Back    All discussions

2016-09-27
Perception
Where is color?
In the observer as a feeling, the observed or in the communique between the two?

2016-10-03
Perception
Reply to Pooja Soni
Color is absolute.  It is neither in the feeling nor in the communique. Feeling is a communique in a way. Arises due to something, maybe observed. You see all the three situations are almost similar. Not same though. Color lies in between other colors,  to be perceived.  It needs to be.  To be perceived  does not happen in isolation. Nor does any communique.  Color lies in its counter presence along with other entities.  Colors.  In the emotion.  Not feeling.  It whispers.  

2016-10-05
Perception
Reply to Pooja Soni
"Colour"  is the way our minds interpret the sense data received by the eyes.  Different wavelengths of light react with the receivers in our eyes and our brain/mind interprets that sense data. 
"Colour" in and of itself, does not exist outside the brain.  Different wavelengths of the energy we name as "light" do exist and are available for interpretation into colour. 

2016-10-06
Perception
Reply to Ian Stuart
There is no mind without the senses and sensing. We are not aware of all that we sense. We are only aware of a portion of what we can sense. When we look at apple, we are also looking at a variety of other colors, shapes, sizes, sensing sounds, smells, etc. The mind is that shape or color we are aware of. So it is the awareness in the eyes, which is the mind in such an occasion of observation. 
Different wavelengths of the energy we name as "light" do exist and are available for interpretation into colour. //
Can you elaborate?
I agree color only exists in the mind, or Brain. But what else is there except the color, to what we call color?

2016-10-11
Perception
Reply to Pooja Soni
Pratitya-Samutpada :-) The subject and object arise together. The relata are dependent phenomena. They have no independent reality.

2016-10-11
Perception
Reply to Pooja Soni
Color is objective, an experiance of the world around us taken in by the senses namely perception. It is then taken to our understanding in the mind, followed by our reasoning and then given judgement, all entirely a posteriori. Color is an empirical experiance of the senses and the mind of the world around us. It is universal because if we both looked at the same color we would understand to both of us and any number of other people looking at the same experience, that is color..
Color is not a feeling, we cannot touch it though some people would say red arouses a "feeling" of danger or anger but that is another conception of it.
I am not quite sure what you mean by communique between observer and feeling. Guessing I would say no.


2016-10-11
Perception
Reply to Pooja Soni
'Colour' is a word with two quite different meanings. This was recognised in the sixteenth century by people like Montaigne and almost certainly for centuries before.
One meaning of colour is an experience we have on looking at things. It arises in the brain. Newton called it a 'phantasm in the mind'.

The other meaning of colour is a collection of different dynamic properties in the outside world that have in common the tendency to give as the experience in the first meaning. These include preferential reflectance of a particular wavelength (red tomato), preferential emission of a wavelength (red hot coal), preferential transmission of a wavelength (red wine) and the tendency to preferentially depolarise red-sensitive cones (red light). These dispositions have nothing in common but all get called red vicariously.

So there is no either/or right answer. Colour in one sense is in the head. In the other sense it is outside. Confusing the two leads to endless circular discussion. 

2016-10-11
Perception

Kia ora  Mradulla

If colour is objective, how do you account for colour-blind people.  They have a different experience of colours from other people – which tends to suggest that we may all have different experiences of colour.

What is objective is the varying range of the wavelengths of the energy we call light.  This is what Jonathan means when he says there are two different meanings of colour, and:

“Colour in one sense is in the head. In the other sense it is outside. Confusing the two leads to endless circular discussion.”

I prefer to avoid the confusion by talking about colour, which is the experience we have, and the wavelengths of light, which is Jonathan’s second meaning of colour.  This can be objectively measured and exist in the world, independent of sensory experience. 

So, 

Wave lengths of energy – exist in the word independent of human experience

Colour – exists in the mind as a mental construction of human sensory experience. 


2016-10-12
Perception
Reply to Ian Stuart
The only problem with that, very logical, approach, Ian, is that the English language does not work that way. When we ask what is the colour of lead dioxide we are asking not about a wavelength but about a dispositional property to preferentially reflect certain parts of the EM spectrum. If the lead dioxide is illuminated by yellow sodium light it can be said to have this property even if the only wavelengths of light coming off it are in the yellow range. So the observer will say 'I cannot tell what colour it is in this light'.
Ordinary people with common sense realise we have several different meanings for colour subconsciously although they may not have thought about it. They will say ' I know the colour of the light is yellow but that does not tell me the colour of the lead dioxide.' And one can show that the brain is wired to distinguish these two meanings. It compensates for illumination clues and presents us with a different sensed colour if it decides it is 'the colour of an object' and does not compensate if it decides it is just assessing 'what colour do I see'. 

