The Existential Crisis

[Age]

Do things (stones, rats, mugs of coffee and so forth) exist as objects of space and time or is their existence dependent on mind/thought/ideas?

Both. Things exist as objects, but not as objects of space and time, AND, KNOWING 'existence' itself, and therefore KNOWING of thing/object's 'existence' as well, is dependent on thee Mind, and the human brain.

If they exist as objects in space and time we can measure them. Measuring them is predicating ideas about them.Schrodinger's cat is either exclusively alive or exclusively dead and we don't know which state the cat is in until we open the box. Schrodinger's cat shows minds/ideas/thoughts don't make something to be the case but reveal something to be the case. Ontologically both possibility and probability exist however we cannot know any probability until we have "opened the box" that is to say measured the cat to predicate about it.

What view are you wanting to express by saying this?

Do you really think objects can exist outwith space and time?

Do you KNOW what 'space' and 'time' ARE, EXACTLY?

If so, then there are quite a few people, who have been wondering about, What is 'time', exactly? Some have also been wondering, What is 'space', exactly? as well.

The way you posed this question are you assuming objects cannot exist without space and time?

Can an object exist that has no length and breadth, or last forever?

Yes.

I am wanting to express the view possibility is the case i.e. something material exists but we cannot know just what is possible until we experience it.

[uwot]

Aaaaaah! Is THAT how you use the word "red"? Why didn't you say so?

Skepdick, I salute you! Rarely has anyone been prepared to appear so stupid in order not to appear stupid.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, I salute you! Rarely has anyone been prepared to appear so stupid in order not to appear stupid.

But we aren't done yet, genius!

I am still waiting for you to show me the fucking empirical evidence which convinced you that "red" means THIS COLOR.

It took you two weeks to tell me how you use the word RED.

Lets see how long it takes you to explain how you use the phrase "empirical evidence".

[uwot]

Skepdick, I salute you! Rarely has anyone been prepared to appear so stupid in order not to appear stupid.

But we aren't done yet, genius!

Fine by me.

I am still waiting for you to show me the fucking empirical evidence which convinced you that "red" means THIS COLOR.

Well Skepdick, it was so long ago that I genuinely don't remember. Still, as you take yourself so seriously it seems fair to ask whether you think "red" means THIS COLOR.

It took you two weeks to tell me how you use the word RED.

So now you know. Perhaps you can be more forthcoming and tell me how you use the word RED.

Lets see how long it takes you to explain how you use the phrase "empirical evidence".

Well Skepdick, taking my existence for granted, which of course you legitimately may doubt, ""empirical evidence"" (not sure where you are quoting me from, but fuck it) is any phenomenon that is brought to my attention. You will win a lollipop if you understand that in less than two weeks.

[Skepdick]

Well Skepdick, it was so long ago that I genuinely don't remember. Still, as you take yourself so seriously it seems fair to ask whether you think "red" means THIS COLOR.
(...)
So now you know. Perhaps you can be more forthcoming and tell me how you use the word RED.

I have no idea what "red" means in any precise sense! I equivocate that word all the time.

THIS IS RED and THIS IS RED and THIS IS RED and THIS IS RED.

Obviously they are different colors!

As far as I am concerned (and if my only choices were "red" and "blue") THIS is "red" too, because it's NOT "blue".

Well Skepdick, taking my existence for granted, which of course you legitimately may doubt, ""empirical evidence"" (not sure where you are quoting me from, but fuck it) is any phenomenon that is brought to my attention. You will win a lollipop if you understand that in less than two weeks.

So tell me what those phenomena are. The particular things that were brought to you attention which convinced you that THIS COLOR is "red" and THIS COLOR isn't "red".

I am pretty sure I'll understand it instantly the moment you stop speaking in general terms and provide particular examples.

[Dontaskme]

I have no idea what "red" means in any precise sense! I equivocate that word all the time.

