The Existential Crisis

[Age]

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.

.

.

Is there only one consciousness, or, are there more than one consciousness?

[Age]

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.

But why do you want to try to get people to willingly adopt these things?

From what I have observed they do not serve any real purpose for human beings.

Do you have any examples of what real purpose they have served you?

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

[Skepdick]

Do you have any examples of what real purpose they have served you?

The principle of maximum entropy is the OPENNESS you preach.
It's the "I neither believe nor disbelieve anything" part.

Practicing it allows for maximum learning. It serves me well to learn from first principles.

[Skepdick]

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?

No. We cannot distinguish such things at the physics level.

Rather than the talking about "identical" things physicists speak of indistinguishable things. If two observed things have identical properties you can't distinguish them from one another - but worse than that you can't distinguish whether you are seeing the "original" photon or a reflected one.

In fact, things get so bizarre at such small scale physicists even have a one electron theory in which every electron observed is "the same" electron.

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?

Well. That doesn't work unless you have already defined "purple" and "orange" precisely. But it's a spectrum - we don't define points - we define bands.
So "red" is all the waves which have 625–740 nanometers wavelength, but this is the crux of it; and the crux of all human categorical reasoning.

625nm is red
730 (625 + 115) nm is red.
But 624 (625 - 1) nm is not red.

Because it's a continuum Mathematically speaking there are "infinite colors" on it. 625.000000000....1nm is one color. 625.000000000....2nm is another etc.

Humanly speaking there are as many colors as you can recognize individually. Which is about 8-10 million given the limitations of your eyes.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick me old china, that relationship in entirely contingent.

Obviously it's contingent. Who cares? I am merely interested in the process by which you established the relationship.

"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.

As I said. You are having trouble coming up with a theory of how you established a relationship between THIS COLOR and the word "red".
Park the notion of "smell" (or any. of the other senses) - it's higher grade.

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.

OK fine, but without language you are left with qualities. THIS COLOR, THIS COLOR, THIS COLOR.

Starting from zero-knowledge about the English words for colors I am asking you for some method (ANY method) by which you might determine the relationship between some English words and the colors above.

You can't look this up in a dictionary. Where do you "look it up"? Where do you find "the evidence"?

[Dontaskme]

Is there only one consciousness, or, are there more than one consciousness?

Oneness is difficult to adequately comprehend because we’re so immersed in a world of things that seem other to us. The opening line of the Tao Te Ching suggests that the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao. In other words, as soon as it’s named, it’s lost, because we’ve created a dichotomy. Oneness means just that: only one. The instant we label or name it, it’s something else, separate —it’s no longer the unity of oneness.

However, this does not mean we cannot know ourself because we are the knowing that cannot be made into an object. For objects know nothing, for objects are known by the only knowing there is which is consciousness.

Just as it is absurd for a single wave to see itself as separate from the ocean, so it is for any of us not to recognise our oneness with what we know as infinity.


The Existential Crisis — is a fallacy.


.

[Skepdick]

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.

But there are far more pressing implications on you agreeing to this point and insisting that THIS COLOR is "red" is a fact.

Direct experience happens before language, but you are calling it "factual".

So why are the direct experiences of our emotions/feelings arising from observing undesirable social behaviour not factual?

[uwot]

Direct experience happens before language, but you are calling it "factual".

Yup. Bit like 'red' is contingent, so is 'factual'. Language is messy and imprecise, which is why I keep saying that it is contextual, but 'fact' is a suitable synonym for 'direct experience' in a wide range of contexts. Again as Descartes pointed out, the only thing that you cannot doubt is that there are direct experiences; one of which is called 'red' - again in certain contexts.

So why are the direct experiences of our emotions/feelings arising from observing undesirable social behaviour not factual?

Where did I say they aren't?
Anyway; you're sticking with your sound is an electromagnetic phenomenon are you?

Technically speaking it's the "electro magnetic spectrum" though... The frequencies you perceive with your ears are "sound"

[Belinda]

Skepdick wrote:

Well. That doesn't work unless you have already defined "purple" and "orange" precisely. But it's a spectrum - we don't define points - we define bands.
So "red" is all the waves which have 625–740 nanometers wavelength, but this is the crux of it; and the crux of all human categorical reasoning.

Cannot bands be understood as bell curves some of which are quite peaked at the top?
Thanks again for filling out my knowledge about physics.

[Sculptor]

Skepdick wrote:

Well. That doesn't work unless you have already defined "purple" and "orange" precisely. But it's a spectrum - we don't define points - we define bands.
So "red" is all the waves which have 625–740 nanometers wavelength, but this is the crux of it; and the crux of all human categorical reasoning.

Cannot bands be understood as bell curves some of which are quite peaked at the top?
Thanks again for filling out my knowledge about physics.

What he is missing is that the human experience (qualia) is defining the bands. As far as physics goes its a smooth analogue of differential wavelengths and no colour exists in nature.

[Skepdick]

Cannot bands be understood as bell curves some of which are quite peaked at the top?
Thanks again for filling out my knowledge about physics.

The bell curve can only be "fitted" if you establish the precise min/max bounds - a range of values. Which is the original problem of defining "orange" and "purple"

The bell curve on the range between 0 and 10 has a median of 5.

But the choosing to fit the bell curve at 10 is arbitrary. Why not a bell curve on the range of 0 to 8? Or 0 to 12? Or 0 to 1000?

[Skepdick]

What he is missing is that the human experience (qualia) is defining the bands. As far as physics goes its a smooth analogue of differential wavelengths and no colour exists in nature.

What you are missing is that I am not missing any of that. My experiences don't come in boxes/bands - unlike yours.

Qualia don't exist.

If they did you should have absolutely no problem answering the question "How many boxes/bands do you see?"

image processing - Generate Color Spectrum using Python - Stack Overflow 2020-06-18 12-22-20.png

[Skepdick]

Yup. Bit like 'red' is contingent, so is 'factual'. Language is messy and imprecise, which is why I keep saying that it is contextual, but 'fact' is a suitable synonym for 'direct experience' in a wide range of contexts. Again as Descartes pointed out, the only thing that you cannot doubt is that there are direct experiences; one of which is called 'red' - again in certain contexts.

What I am doubting whether "doubt" is an "experience" like "red".

Anyway; you're sticking with your sound is an electromagnetic phenomenon are you?

Technically speaking it's the "electro magnetic spectrum" though... The frequencies you perceive with your ears are "sound"

You missed the inverted commas around it? I am sticking with my "all waves require a medium" point.

Yes I am "wrong" in the distinction between EM waves and mechanical waves, but it's not a relevant mistake to my signal-processing point. They are only different categories with respect to your receptors, not with respect to your brain processing the information.

My very point is that all categories are made up a posteriori experience.

800px-Signal_processing_system.png

[uwot]

Yes I am "wrong"...

Well done.

...in the distinction between EM waves and mechanical waves, but it's hardly relevant to the point. The continuity of spectrums.

Just let it go. The only people likely to care that you made a mistake are the ones you scoff at for making a mistake.
Anyway; what's this electromagnetic medium you are sticking with?

I am sticking with my "all waves require a propagation medium"

[Skepdick]

Anyway; what's this electromagnetic medium you are sticking with?

I am sticking with my "all waves require a propagation medium"

Existence. Or do you prefer the "quantum fields" answer?

The metaphorical answer (or the ontological answer from the viewpoint of digital physics): it's the network which allows information to flow from A to B. The thing without which communication is impossible.