BXProject

[Father Ted]

but we only call red , er , red, because we were taught that it is red, it could just as easily be green, pink, or any other colour.
Trying to avoid swearing to keep this page accessable to Marty!

Dont hold back on my part, its weird - words like shit are fine, but Fcuk isnt.

oh bollocks

[docchevron132]

no shit? thats fu...erm.. bloody odd!

[Bx Bandit]

but we only call red , er , red, because we were taught that it is red, it could just as easily be green, pink, or any other colour.
Trying to avoid swearing to keep this page accessable to Marty!

to say a Xantia is S..er. rubbish, is just a term of language that we again invented and corrupted.

So, yeah, whilst there is internal and external reality, at base, the only actual reality tha matters is the internal one.
Stuff that matters to you like.
Ok, a blind doesn't see the sun, but can feel it's being.
Like, heat and such.

Does that it make it less real to him?
But equally, if he had never been taught anything about the solar system, and the sun, would it even matter?

red-green pink whatever, it could be 'ghost' coloured or whatevah, my point is that then inner reality is whatever we see - which is where you is coming from, but there is also a consensus that it is indeed 'a colour' (whatever it is) as observed by the majority without 'impairment' and so therefore doesn't it become thus?

to say a Xantia is S..er. rubbish, is just a term of language that we again invented and corrupted

you see, it doesn't necessarily mean that a Xantia IS shit I were taking the piss really with that one!

Ok, a blind doesn't see the sun, but can feel it's being.
Like, heat and such.

This is closer to wot I is getting at. Whilst you can argue the toss over a perception of colour and it's realness, what can you argue about the Sun? You can see it, feel it's effect, get burnt by it but if reality is JUST in our mind, then why do we see and feel it? Why can we explain the motion of our planet around it?
Does the Sun cease to exist at night?

The reality is, that the sun is out there

[docchevron132]

yeah, but we all know there is internal reality, and external reality right?
i mean, external reality is there, it exists, BUT it only matters if our internal reality places an importance in it like.
So yeah, it's there, it's real, but, since I dont care about 300000 starving fuckers in some oversea washed out piss town, then it's not important to my inner reality, unlike a bag of chips.

[Bx Bandit]

yeah, but we all know there is internal reality, and external reality right?
i mean, external reality is there, it exists, BUT it only matters if our internal reality places an importance in it like.

For fear of sounding like a hard core analist (which I'm not - honest guv), and I'm only being analist cos I find it interesting, i.e the paradox of what we feel vs what is 'real'.

Both co-exist i.e. sun feels hot AND sun exists by 'proof' (physics essentially) but at what point do these two realities blur or cease to exist? There must be a boundry between what we experience as individuals and what we understand and accept as real - i.e. actually out there. This is where for me religion breaks down. I can actually buy the Jesus story (aside from a resurrection unless it was within a few minutes or he had a secret twin!) but God - nope....

There was a part in this prgramme which took multiple simultaneous uninverses to a different level (for me) and yet you basically alluded to it in a former post which is both inciteful/intelligent of yourself my dear Doc but also just fucking facinating..............

[docchevron132]

I love all this shit aswell mate. I've loved, science, the stars, thoughts, philosophy from as early an age as I recall.
Even in School, during lunchtime I'd be sat in the library reading philosophy.

Externally I think all manner of things can exist without our knowledge, or thought, but if collectively we dont think about them, they dont exist to us.
Like, X-rays, Photons, Atoms, electrons, energy at base even, all existed, since or before the big fuck off bang, but for many thousands of years we had no idea about them, we still existed, and so did electrons, atoms etc, bur we didn't know about them, so it wasn't a concern, or thought, because to us, at that point, they didn't exist.
I'm not sure the edge is that blurred really. There's inifintley more reality than we know about, or will ever know about, but until we do know, it doesn't really exist in our minds, and whilst that staus quo remains then it's of no consequence.
So, like, we use 10% of our brains, so at base, we are all pretty fucking simple beings really.
So whilst I know as fact that there's a building in New York that a little plane crashed into many years ago, I know it's real, but I haven't seen it, and had I not read about it, or alloted space in my brain to thinking about it, would it be in my reality?