THIS IS RED and THIS IS RED and THIS IS RED and THIS IS RED.

Obviously they are different colors!

The concept RED is known by the only knowing there is which is Consciousness.

The concept RED never changes, for example the concept RED can never be the concept BLUE and the concept BLUE can never be the concept GREEN. All concepts are permanently fixed as their own unique context that can never change within knowledge.

Now, what's even more unchanging is that ''NO COLOUR'' is ever SEEN. Colours exist as concepts KNOWN as imaged by colourless imageless consciousness...without this completely translucent imageless consciousness, colour could not possibly show up and become known to it.

What is the image and colour of CONSCIOUSNESS? ..the answer is it takes on the shape, colour, image of what it sees and what it sees it knows..so the actual colour is just a concept known. Colour does not exist in any way shape or form independant of the consciousness in which it is known.

The KNOWN know nothing, the KNOWN is already being known by CONSCIOUSNESS the only knowing there is. What is the colour and image of consciousness?


Same applies to the concept ''The Existential Crisis'' .... no one or thing ever experiences it. It's just a known concept within the only knowing there is which is consciousness. And so that which appears to experience ''The Existential Crisis''...NEVER experiences it.

.

.

[uwot]

I have no idea what "red" means in any precise sense! I equivocate that word all the time.

Well, I would't use "equivocate" in that context, but I know what you mean.

THIS IS RED and THIS IS RED and THIS IS RED and THIS IS RED.

Obviously they are different colors!

Yeah. You could call the last one brown and I wouldn't argue. And the third one. Pink? Meh; borderline. The other two are safely in the red zone, yes indeedy, you picked two fine examples of red there Skepdick.

As far as I am concerned (and if my only choices were "red" and "blue") THIS is "red" too, because it's NOT "blue".

So it's just red you have a problem with; you can distinguish other colours with the same ease as the rest of us.

Well Skepdick, taking my existence for granted, which of course you legitimately may doubt, ""empirical evidence"" (not sure where you are quoting me from, but fuck it) is any phenomenon that is brought to my attention. You will win a lollipop if you understand that in less than two weeks.

So tell me what those phenomena are.

You've got it arse about tit. It is red which is the phenomenon and, since for current purposes it is synonymous, an empirical datum.

The particular things that were brought to you attention which convinced you that THIS COLOR is "red" and THIS COLOR isn't "red".

I am pretty sure I'll understand it instantly the moment you stop speaking in general terms and provide particular examples.

Sorry Skepdick, can't help you with the last bit. As I said:

Well Skepdick, it was so long ago that I genuinely don't remember.

[Skepdick]

Yeah. You could call the last one brown and I wouldn't argue. And the third one. Pink? Meh; borderline. The other two are safely in the red zone, yes indeedy, you picked two fine examples of red there Skepdick.

For some purposes and some contexts - the distinction may not matter.

So it's just red you have a problem with; you can distinguish other colours with the same ease as the rest of us.

It was an arbitrarily chosen color to demonstrate a point.

I could've picked THIS ONE and THIS ONE.

You've got it arse about tit. It is red which is the phenomenon and, since for current purposes it is synonymous, an empirical datum.

One of us has it ass-about. I am pretty convinced it's you.

THE COLOR OF THIS SENTENCE IS THE EMPIRICAL PHENOMENON. "red" is the label you use to represent it in language.

Much like in the programming language used by this forum THIS COLOR is "#FF0000".

Sorry Skepdick, can't help you with the last bit. As I said:

Well Skepdick, it was so long ago that I genuinely don't remember.

Which is precisely why I am trying to get you to willingly adopt the Principle of maximum entropy. Or in plain English agnosticism.

Allow yourself to forget that THIS COLOR is "red". What sort of observations would convince you of it being the case?

[uwot]

...I am trying to get you to willingly adopt the Principle of maximum entropy. Or in plain English agnosticism.