Moreover, it is all very well saying that there are wave lengths of energy but in fact these are just convenient fictions. There are no waves strictly speaking, and no 'lengths'. These so called wavelengths are ways of describing dynamic dispositional properties that give us a sense of waviness or length - rather inappropriately in this case. I think it is useful to admit that we use all these words in two ways because we do the same for spaciousness and duration - both cover both dispositions and the experiences they engender. It is much harder to get people to see that space and time have two different meanings in this way and I think it helps to admit the dual meaning applies to colour because it is a way in to realising how much our language can fool us.

2016-10-12
Perception
Reply to Ian Stuart
Color is penetrative. If you close your eyes you can still experience the full spectrum of light as energy. In Hinduism it is related to parts of the body. Meditation focuses on nerve concentrations connecting organs to the central nervous system along the spine in the arrangement of light spectrum R, O, Y etc. I am not entirely sure whether the spiritual is rational or empirical I think it is another realm. Like realities with it's own time and space.
 We are talking about objective color when we see a red chair or brown horse as properties of objects.
You, Mr Stuart are pickng up on an explanation of science which it is always objective. Like Pooja said earlier memory has no color, that would be subjective after the objective judgement of what is in the memory.

2016-10-12
Perception
Reply to Pooja Soni
There is a problem with the word "objective", in this context. Colour is certainly "mind-dependent". But then everything is "mind-dependent". So, now what does "objective" mean in that context? 

2016-10-14
Perception
Reply to Pooja Soni

Kia ora ra

Jonathan

Yes, I get the language game – I would hope that in a Philosophical forum we could be a little more precise.

And yes, I get the science.  There are no waves, strictly speaking etc.   We can distinguish colours by measuring the “waves” across the spectrum, so there is a very precise way to describe the phenomenon we experience as colour.

Mradullah 

From personal and Zen perspective – it’s all Dukka …  all unsatisfactory explanations. 

Michael

Yes – there is always a problem with ‘objectivity’.  It’s all Dhukka


2016-10-14
Perception
Jonathan C W Edwards,

 It arises in the brain//
There is no evidence to show any process 'originates' in the Brain itself. The Brain is a medium for functioning of the processes of consciousness. 
There is no color in the outside world without the observer, the consciousness.

Ian Stuart,
 This can be objectively measured and exist in the world, independent of sensory experience//
How can we measure something we cannot experience?

Michael David Kurak,
There is a problem with the word "objective", in this context. Colour is certainly "mind-dependent". But then everything is "mind-dependent". So, now what does "objective" mean in that context? //
There is nothing objective, all is subjective. Objectivity needs a context, that context is subjectivity.

2016-10-14
Perception
Reply to Pooja Soni
Pooja - saying that "all is subjective" and that there is nothing objective is equivalent to saying that "all is up" and there is no down. They are two sides of one coin.

2016-10-14
Perception
Reply to Pooja Soni
Hi Pooja,
The process does record in the brain. If a dog smells food and it is hungry it will start salivating. All this happens in the brain. If you see a red light it records in the brain and you stop. It is OK with physical attributes but what about noumena? From consciousness all these things you are aware of in the physical world there is the mind which is not visible. Do such ideas of freedom, God, morality take place in the mind alone or does it relate to the heart?

2016-10-14
Perception
Reply to Ian Stuart
Cheer up! It need not be. Think about the joy of ths site. Discussing philosophy together, the warmth of all togetherness with the same purpose. And you are nearing Nirvana.
Objectivity is just that, empirical dominance. Subjectivity the fine pure rational. When you think about Kant's third Critique, you appreciate from the inner rational faculty something beautiful. But the beautiful may reach out to yo to be appreciated then it is objective by a definite mark.

2016-10-17
Perception
Kia ora Michael
It's very clear that there are at least three three philosophical systems being represented here.  

These appear to be those of Europe and its derived cultures,  Hindu-based philosophy and a Buddhist-based philosophy.

The basic assumptions about our world, and the consequent worldview that arises are very different, and, in some ways, incompatible with each other.

2016-10-18
Perception
Reply to Pooja Soni
Beauty is a good test case for discussing the difference between subjective and objective. If I say, "I like that statue of the Buddha" then I have said something subjective. But if I say "that is a beautiful statue of the Buddha", I have said something objective. Now, "that object is yellow" is most certainly an objective statement. The term "objective" it seems, taken to refer to the universe as it would be independently of any mind, is a misuse of the term.

2016-10-18
Perception
Reply to Pooja Soni


I am a student and not a pro. Hence, my answer is that of a student and not a pro.

