romansh wrote:No not all
It is simply trying to make a really trivial point, Which you seem to agree with but somehow completely escapes you.
Funny, I am getting the same feeling with you.

We're definitely talking past each other somewhere.
Split from 'Non-human animals as moral subjects'
Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker
romansh wrote:No not all
It is simply trying to make a really trivial point, Which you seem to agree with but somehow completely escapes you.
romansh wrote:Just a quick question on the preservation of colour experience.
Exactly by what mechanism does evolution preserve identical or even similar internal experiences of colour?
...
romansh wrote:Just a quick question on the preservation of colour experience.
Exactly by what mechanism does evolution preserve identical or even similar internal experiences of colour?
We can't measure it. So how does evolution keep it?
Also what is the evolutionary advantages of identical internal perceptions/experiences of colour?
The only advantage is for an individual consistent internal colour representation.
romansh wrote:While my default position is I perceive red in a similar manner to everyone else, I can't see a way of demonstrating it.
In summary your position is: our perception of colour is similar because it would cost too much to in some way or another..
in terms of optical efficiency (sort of).
...
romansh wrote:
Also you did not answer my question:
In your own words, what do you think my position is?
In summary your position is: our perception of colour is similar because it would cost too much to in some way or another..
in terms of optical efficiency (sort of).
DavidMcC wrote:SS, let's not get too hung up on what you are supposed to think romansh's position is, because frankly, who cares? The site does not revolve around romansh, and I don't see why you should have to play 20 questions with him about what his position is.
ScholasticSpastic wrote:DavidMcC wrote:SS, let's not get too hung up on what you are supposed to think romansh's position is, because frankly, who cares? The site does not revolve around romansh, and I don't see why you should have to play 20 questions with him about what his position is.
I give primary consideration to the weight of the evidence, as it's available and/or presented. Which is why I will often press for evidence of some sort when a position is hotly contested. I'd rather follow the evidence than stick to my guns. I understand this may not be consistent with your subjective experience of all of our interactions on this forum. It is certainly my goal, though.
But consideration should always be given to the views of our interlocutors as well. We are having discussions, not shouting monologues at one another. At least, not ideally.
DavidMcC wrote:
I was not suggesting ignoring everyone else, just suggesting that you could get over-concerned by clashes with people who may be attention junkies.
DavidMcC wrote:
Hypocrisy doesn't come into it. Time spent on derails about what you are supposed to think someone else's position is can become significant if you let it.
ScholasticSpastic wrote:DavidMcC wrote:
Hypocrisy doesn't come into it. Time spent on derails about what you are supposed to think someone else's position is can become significant if you let it.
It's not a derail for as long as we're discussing the topic, attention junkie or not. The topic of this thread is "Color." It's such a vaguely defined topic that I cannot think of a terribly effective way to derail it.
romansh wrote:Yet you seem to think I am wrong somehow?
There is a tonne of evidence that we perceive the "visible" part of the spectrum and people see similar parts. This is not an issue and never has been.
One of the major problems with color has to do with fitting what we seem to know about colors into what science, particularly physics, tells us about physical bodies and their qualities.
Not only does the scientific mainstream tradition conflict with the common-sense understanding of color in this way, but as well, the scientific tradition contains a very counter-intuitive conception of color.
romansh wrote:OK I will try one more time and officially give up ...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/color/#ProColOne of the major problems with color has to do with fitting what we seem to know about colors into what science, particularly physics, tells us about physical bodies and their qualities.Not only does the scientific mainstream tradition conflict with the common-sense understanding of color in this way, but as well, the scientific tradition contains a very counter-intuitive conception of color.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest