Searle in his last work denies any of this.
The skepsis is the standard reply of the undergraduates who know shit
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Omar Kusturica
Sent: 26 April 2015 02:57
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The King is not a subject.
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<mailto: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.
