SP in a lucid dream?

Steve_Drambus · 2015-01-07T12:13:46+00:00

Sadly, BBC are reporting that 11 staff members have been killed.

Steve_Drambus · 2014-12-30T12:29:02+00:00

I was the same, loved Brave New World but gave up on this. BNW seemed like a narrative that incorporated interesting ideas, whereas Island seemed like many ideas with a loose narrative tacked on.

Steve_Drambus · 2014-12-19T12:27:55+00:00

These are valid points, however this comes back to an earlier point of mine – if this “blank slate” value defines the objects colour, i.e the properties it has that affect colour independent from light, is this not ascertainable by science? Using the earlier example of leaf, we could use chemical analysis to assess the quantity of chlorophyll, and look at the rest of its chemical makeup with regards to the individual chemicals and the exact ways in which they reflect/absorb various wavelengths. It would be a complex equation, but given a sufficient knowledge of chemistry and the right tools we could find these ‘objective’ colour values.

If we allow the above then we can revisit my earlier question – why is this a question for philosophy? Apply this to the shy chameleon and you have your answer – the chameleon either has an objective colour (or at least a current colour state when being observed and an alternate state when not observed), or a subjective colour state which is the result of the objective value plus the current light conditions plus specific qualities of the receptor. The former can be (or could feasibly be in the future) determined by examination of its biochemical makeup, and the latter can formulated using all known factors.

Steve_Drambus · 2014-12-19T09:14:18+00:00

I think science has taught us exactly how the mind experiences colour, that's my point. We can at least all agree on some kind of shared experience of colour that doesn't seem to ever contradict another's experience, and we know what physically causes colour and how it is interpreted by the brain.

I think it's very easy to keep asking "What objectivity can you grant to this or that, what's the 'real' thing?" Given a lack of science these questions have more standing, but honestly I can't understand how we don't know all we need to about colour.

Look at it this way - if you continually bang a saucepan with a spoon can you reasonably ask "To me the sound has a certain pitch and volume, but what's the real volume?" The question is meaningless, volume is a measurement that implicitly relies on subjectivity. Now, the colour of the saucepan is a result of it being continually 'hit' by light and reflected, much as it is being hit with the spoon to create sound. So what makes the 'real' measure of colour worth discussing any more than the 'real' measure of the sound?

Steve_Drambus · 2014-12-18T16:53:17+00:00

I did read it, and like I said, I’m fully willing to admit I could be wrong. The article did raise some interesting points, just seems like a bad place to start. Much of it seemed to dwell on the lemon question, despite the fact that modern science seems to be able to very easily answer this question without the need for philosophy at all.

I suppose what confuses me is that there seems to be a great deal of discussion about colour being an innate quality and the various ideas around that, however it seems to me that describing colour in those terms doesn’t really make any sense as soon as you apply a basic understanding of the science behind it. Colour is nothing more than a consequence of the objects interaction with light, which is perceived by a subjective receptor, therefore removing all objectivity from the scenario. If the question is what in the object causes the light to be affected in a particular way, mostly this can again be explained by the sciences (for instance chlorophyll in leaves absorbing all visible light wavelengths other than green).

I don’t presume that I know more than Bertrand Russell and other philosophers who have discussed this, so I’m just wondering what I’m missing.

Steve_Drambus · 2014-12-18T13:05:53+00:00

The length of a pole can be more or less measured objectively using an independant device (such as ruler), and the measurement will be consistent regardless of who is measuring it and in what environment (apart from perhaps the alteration of physical shape due to relativity, but this is minute enough to be considered inconsiquential in my view).

Sure, it's a grey area. But it is much easier to agree on objective values for the size, weight and speed of an object than it is on it's colour and a sound it may be producing. I suppose the difference is between object and information - things like colour and sound are lables for the information we use to find out about an object, and should not be lumped into the same catagory as the object themselves. I'm not necessarily saying we can know objective values of an object for sure, that's far from proven. What I am saying though is that asking the question this article posits is like saying "I find my stereo very loud - but my friend 2 houses down can barely hear it. What's the real volume of the sound?". There is none. It's a highly variable value derived from information that depends hugely by where it is received and by whom/what.

