On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:46:43 -0400, John Popelish
rica.net>
wrote:
>John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:27:30 -0400, John Popelish
rica.net>
>> wrote:
>> >>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>>> What causes "red" is the predominant wavelength of the light that
>>>> bounces off the apple. That can be measured and quantified, if there's
>>>> any doubt.
>>>>
>>>> There's nothing subjective about "red."
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>> The experience of red is what is subjective. There is no
>>> way to know that anyone else experiences red exactly as you
>>> do.
>>
>> That's fuzzy. We can agree on whether any given apple is red or green,
>> and we can consult a spectrograph if there's a dispute.
>
>Yes, after we survey enough eye responses to define a
>generic (if somewhat arbitrary) standard definition of red.
> I am just saying that any particular person may not agree,
>subjectively with our standard.
>
>>> I suspect that most people experience red about like I
>>> do,
>>
>> Yes, but that may be completely meaningless.
>
>If by "completely meaningless", you mean difficult to
>understand, intellectually and mechanistically, I agree.
>
>Another somewhat similarly "completely meaningless" aspect
>is whether specific hues produce innate or learned emotional
>or otherwise biochemical responses.
That's testable, and probably true. It's been shown that babies are
born programmed with preferences for pretty faces, and fear of
heights, stuff like that. Cows who have never seen a wolf react
dramatically to a painting of a wolf; the painting can be abstracted
to a small number of lines at the correct angles, and they react the
same.
I suppose "meaningless" is another way to say as "untestable."
John
