Not necessarily. Each person can be aware of what "red" is to them, and it seems agreed upon intersubjectively, but without being able to literally percieve through another's eyes, we're only calling something that we're familiar with the same as what others are without the confirmation of it actually being the same. Practically, we're likely seeing the same color, but there is this unsolvable ontological and epistemic conundrum in a fundemental layer of the situation.

In short it's possible to have intersubjectivr verification on instances in which every subjective perspective is actually different.

From here, we're moving more into "the problem of other minds" and solipsism.

One love

Hm, I don't agree... Infra-red is invisible to the naked eye but picked up on night vision cameras and used for remote controls, when a stovetop gets red hot it will heat dinner quickly and burn your skin instantly, the red traffic light is at the top and means stop, strawberries are red when they're ripe, and so on and so forth. These are all immutable truths in objective reality as the concept of what 'red' is and does and its relationships to the other colours.

I think whether or not someone else is experiencing what I would call green as their red, assuming that every other element of their metaphor for interfacing with reality was changed so as to keep logic working, is pushing the boundaries of what I would define as 'subjective' at all. I would say in that situation that fundamentally we are having the same experience. I'm aware that this is arguable in those epistemological and ontological branches of thought!

I find trying to define what actually constitutes subjectivity is really tricky because of the nature of our experience of space time. It feels like uncertainty is a requirement of subjectivity, and time has a built-in 'uncertainty generator', but I don't think that we're necessarily forced down a solipsistic path here...

love!

Allow me to clarify: How did you learn what the color red as you know it is? Someone ostensively defined it for you. Does that mean you are both seeing the same color? Not necessarily. It would be more accurate to say that the hue that the pointer is familiar with is known to them and what that hue is for you and now your name for that hue is the same. They could be different relative hues for each of you. We mustn't mix up a name for a thing with the thing itself.

Another example: define red, without anything that we associate or connotate with red.

One love

Well, what I am saying is that it is abundantly possible to define red, in as far as we are capable with our sensory equipment, as an intricate fundamental part of the metaphor we create and experience reality via. For example, red has a dominant wavelength of 625-740nm (thanks Wikipedia).

I don’t think two spirits, incarnated as you and i standing next to each other in these human bodies, senses broadly equal in what they can discern, can/will sense two different hues of a strawberry in front of us relative to anything. For that to happen, fundamental logical building blocks would have to change and our two perceptions of the world would be incompatible.

I think if you think about it like this, it actually (a little counter intuitively) makes it easier to separate the thing from its name

Peace!

You're kind of missing the point still, which is okay, but I'm not sure how else to say it.

Simply, I'm making an epistemic observation relative to the limits of what we think we know that highlights what is taken for granted by certain thought inferences predicated on specific assumptions we necessarily make. I'm not saying that we do or don't see the same color when we point out red, just that it's possible different colors are being seen. Drawing distinctions between an orange and strawberry is easier than between any two colors. I'm showing a limit to what we think we know.

But that's all I'll say. The thread has already been derailed. You should perhaps check out Wittgenstein if i haven't mentioned him already.

One love

How arrogant of you. What is happening here is that I am disagreeing with you, but as you have constructed your beliefs around the false premise that you have found them to be true and so you are correct, you can't countenance discussion of them.

Your ability to engage in discourse will have a direct link to your intelligence, and I think this is a chicken and egg situation: you should force yourself back into the waters of discussion even if it's uncomfortable and you feel like you've swum enough. It's not enough to write 'I might be wrong' in your signature, this is a practise one needs to practice.

You absolutely have said that people may be seeing different colours, even within the sentence where you say that's not what you're saying, and I think you're tripping up on the thing versus a description of the thing because colour is something that we intuitively 'see', as in sense with our eyes. You are using the word 'colour' as a description of the visual stimulus you receive when you look at things, not the definition of it in a broad worldview.

Can someone reply or PM me as to whether there's a 'real' forum that's hidden to new members, with actual discussion, because at the moment the more I look around the more it seems like this is the Voidmatrix show, with one man wafting around being 'important, clever, and the arbiter of truth'... which isn't what I'm interested in. There have been other posts I've been interested in participating in but despite filling in the 100 question questionnaire I've had no word as to why I'm not able to. Not really a cool place to be.

What an aggressive reaction!
Don't you think you have exaggerated? behind a single sentence you are building an entire film, which includes making judgments about Voidmatrix as a PERSON, which I can assure you is far from being as you are describing him, up to judgments on the entire forum. All of this from a sentence that you simply misunderstood. You guys are having a normal debate...and his intention with that sentence was certainly not to question your intelligence.
Try to understand that we are in a forum, where fundamental parts for human communication such as intention, facial expressions, body language do not transpire.

Calm down, have a chamomile tea and reflect on yourself instead.