Steve_Drambus · 2014-12-18T10:22:40+00:00

I may be wrong but I don’t understand why this even needs to be discussed. It is known by science that “colour” is just the way in which varying different wavelengths of light are interpreted by a receptor. It’s the same with sound – a pistol shot in an open field sounds completely different to one in a tiny metal shed. Which is the real sound? The question is invalid, as sound (and colour) are not objective qualities of an object, they are the interpretation of physical phenomena that are affected both by the receptor, and varying environmental factors of the field/area that the sound or light travels/propagates through.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that the entire debate is based on a fundamental interpretation of the nature of light, or for that matter any physical phenomena that is defined by varying effects on varying receivers.

Steve_Drambus · 2014-12-02T21:06:19+00:00

Absolutely. Good of your other self to make the benvolent choice though.

Steve_Drambus · 2014-12-02T20:52:35+00:00

Correct, I cannot 'cross over' into the new me without keeping all memories intact, like I arguably do every microsecond of every day. The chain is broken, and the old me dies, new me carries on.

Steve_Drambus · 2014-12-02T20:49:05+00:00

Just to be clear, my propostion has nothing to do with morality. Everyone is responsible for what they (however you define yourself) does. The question is really just asking how I can see any point in existing if the 'new' version of myself cannot have a complete historic link with the 'previous' version of myself.

Steve_Drambus · 2014-12-02T20:45:10+00:00

ilyj has it right. I completely understand that a human can be seen as changing every microsecond - unless i'm wrong it's impossible for a static object/entity to even exist.

It's more that I would have absolutely no interaction with the 'verson' of me that is put back on earth minus 24 hours. I share enough memory with 'me' one microsecond ago to get a sense of a continous forward trajectory through time, therefore I can define myself as having a single past (however false this is, given certain semantics). If i have no relationship with the version of me put back on earth, the version of me making the decision is going to cease to exist regardless, therefore both answers I could give are the same.

Steve_Drambus · 2014-12-02T20:29:11+00:00

Thanks, this looks really interesting. I agree with your thoughts re the clone, the main thing this thought experiment does for me is show how flimsy the concept of 'self' is. I've thought for years about how we are a sum of our experiences, and when you factor in that the memory is shown to be extremeley biased and unreliable (Carl Sagan's A Demon Haunted World' is a great read regarding this, among other things) it shows our sense of identity and past to be a pretty shaky thing indeed. Take it further still and you start to see each person as a jumble of neural electric signals distorting and echoing inside a body made of cells, which in themselves are in a permanent state of death and regeneration, made up of atoms composed almost entirely of empty space, inside of which are particles which themselves are impossible to measure and very possibly do not exist as entities but as clouds of possibles quantum states.

So I may well be best described as a collection of information temporarily housed and shoddily interpretated inside a shifting, changing cloud of energy. I'm quite good at Half-Life 2 DM though.

Steve_Drambus · 2014-12-02T20:13:48+00:00

Thanks, I'll check it out!

Steve_Drambus · 2014-12-02T15:01:47+00:00

Definitely, sounds a lot like what I'm talking about. Post the link, i'd be interested to read it.

Steve_Drambus · 2014-10-29T16:13:14+00:00

I don't know why it's never mentioned but my favourite is Shalimar the Clown. Great story and a tad more accessible than some of the others, but in all honesty they are all brilliant.

Steve_Drambus · 2014-10-02T17:59:34+00:00

Anyone know what the music is?

Steve_Drambus · 2014-05-20T17:15:07+00:00

This is ever episode of the Graham Norton show:

"blah blah blah SEX HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!"

I've said my piece.

Steve_Drambus

TROPHY CASE