Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
When I said "evoked" I was relating the physical definition to the physiological aspect which you are focusing on.I haven't changed definitions. I have yet to see one. I repeat, saying it is evoked is not defining it. If you define red as light in a set range of wavelengths is one way to do it. But then red = light between X and Y. Anything outside that set is not red and anything inside is. Whether anyone ever perceives that light is irrelevant. In which case, red is evoked by nothing, it just is.
i am only saying something untrue must be a fallacy.
Given that your statement about Sandra Bullock is neither true no false
When I said "evoked" I was relating the physical definition to the physiological aspect which you are focusing on.I haven't changed definitions. I have yet to see one. I repeat, saying it is evoked is not defining it. If you define red as light in a set range of wavelengths is one way to do it. But then red = light between X and Y. Anything outside that set is not red and anything inside is. Whether anyone ever perceives that light is irrelevant. In which case, red is evoked by nothing, it just is.
Again as far as defining it, I was repeating the physical definition. If you want to go into the full spectral complexity of "red", the discussion turns to hue, saturation and intensity and the ambiguity of different evaluations by different people. That falls under the realm of physiology, not philosophy.
Nope. I'm only saying a physicist will define red one way for his convenience. Artists will define it as they see fit. An ophthalmologist may have another definition, and a Socratic philosopher even another.So, you are choosing for yourself a definition that is rooted in the foundation of electromagnetic science. You have selected your own definition, and reject others.
SynesthesiaHow then would you describe conditions whereby people see color when they read or when they listen to music?
Nope. If that confuses you, then just think of light as a spectrum of wavelengths which can be separated using a prism.You are starting to confuse yourself. Light color is based on wavelength. Your "spectrum of photons" implies (incorrectly) that photons have set types, akin to the various atoms which make up the periodic table.
Given that your statement about Sandra Bullock is neither true no false
That is a false statement. Perhaps you need more education. Do some reading on the law of excluded middle and come back when you know what you're talking about.
Sorry. I was confusing you with Swimexpert.Philosophy is not involved at all.
It certainly does fall apart for different people. I would interpret that to mean that there is no good physiological definition for red.The purpose of a definition is to determine if a given concept is or is not true. To say the text is red means nothing unless we have something upon which to determine what is or is not red. If red is light in a set spectrum, then that is what it is and that will be the basis of making that determination. If that definition is fuzzy, if it this spectrum for some and that spectrum for others, then it falls apart.
Sorry. I was confusing you with Swimexpert.Philosophy is not involved at all.
It certainly does fall apart for different people. I would interpret that to mean that there is no good physiological definition for red.The purpose of a definition is to determine if a given concept is or is not true. To say the text is red means nothing unless we have something upon which to determine what is or is not red. If red is light in a set spectrum, then that is what it is and that will be the basis of making that determination. If that definition is fuzzy, if it this spectrum for some and that spectrum for others, then it falls apart.
No, you are using temporal terms to claim atemporal qualities. You are contradicting yourself because these alleged atemporal qualities exist within the context of an extant time. ...
merriam webster said:atem·po·ral
\(ˌ)ā-ˈtem-p(ə-)rəl\adjective
:independent of or unaffected by time :timeless
First Use: 1870
SwimExpert said:No. If something is eternally existent it is temporal, not atemporal. ...
SwimExpert said:...By definition a "self evident" truth requires recognition by an observer in order to exist, and as such is entirely subjective.
Yep. I think we are in agreement.... Unless you think otherwise.If it falls apart for anyone, then it is an invalid definition for the purposes of determining reality. We can identify a hydrogen atom because we have defined the specific attributes which make it a hydrogen atom. It is not hydrogen for some and helium for others. It either meets the criteria of the definition or it does not.
If we never knew there was such a thing or if our definition was completely wrong, that would not change the nature of the atom. Only our ability to understand it. The atom does not care if we understand it. It's existence stands on its own, whether we understand or not. Thus these definitions are important to us, but they have no importance at all to that which we attempt to define. If those things are dependent upon our definition, then they are not real.
That color, in RGB is those exact numbers. Every time. It will not, and cannot change. You asked me "what is the color of this text"...and the only place that text will appear is on a computer screen.Truth is not interpretable. It cannot change. It is fact. And fact cannot change.
What color is this text? Is your answer a fact? Is there any interpretation that occurs in determining the color of this text?
My interpretation is that the color is red. So I believe it is red.