I'm with you on religion. I have no doubt the big J dude wandered around in a frock and preached a bit, but ya know, the son of god? Fuck off!
Religion is only a concept, brought about by mens thoughts, not from above.
There is simply no proof of a gos, not in a biblical sense anyhow.
I read a book ages agho called "Return to love" by some feminist chick who I'd probably fuck... anyhow, she posited that "god" could be "love" in which case that I can kinda grasp, like, the god concept in the biblical sense is wrong to assume god is a dude, but if "god" is an emotion, a personal thing, then yeah, I can dig that shit.
But nothing in the bible, or the Kuran (or however the fuck it's spelt this week) has been proven as fact, absolute fact, Real. Whereas huge swathes of the content can be proved as bollocks.

[Philhod]

That would be like having cancer. As long as no one told you about it you are OK but as soon as someone tells you you have it....you die sort of thing.

With you all the way on religion. In all cases it is seen as some sort of nebulous thing, without substance. Therefore loads of so called written justification has to be invented, to try to achieve some sort of substance. In all cases statements were made as sort of similies, to try to explain something. A century later they are portrayed as absolute fact.. It happens in the Torah, the Q'uran and the Bible. Most of the eastern religions are somewhat different, in that they portray ideas, rather than make statements, but these are attributed to deities without anything to support the tributes. ( hindu, sik, buddism etc. Zen is the only one to break from this by making suggestions and leaving it to the individual to ponder.

Oh me ed's urting now.

[Way2go]

Why would it be debatable whether Red was Red etc when surely thats an absolute as the guy who defined that colour out of the three (RGB) primaries identified, tagged it as such? All colour definitions are carried on from this point with mixtures of these three primaries in real life or their complementaries (CYB) for photographic purposes.

The same receptors in all human eyes are used for the identification of colour (Cones), and Rods for monochrome. Only if the individual was colour blind would they see that differently due to defects in the eye. The Ishihara is the old faithful colour test that detects those with colour blindness as it causes people with different forms of colour blindness to see different numbers on the pages to those of normal sight, that's how they have determined that one man's normal eye sees the same as another man's normal eye. Under low light people may also see colours differently as there is a threshold where the cones "switch off" and your vision progresses to monochrome for "night vision" using just the rods.

To test your colour vision, your doctor or optician may use the Ishihara test, which is often used to diagnose red-green colour blindness. It's not suitable for testing blue colour blindness. Colour plates will be put in front of you and you will be asked what number you can see on the plate. Some of the plates contain information that people with normal colour vision can see, while others will contain information that only people with colour blindness can see. If you make a certain amount of errors, you can be diagnosed with colour blindness.

A new test being introduced to diagnose colour blindness is the 'Colour Assessment and Diagnosis' (CAD) test. This can be used for both red-green and blue colour blindness. In this test, you will be shown coloured blocks in a grey square that jump to new positions as you track them. The process will be repeated with different colours and shades. If you're colour-blind, you will eventually be unable to detect the blocks' movements. The CAD test can show how weak the colour was when it disappeared and therefore give you a measure of how severe your colour blindness is.

[Father Ted]

In the battle between you and the world..... Bet on the world winning.

[Philhod]

That depends on what you perceive as winning.

[docchevron132]

I meant more like, it's only called red, or of significance to us as red, because WE defned it as red.
Red is just a word in a language we invented, oe evolved etc..
Therefore, a brick wall, a colour, anything exterior at all is only of relevance to our inner reality if we giv it any credence like.

[Philhod]

But WE don't call it red, we accept someone els's definition of language from ages ago

What if they were wrong to call it red? perhaps they meant dre but were dyslexic and didn't know. .

[Way2go]

What if they were wrong to call it red? perhaps they meant dre but were dyslexic and didn't know. .

That's a bit like saying a spade is not called a spade but a shovel and then debating why there would be a difference. Anyway if it had been called dre and the word for mirrors was red instead, we wouldn't of been aware that there was anything wrong with it and there wouldn't have been.

[docchevron132]

exactley my point, I think..

[Vanny]

And what about in the dark when you can't see it all - does it still exist?

Simple, get inside the button, then have someone turn the lights out!

[Vanny]

That's a bit like saying a spade is not called a spade but a shovel

But shovels and spades are different things, 'dre' is just bollocks.

Realistically though, language is just a very long list of references and associations, the actual words, letters, assembled strokes mean jack shit unless you have the instruction manual.

[Philhod]

Which is exactly what I meant. We rely on what has gone before and learn the manual because it then makes everything work. We are not making it reality, we are using previous wisdom to achieve a reality. If dre had been given to us we would have accepted it, just as all other language speakers / readers accept their version of reality.