processes stimuli need not
necessarily be the is the same among us all. In fact we know of
instances of "color blindness in which some people perceive colors
differently, such that my green is your red. Who is correct? What other
demensions of reality might we not be receptive of? To make a long story
short, we don't know shit.