The truth is that the color is: (In subtractive color used in digital formats such as your screen)
R - 248
G - 221
B - 200
In Additive color, as converted by an Adobe engine is:
C - 2
M - 13
Y - 19
K - 0
Anything else?
You haven't defined "color". It is a meaningless term except for the observer. If you wish to deal in reality, then the question should be what are the wavelengths of the photons generated by those particular pixels on the screen.
I did define color, specifically in fact.
No, you didn't. You defined digital formats, not color.
Jesus' reply was his life. He knew words are relative and there was no expressing the truth to Pilate with them.When Jesus stood before Pilate, Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" The gospels do not give us Jesus' reply. So I present the question to you. In your opinion, what is truth?
That color, in RGB is those exact numbers. Every time. It will not, and cannot change. You asked me "what is the color of this text"...and the only place that text will appear is on a computer screen.What color is this text? Is your answer a fact? Is there any interpretation that occurs in determining the color of this text?
My interpretation is that the color is red. So I believe it is red.
The truth is that the color is: (In subtractive color used in digital formats such as your screen)
R - 248
G - 221
B - 200
In Additive color, as converted by an Adobe engine is:
C - 2
M - 13
Y - 19
K - 0
Anything else?
You haven't defined "color". It is a meaningless term except for the observer. If you wish to deal in reality, then the question should be what are the wavelengths of the photons generated by those particular pixels on the screen.
I did define color, specifically in fact.
No, you didn't. You defined digital formats, not color.
So, a computer, every computer, will send to every monitor regardless of make or model or what country - those RGB numbers.
So it is TRUE..that the color of your text is:
R - 248
G - 221
B - 200
On Hexidecimal it is #ff0000, that is the HTML color. Which your computer than translates to RGB for your monitor.
Yep. I think we are in agreement.... Unless you think otherwise.If it falls apart for anyone, then it is an invalid definition for the purposes of determining reality. We can identify a hydrogen atom because we have defined the specific attributes which make it a hydrogen atom. It is not hydrogen for some and helium for others. It either meets the criteria of the definition or it does not.
If we never knew there was such a thing or if our definition was completely wrong, that would not change the nature of the atom. Only our ability to understand it. The atom does not care if we understand it. It's existence stands on its own, whether we understand or not. Thus these definitions are important to us, but they have no importance at all to that which we attempt to define. If those things are dependent upon our definition, then they are not real.
The definition I'm using for "atemporal" is as follows:
merriam webster said:atem·po·ral
\(ˌ)ā-ˈtem-p(ə-)rəl\adjective
:independent of or unaffected by time :timeless
First Use: 1870
The atemporal quality in question is 'eternal existence'.
In accordance to the definition quoted above, when the existence proper of an existent thing is not dependent on time
That something is self-evident doesn't entail that everyone knows about it.
The evidence is objectively there to be recognized whether anyone else gets around to recognizing it or not.
Given that your statement about Sandra Bullock is neither true no false
That is a false statement. Perhaps you need more education. Do some reading on the law of excluded middle and come back when you know what you're talking about.
No, you need to support your claim. Beauty is entirely subjective, and is therefore neither true nor false.
Look. We both do agree. If you want to view light from a Socratic POV, that's fine by me. I'm looking at it from a physics point of view. We are both right if we stand by our separate definitions.
Given that your statement about Sandra Bullock is neither true no false
That is a false statement. Perhaps you need more education. Do some reading on the law of excluded middle and come back when you know what you're talking about.
No, you need to support your claim. Beauty is entirely subjective, and is therefore neither true nor false.
I need to support the law of excluded middle? No, I do not need to support a logical cornerstone that has been understood for thousands of years. You simply are ignorant.
An "eternal" object is still temporal. It exists in time. ...
SwimExpert said:...Longevity does not equate to atemporality. Even if the entirety of time were compressed to nothing more than the span of your life (which would mean that you would exist eternally, from the beginning of time to the end of time), your existence still would not be atemporal. .
the oxford english dictionary said:eternal
Syllabification: e·ter·nal
Pronunciation: /əˈtərn(ə)l/
adjective
Lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning:...
SwimExpert said:...Your existence would still be in a constant state of change. Your existence would depend on time in order to ever be defined.
SWIMEXPERT said:...Someone would have to know about it, at the very least. Furthermore, if it were truly self evident, then everyone would know it upon being faced with it. ...
SwimExpert said:Prove it.