Color (colour) is defined in the Oxford Dictionaries as follows:
The property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way it reflects or emits light.

Color does not exist anywhere. The sensation is 'momentary'--it changes so fast that human beings are not aware of the change most of the time. It comes into existence when the 'eye' comes into contact with an 'object'. An object is a mass of colors which produces forms (three dimensional shapes).

There are many other issues in understanding color: For example, color blindness. Color is also dependent on the properties of the object and 'light'.

Students of photography have many models for describing color. An introductory article is in Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_model].


2016-10-18
Perception
Reply to Ian Stuart
Unless one is a epistemic cultural relativist, those sound like good reasons to continue the discussion. I am familiar with all three, so maybe something can be sorted out. :-)
I tried to post the following earlier, but it has yet to be accepted it seems:

Beauty is a good test case for discussing the difference between subjective and objective. If I say, "I like that statue of the Buddha" then I have said something subjective. But if I say "that is a beautiful statue of the Buddha", I have said something objective. Now, "that object is yellow" is most certainly an objective statement. The term "objective" it seems, taken to refer to the universe as it would be independently of any mind, is a misuse of the term.


2016-10-18
Perception
Reply to Ian Stuart
Michael
Pooja - saying that "all is subjective" and that there is nothing objective is equivalent to saying that "all is up" and there is no down. They are two sides of one coin.//

The objective existence of an object cannot be proved without observation, subjective experience. 


2016-10-19
Perception
"But if I say "that is a beautiful statue of the Buddha", I have said something objective."

That is still a subjective statement.  he phrasing makes it sound objective, but beauty always requires a judgement, which is subjective. 

2016-10-20
Perception
I presume by Pratitya-Samutapada you refer to Paticca-Samuppada in the Nikaya texts of Theravada. 
There are no subjects and objects in the Paticca-Samuppada. The text defining Paticca-samuppada from Vinaya Mahavagga Bodhikatha is quoted below:

Atha kho bhagavā rattiyā paṭhamaṃ yāmaṃ paṭiccasamuppādaṃ anulomapaṭilomaṃ manasākāsi – ‘‘avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṃ, viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ, nāmarūpapaccayā saḷāyatanaṃ, saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso, phassapaccayā vedanā, vedanāpaccayā taṇhā, taṇhāpaccayā upādānaṃ, upādānapaccayā bhavo, bhavapaccayā jāti, jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṃ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā sambhavanti – evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti. ‘‘Avijjāyatveva asesavirāganirodhā saṅkhāranirodho, saṅkhāranirodhā viññāṇanirodho, viññāṇanirodhā nāmarūpanirodho, nāmarūpanirodhā saḷāyatananirodho, saḷāyatananirodhā phassanirodho, phassanirodhā vedanānirodho, vedanānirodhā taṇhānirodho, taṇhānirodhā upādānanirodho, upādānanirodhā bhavanirodho, bhavanirodhā jātinirodho, jātinirodhā jarāmaraṇaṃ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā nirujjhanti – evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa nirodho hotī’’ti

(V 1.1).

It is impossible to translate this into any language though there are many interpretations. All interpretations are false. The passage describes the Abhisambodhi of Lord Buddha (Bhagava Buddho).  

Paticca-samuppada (Anuloma) describes the behaviour of beings including human beings. It is something that cannot be understood; it has to be experienced. 

2016-10-20
Perception
Reply to Pooja Soni
Pooja, What would be an example of "the subjective existence of an object"? - a mirage? The existence of a mirage also requires observation. So, now does the colour of an object have a subjective or an objective existence?

2016-10-20
Perception
The subjective and objective are not dependent on each other to exist. Beauty in Kant's 3 rd Critique is a good case to demonstrate. Something can be objective but become subjective on observation this would be then metaphysical. But something observed in nature can be purely subjective when it is independent of the thing observed. In this case it is transendental. Is that correct Michael? you probably know it better than I.


2016-10-20
Perception
Reply to Ian Stuart
Why must judgment always be subjective? Is not something being beautiful to me as absurd as something being true to me?

2016-10-20
Perception
Reply to Ian Stuart
Ian stuart, 
What decides the objective-ness of the statue or beauty?
Only observation and report of a fact?
A fact is still a subjectivity driven choice in report using words.
The content of a report is never objective. 
All there is, is subjectivity. 

2016-10-20
Perception
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are asking.    
What I see is that, in Western philosophy, something that is beautiful to you may not be beautiful to another being.  Something that is absurd to you may be completely serious to another being.  

Therefore, neither statement can be objective, they are both subjective. 