Granted it was two weeks ago, which is a long time for someone who can't remember what I said a few sentences back, but this is just one of many examples of me pointing out my agnostic chops:

It really isn't that complicated. As I have said: that there is something(Parmenides)/experience(Descartes) is the only thing that is not underdetermined.

Sometimes it has been appended with words to the effect that everything else is theoretical. Any glimmer of recognition?

[Skepdick]

...I am trying to get you to willingly adopt the Principle of maximum entropy. Or in plain English agnosticism.

Granted it was two weeks ago, which is a long time for someone who can't remember what I said a few sentences back, but this is just one of many examples of me pointing out my agnostic chops:

It really isn't that complicated. As I have said: that there is something(Parmenides)/experience(Descartes) is the only thing that is not underdetermined.

Sometimes it has been appended with words to the effect that everything else is theoretical. Any glimmer of recognition?

I know that. I said that.

According to your evidence-based theory the English word "red" means THIS COLOR.

I am telling you a fact.

Clearly you still mis-understand what it is that I am asking of you So we shall try again...

IF you allow yourself to forget the relationship between the word "red" and THIS COLOR, what would you admit as evidence for the claim THIS COLOR IS RED?

Agnosticism is merely a point of departure. It's obvious to me or anybody (if not to you) that you aren't agnostic about the redness of THIS COLOR.

Even if your determination is under-determined you have still determined it to be red. Somehow.

Your process is what I am asking for.

[Belinda]

|Are there different spectrums for light sources and reflected light?

[Skepdick]

Are there different spectrums for light sources and reflected light?

No. The spectrum is as you see it/experience it. Technically speaking it's the "electro magnetic spectrum" though. The frequencies of the spectrum which you perceive with your eyes we call "light". The frequencies you perceive with your skin - "heat". The frequencies you perceive with your ears are "sound"

There's nothing more to it - nothing that language can ever give you that you don't already have via direct experience.

What there are is different purpose-build languages (or models if you will) to to speak about colours in a more precise/formal manner.
Artists don't just speak about "red", "green' and "blue" - they have a more precise language to discuss properties such as hue, colourfulness, saturation, lightness, and brightness. It's just a higher fidelity language.

In terms of engineering we havecollor spaces which are models/specifications for making things which accurately reproduce colors. Like your computer's monitor etc.

The counter-argument argument to be made, of course, is that by being able to say more things about colors, by being able to recognize nuance such as hue, colourfulness, saturation etc then qualitatively and quantitatively you are much more sensitive and sophisticated about the nuance in color than somebody who merely sees "red", "blue" and "green".

[Belinda]

Thanks Skepdick
Are there different machines for naming their place on the spectrum according to whether the colour is emitted by a light source or by reflected light?

Whether or not there are different machines that increase our analytic power to understand light, is specifying a position on the spectrum evidence for the specificity of a colour? I imagine that red for instance is at its most intense or saturated hue on a spectrum when it is at the median position between purple and orange. So may we not say there is a definitive red?

[uwot]

The spectrum is as you see it/experience it. Technically speaking it's the "electro magnetic spectrum" though. The frequencies of the spectrum which you perceive with your eyes we call "light". The frequencies you perceive with your skin - "heat". The frequencies you perceive with your ears are "sound"

You're gonna want to edit that. Anyway...

[uwot]

IF you allow yourself to forget the relationship between the word "red" and THIS COLOR, what would you admit as evidence for the claim THIS COLOR IS RED?

Skepdick me old china, that relationship in entirely contingent. Once again:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
There is nothing about a label that has any material effect on the referent.

Agnosticism is merely a point of departure. It's obvious to me or anybody (if not to you) that you aren't agnostic about the redness of THIS COLOR.

Even if your determination is under-determined you have still determined it to be red. Somehow.

Your process is what I am asking for.

You put it perfectly well yourself:

There's nothing more to it - nothing that language can ever give you that you don't already have via direct experience.