Vasquez on 8/5/2008 at 07:40
Quote Posted by MrBosnia
Red is indeed red. Every single human being sees the same red, as biological study supports it.
Not necessarily. We all have the same biological tools to receive red wavelength, but that is interpreted by the brain, and you can't really tell
how the brain does it, individually, even though you might be able to tell
where in the brain it happens.
"Red" is just a name universally agreed on a certain color. That doesn't rule out the possibility that I see the color you call "blue", and call it "red", just because that's what I've learned to call it.
Edit: Subjective comment. Despite that possibility above, personally I believe it's mostly the same red for all of us. But that's up to faith, isn't it ;)
Myoldnamebroke on 8/5/2008 at 09:19
Actually, and I wish I could be more specific on a source but it's like 3 years now since I've done any of this, but if people really did have inverted or even just 'different' perceptions of the colour spectrum they'd be behaviourly distinct and you'd be able to tell. Something about the way hue and saturation interact and how colour space is structured makes it not a great candidate for an inverted qualia argument.
Epos Nix on 8/5/2008 at 09:36
My friend is color blind and has trouble playing Audiosurf.
So there.
Turtle on 8/5/2008 at 12:07
I have trouble with Puzzle Quest, but I love it so.
:(
Ben Gunn on 8/5/2008 at 14:58
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
Can you point me to that study?
So... are you going to show that research or am I going to call bs?...please... dont... make... me.. do.. it.. :weird:
Queue on 8/5/2008 at 15:07
Quote Posted by fett
I think we're all taking for granted that the 'wizardry' accusation comes from a biblical injunction to shun witchcraft and 'suffer not a witch to live.' What other group but Christians would even bother to complain about this?
Once again, light up all the Christians--because they burn the brightest.
If anyone ever truly wonders why the rest of the world looks at Americans and shake their collective heads in disgust, then just think of the goofy Substitute Teacher who tried (in vain) to make some sort of ice-breaking connection with the little bastards by doing a stupid magic trick.
Louis Cypher on 8/5/2008 at 18:46
Quote Posted by Tonamel
Have you ever been a substitute teacher? If you get saddled with a bad class, then after a while you'll be willing to try just about anything to make them stop throwing pencils at you. In several of the districts I worked at, subs weren't allowed to discipline the students, because they're not "real" teachers. That doesn't exactly encourage good behavior in the kids.
But yeah, if the teachers had been leaving him lesson plans (which is somewhat rare), and he wasn't following them, then the school had every right to give him the boot. But if that's the case, why wait until a Wizardry complaint to do it (which could of course be coincidence)?
I concede the point on the first part at least.
Well, I'm under the impression that they didn't want to be sued for wrongful termination or something.
Turtle on 8/5/2008 at 18:56
They claim he's an at will employee, so they don't need a reason to fire him.
MrBosnia on 8/5/2008 at 20:05
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
Not necessarily. Have you heard about the term intersubjectivity? Kant came up with that one. According to him- things do exist whether there are humans or not but we cant really know what's their true nature cos all we see and know is filtered through our brains. Even time and space are not things in themselves but forms with which our minds grasp the world.
Red is not an objective trait but there is no reason to think that different ppl see different reds cos on the basic levels our brain/minds are the same.
So 'red' is an intersubjective trait.
Can you point me to that study?
Wrong. People can
describe colors.
For example blue is normally perceived to be calm, green is perceived to be zesty, and red is perceived to be aggressive and fiery. Someone who saw blue in place of red wouldn't describe the "blue" as aggressive and fiery.
SubJeff on 8/5/2008 at 20:30
Why wouldn't they? Because you don't? It's all a matter of perspective. I see glowing hot metal as a certain colour - red. Let's pretend you see it as a different colour - blue to me, red to you. You will grow to learn that hot metal is that colour. But if you were to see through my eyes you would see it a different way.
You cannot know how much of this perception is programmed and how much is learned. You argument does not work.
There is only one facet of colour interpretation and perception that I think we can say is universal, and that is colour clash/interaction. It is, afaik, the only thing that gives us an anchor and enables us to determine that broadly speaking colours are interpreted in the same way by all people. I'm talking about the interactions that are the basis of colour blindness tests. If colours were truly interchangeable these tests would not work. And things like text readability according to font and background colour would not be universal.
Or course, if one really wants to stretch it one could posit the notion that despite being seemingly universal an infinite number of colours exist, and since I see a range you can not even comprehend within your experience (and vice versa) within that minute selection of possibilities all of these clashes and tests still function.
I happen to be listening to POD "Sleeping Awake" as I type this btw. "Do you see what I see?" What a coincidence.
shut up music police the next track is PWEI and after that it's all Sensor have you even heard of it?
