Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 5,669 - 5,680 of 6,170
Me "The starfish is the same whether we say it has five legs or many legs. The starfish doesn't care."
Exactly! That's precisely why the number of legs on a starfish is an objective fact -- it doesn't depend in any way upon how people describe the starfish, or on whether people describe it at all.
NO! You missed the point! It's only objectively 5 if you create a number system that includes 5 and apply that to the starfish. There is no 5 in the starfish. There is a concept of 5 which when we take data from the starfish deductively applies. It is an abstract concept we created to help us understand the outer world and make comparisons and predictions. 5 is a part of the concept we created called numbers, and not a part of the starfish.
Remember last time we debated this an I told you about Peano's axioms from which all math can be logically derived? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms .. If we take the following assumptions as true :
1. For every natural number x, x = x. That is, equality is reflexive.
2. For all natural numbers x and y, if x = y, then y = x. That is, equality is symmetric.
3. For all natural numbers x, y and z, if x = y and y = z, then x = z. That is, equality is transitive.
4. For all a and b, if a is a natural number and a = b, then b is also a natural number. That is, the natural numbers are closed under equality.
5. 0 is a natural number.
6. For every natural number n, S(n) is a natural number.
7. For every natural number n, S(n) ≠0. That is, there is no natural number whose successor is 0.
8. For all natural numbers m and n, if S(m) = S(n), then m = n. That is, S is an injection.
If K is a set such that:
* 0 is in K, and
* for every natural number n, if n is in K, then S(n) is in K,
then K contains every natural number.
I can tell you that it is logical to derive 5. It is abstract. It depend on those definitions and accepting those postulates. most people just don't think about it that much.
Psi, I meant to ask you, in the video, was the bot, remote controlled,
Yes, at least there was a guy operating a large panel of switches and stuff built into the electric "cart" that he docked with at the end, and was driven out of the hangar on. I assume this was the control unit.
running through a preset sequence, or using some sort of algorithm to determine it's next movement?
On slightly more speculative assumption (because I sadly couldn't abduct the operator and all the machinery for detailed interrogation and examination,) I assume that the show was built up from "preset routines" that could be activated with the press of a button. I saw quite a few repeats of individual sequences that appeared identical (and still appear identical when I compare video.)
Was there a person playing sounds through it's speakers or was there some speech synthesizer involved? More details!
Definitely pre-recorded sounds - even Loquendo voices can't sing, and I'd recognize Frank Sinatra and Louis Armstrong (that's my favourite -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQavMnrbVCA - though my video of this song wasn't very good, being at the back of the crowd,) anywhere.
Some of the clips posted on YouTube (there are LOTS of clips there if you search!) have comments attached, claiming he is just an exoskeleton with a human inside. And there was an earlier model that might have been so (the videos from ~2006 are clearly of a more primitive model.) But I'm pretty sure the motor joints and hydraulics (which can be seen working in the videos,) would make it impossible for a human to fit inside the Mk.2 (unless horribly mutated and randomly amputated.)
And more to the point, the video athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQavMnrbVCA shows the top half demonstrably works entirely independently of any direct human control. I'm also pretty sure there's no room for a human pelvis in this model - the waist/leg-rotation angles and proportions look all wrong, and there are visible motorised joints and pistons in the legs, just like the arms - which would obstruct (and quite probably injure!) a human forced into the shell.
Posts 5,669 - 5,680 of 6,170
At any rate, if moral rightness were a physical property (which it is), then Bev's dualism would be untenable.
I will therefore argue that moral rightness is a physical property. As a first step, I will argue that goodness and badness are physical properties. Then I will define moral obligation in terms of goodness and badness.
Let us imagine a bunch of very intelligent and knowledgable alien scientists. They don't happen to be familiar with Earth, but they have a profound understanding of the natural sciences, including an understanding of zoology on various planets quite similar to Earth.
I will therefore argue that moral rightness is a physical property. As a first step, I will argue that goodness and badness are physical properties. Then I will define moral obligation in terms of goodness and badness.
Let us imagine a bunch of very intelligent and knowledgable alien scientists. They don't happen to be familiar with Earth, but they have a profound understanding of the natural sciences, including an understanding of zoology on various planets quite similar to Earth.
One day someone sends them a terrestrial mouse, preserved in a stasis field so that they can study it. They study it in great detail, right down to the atomic level. They infer that it is a foraging animal from a certain type of climate and ecosystem. In fact, IMHO, they would be able to explain the function of its various organs, and infer the general properties of the biosphere from which it came.
Bev writes:
The starfish is the same whether we say it has five legs or many legs. The starfish doesn't care.