From a culturist perspective, everything comes from within a culture, and is therefore not objective.

From my personal philosophy?  Everything is dhukka.  Subjective and Objective are terms used by human beings to communicate about their interactions in the world, and are dhukka.  


2016-10-20
Perception

Let me try this one.  This is one of the hardest concepts to get across, as it is within a Buddhist/Zen framework

In Buddhist logic, a true statement is necessarily true for all time – past, present and future.   Something that is only “true” (in the Western sense) for a short period of time is not ultimately true.

So the statements “I am alive” and “I am dead”, if true, are true for all time – in the past and in the future.  And they are both true simultaneously.  Both statements, if true, are objective.  Statements that are not true for all time are simply not true.

This, in very a simplistic way, is why Zen refuses to answer questions about such things, or use the is/is not response.

There’s a story told of a monk on a pilgrimage who hears that his master has died back in the Monastery.  He rushes back to the monastery and on entering the gate asks the first master he sees: “Is my master dead?” 

The master replies “Not saying.”  The monk says “I just want to know if my master has died?”     Not saying” replies the master.

“Look,” the monk says “I have come back specially to mourn my masters.  Is he dead?” 

The master walks away.  “Not saying, Not saying, Not saying.”

Also within Buddhist philosophy, there is only one thing that exists and that is the universe.  It is a whole thing and not made up of parts.

Everything we call “objects” have no independent origin and therefore do not exist as independent things, but as part of the one thing that does exist.

So to point to something and name an “object” separate from other objects is to make a false statement, a statement from a personal perspective and a completely subjective statement.  Objects” do not exist as separate things.

This is the non-dualism of Buddhism.

Is there are tree outside my window?  Not saying … 


2016-10-21
Perception
Mradulla,
Let's look carefully at your claims.

1. You write: "Something can be objective but become subjective on observation", This claim makes me think of Berkeley, who argues that objects must be perceived to exist. In this case, you would be claiming that there was a mind-independent world and when we use the term "objective" it is to this world that we are referring. Is this your claim?

2. You write: "something observed in nature can be purely subjective when it is independent of the thing observed". This claim seems to contradict the former claim. It is not clear to me how we can talk about something being subjective, in absence of a subject.

Michael

2016-10-21
Perception
Reply to Ian Stuart
Also within Buddhist philosophy, there is only one thing that exists and that is the universe.  It is a whole thing and not made up of parts.//
I think that is not true. 
Nothing exists independent of observation. Memory of an object, is the only description of the object. So the known state of the object, is the description of the object and if the known state of the object isn't the same as the observed state of the object, then the object doesn't exist.
If for a person, 
An object is a 'falling tree'
Post observation, when the tree stops falling, the object ceases to exist. 
A falling tree, isn't a fallen tree. 
If by objective you mean differences in subjective experience or meaning, then I agree, a bat to you isn't the same as the bat to me. 
About truth,
Experience is the only truth there is. 
Color blue is truth if you can experience it. There is no need for inference of whether the other person experiences the same color as you or not. Because there is no way to infer the experience of other person. Language only creates an illusion of uniformity in experience between two people. My bat must be the same as your bat, if we were to communicate, irrespective of the experience of bat to both speakers. 

2016-10-24
Perception
You like the Pali. I prefer the Sanskrit. I disagree. One can develop a sound intellectual understanding of Pratitya Samutpada. However, I agree that it is also an experience.

2016-10-24
Perception
The nature of aesthetic appreciation takes different forms. On observation if the object calls for the attention from the observer than it is entirely objective. It is the outside world of the observer which is acting on the senses. But It can begin objective and become something which becomes perceived by the inner mind independent of the outside world. Judgement is always independent of the outside world. Subjectivity means the beauty appreciated is independent of the outside world purely conceived by the rational sense.Further, the mystery of awe inspired in appreciation of beauty is the super sensory.

2017-01-16
Perception
Reply to Pooja Soni
Nagarjuna is clear. Nothing really exists and nothing really happens.

This comment uncovers the subtleties...

.."So the statements “I am alive” and “I am dead”, if true, are true for all time – in the past and in the future.  And they are both true simultaneously.  Both statements, if true, are objective.  Statements that are not true for all time are simply not true."

Not for nothing does Lao Tsu say that true words seem paradoxical. We would have to say 'I both live and die', (Heraclitus - 'We are and are not'.) 

Un-paradoxical statements will never be metaphysically true. Cf Nagarjuna's doctrine of 'Two Truths' or 'Two Worlds'.

I would agree that the subjective implies the objective and vice versa. Up and down, right and left, subjective and objective. Buddhism goes beyond such distinctions.