Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 9225636" data-attributes="member: 177">So, there are several things stacked up here, and peeling them apart may help...What we call &quot;the color blue&quot; is a sensory experience.&nbsp; So, in that sense, it is subjective.&nbsp; There are people who are either blind or color-blind, who cannot experience it at all - for them, the color blue effectively does not exist.And, you say there's a specific wavelength of light that we interpret as blue exists - that's not even accurate.&nbsp; In reality, there's a range of wavelengths we'd interpret as 'blue&quot;.&nbsp; The way the human eye works, there's also going to be combinations of wavelengths that, when presented together, we would still call &quot;blue&quot;, even if none of them individually are blue.So, &quot;blue&quot; is complicated.&nbsp; Go figure.But even then, we should not assume that the fact that the word &quot;blue&quot; didn't exist means the sensory experience also did not exist.&nbsp;&nbsp; Like, what do we think happened before language - did people not see color, though they had receptors in their eyes for it?&nbsp; Of course they saw it.&nbsp; They just didn't categorize it!And that's what we come down to - don't mistake the inability to categorize a thing for that thing not existing.&nbsp; What's in a name?&nbsp; A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 9225636, member: 177"] So, there are several things stacked up here, and peeling them apart may help... What we call "the color blue" is a [I]sensory experience[/I]. So, in that sense, it is subjective. There are people who are either blind or color-blind, who cannot experience it at all - for them, the color blue effectively does not exist. And, you say there's a specific wavelength of light that we interpret as blue exists - that's not even accurate. In reality, there's a [I]range[/I] of wavelengths we'd interpret as 'blue". The way the human eye works, there's also going to be combinations of wavelengths that, when presented together, we would still call "blue", even if none of them individually are blue. So, "blue" is complicated. Go figure. But even then, we should not assume that the fact that [I]the word[/I] "blue" didn't exist means the sensory experience also did not exist. Like, what do we think happened [I]before language[/I] - did people not see color, though they had receptors in their eyes for it? Of course they saw it. They just didn't [I]categorize[/I] it! And that's what we come down to - don't mistake the inability to categorize a thing for that thing not existing. What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. [/QUOTE]

Verification