You're struggling to see the distinction. Saying people may see different colors is not the same as saying they do and your counter-arguments aren't directed at what I'm talking about, so I can assess that you're misunderstanding. Is it not arrogant of you to get upset at such an observation as though you should understand everything? Philosophy is more than just developing your own; it's also about the power of inquiry. You've making a lot of claims without trying to understand my point, which I will say is counterintuitive and nuanced.

And I'm not uncomfortable... however, you, being as upset as you are, are likely so. So your didaticism about what approach I should have is missing the mark. And having had this conversation with you, I certainly don't care about your thoughts on "intelligence."

And I practice philosophic skepticism, so there's a general suspension of judgement on what we claim snd think we know, on all fronts and regards, even to the point of questioning the axioms, presuppositions, and assumptions that build up arguments and claims.

Lastly, your response to me and present behavior are things that are taken into consideration when voting on new members to become full-members. As of now, levying insults at existing members wins you very little favor. We were having a discussion. I even said that it was okay that you were missing my point. It's not the end of the world, life will go on.

Bear in mind, if this isn't a very cool place to be for you, you don't have to be here.


One love

I was interested to see whether you’d pick up on the ‘can’ vs ‘do’ distinction. This is another discussion and is a straw man distracting from your constantly moving goalposts of your point. Your demeanour in pretty much all posts I’ve seen from you is “well akshually”, and I think you’re doing yourself a disservice, intellectually speaking.

If this is your ball, your rules, and I’m not welcome here then that’s fine! If you’re the weird kid in the playground that goes round trying to set the tone of how other people should play, I’m sure I’ll be able to ignore you.

I don’t think your attitude in various posts aligns with the attitude piece we were asked to agree to, often we don’t see how we come across so I’ll just say that from my perspective, you come across as condescending and arrogant and I think we can probably leave things there for now, internet’s a big place and all that!

Why are you allowed to ascertain someone else’s intentions and explain to me that my reaction to his behaviour is built on a false premise, I should have known better what they were thinking?! As you say, this is a forum, the only way we can communicate is by text. Rather than get all caught up in feelings behind what someone might have meant, it’s better to lay things on the table.

To all reading this, I’m happy to discuss whatever with you, openmindedly, im happy to do a bit of parading and mystique to make things fun but I’m not interested in snarkiness, I think we can just not post if we want to. I’m not sure where it says “dog piling is okay” in the attitude magma, I guess you just wanted to express yourself - id say that’s fine though, just grant me the same…

Certainly I will not interfere further. The last thing I say is that insulting a person is not "expressing oneself".

I don't even get what was the argument about, but Positivity is a nice nickname, would be great if your post were in the same key

More love less hate, we are all made from mud.

Again, I care little for your thoughts regarding intellect (however, now that you've tried to attack my intelligence again, I wonder how you really feel about your own...). Your comment on "moving goal posts" is another indication you're just not understanding and pinpointing the finer lines I'm dancing in. And again that's okay. Interesting, you seem to be doing "research" on me now... are you that bored? Is this really that big a deal?

As for the "well aksually" [sic] (how mature by the way) I'm not going to apologize for often highlighting small details or perspectives that may be being neglected in a given context. I'm incisive and detail oriented. If you don't want someone to make such comments then don't open the door and keep your sentiments to yourself. Opinions and free speech are two way roads.

And nope, not my playground, nor my rules, I'm willing to play with everyone else. You began a debate, I played the game, now your feelings are hurt. I'm fine . However, I do have a responsibility to enforce rules and maintain a certain culture here. And to be clear, no one has said you're not welcome here...

That said, your opinions about my behavior from your perception are utterly meaningless. I check in regularly with the owner of the site and the other moderators (especially since my demeanor has shifted to being more direct latley). It's only individuals like you who appear overzealous in their preconceived notions that have a problem with me. And that's okay with me. No one is liked by everyone and no one likes everyone.

I apologize that your feelings were hurt by having your personal ideas critically challenged.

Your screen name is a misnomer.

One love

Strawberries eh?
See attached pic...

Green is red.

Ummm, just wanna say: colorblind people are a thing?

I am colorblind and I am asked the question what does red look like to you all the time.

Presumably there are colourblindness simulation apps available so interested parties can get a screen image for themselves and stop bothering you about it!

Colour subjectivity is a fascinating question though; the boundary between orange and red or yellow is not fixed, for example, so I'm rather intrigued by shades that explore those boundary zones - vermilion, turquoise, magenta, teal, primrose, indigo...

Me too! Aside from the intersubjective confirmation conundrum from above, I also find color boundaries interesting, as well as color illusions (like in difficulties telling what color or colors something is) interjections (not sure if that's a term, but when we seem bits of color in peripherals when looking at certain saturation of combinations of black and white), and color arguments where two people or more debate what color something is.

One love

I think this is really interesting and it makes me wonder how can we create what we observe? One might think if one things entities are "dark" or "bad", that they would be more likely to manifest that way, but as you mention, oftentimes a surprise is around the corner!

It was definitely an experience that reinforced my stance on running the gamut on considering possibilities, while never fully committing to any.

One love