Exactly! That's precisely why the number of legs on a starfish is an objective fact -- it doesn't depend in any way upon how people describe the starfish, or on whether people describe it at all. Long before there were any humans at all, starfish had 5 legs. They didn't have to wait until we appeared, to have 5 legs! If we all adopted that Brazilian language, starfish would still have 5 legs, just as they do now. We would have to use long drawn-out expressions to say so, but that would make no difference to the starfish. If we all died, starfish would still have 5 legs.
Language does not create or transform the world (except in special cases). You may find a tribe that believes that the world is flat, but it's still round. you may find a million tribes who can't count the number of legs on a starfish, but as you say, the starfish don't care. If every person on Earth thought that starfish had 17 legs, they would still have 5 legs.
Do you think that the poor creatures had no definite number of legs until human beings appeared?
I think that if one of those Brazilians finds a starfish, and places his thumb on one leg, and places the finger adjacent to his thumb on another leg, and so on, until all his fingers are so engaged, he will find that each finger is on exactly one distinct leg, and that there are no legs left over. I'm trying to understand what you think would happen.
Is it a count against the truth of Relativity Theory that very few people understand it, or that it contradicts the fundamental intuitions of most people about space and time? I don't think so.
Language does not create or transform the world (except in special cases). You may find a tribe that believes that the world is flat, but it's still round. you may find a million tribes who can't count the number of legs on a starfish, but as you say, the starfish don't care. If every person on Earth thought that starfish had 17 legs, they would still have 5 legs.
Do you think that the poor creatures had no definite number of legs until human beings appeared?
I think that if one of those Brazilians finds a starfish, and places his thumb on one leg, and places the finger adjacent to his thumb on another leg, and so on, until all his fingers are so engaged, he will find that each finger is on exactly one distinct leg, and that there are no legs left over. I'm trying to understand what you think would happen.
Is it a count against the truth of Relativity Theory that very few people understand it, or that it contradicts the fundamental intuitions of most people about space and time? I don't think so.
Irina,
I'll go over it one more time before we move on. I am not sure how many times I can say there is a difference between abstract concepts that we created and physcical nature.
"You have said this a number of times, but can you present any evidence in favor of it?
You have argued from the diversity of ethical opinions,"
My evidence evil is an abstract concept and does not exist in the physical world. It is merely a quality we attribute to certain things in the physical world. If you are going to assert it does exist physically or as a property of nature, the burden is on you to show evidence. I don't mean give me examples of things you think are evil, I mean evidence as to why your particular definition of evil is the one that is true.
Several times I have asked you to provide a way we can generate hypothesis about evil and test it's truth or find for a null hypothesis. YOu have not done so. Why not?
"You have argued from the diversity of ethical opinions,"
That's only part of my argument. The main idea is that evil is an abstract concept, and a poorly defined one at that. Diversity of opinions just shows there is no evidential basis for showing one definition of evil is more accurate than the next, nor any way or scientifically choosing between the competing ideas of what is evil. If you have a scientific way of choosing one definition and testing it in a way where it could be shown to be false, please do let me know.
In my world starfish have 5 legs too. It's just that we created counting and numbers and 5. The starfish is the starfish and starfish shaped regardless. It's just that the human mind can not bring all the stimulus into conscious awareness with filtering and reassembling it at the subconscious level, recreating reality, categorizing it, quantifying, abstracting, and making conclusions and generalizations. It's what our brains do. By the time it hits our awareness (our conscious mind) quite a lot of work has gone on under the hood. There is a difference between our perceptions, our created conscious mental tools such as language and math, our abstract concepts such as evil, justice and honor, and the physical world.
I can give you evidence that the human nervous system filters stimulus and recreates the outer world as you perceive it. Three examples off the top of my head are blind spots, filtering out background noise, and conformity.There are more but 3 will take me long enough to explain. Just keep in mind there is a difference between saying reality is perceived and human s can never totally escape subjectivity and saying there is no reality and all things are equally true. You have a habit of misstating my position on that matter.
Blinds pots are cause by the way mammalian eyes work. There is an optic nerve at the back of the eye that connect it to our brains. This blocks the photo receptors at the back of our retinas. You can test for your own blind spot and see evidence of it by following the directions here: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/chvision.html. When both eyes our open, the brain can cover up the blind spots by taking information from both eyes and reassembling it. If we saw only the stimulus actually received by our eyes and carried through the optic nerves "as is" we would have all sorts of dots and little floaty bits in our vision. Our brain essentially "Photoshops" what we see for us before we see it. "Projections from the retina to the brain generate retinotopic maps...Defined groups of neurons in the primary visual cortex process different aspects of visual information. This can lead to all sorts of interesting optical illusions but I won't paste those urls here. The fact is what you think you see is limited by your abilty to pick up stimulus, processed and essentially resembled so it looks whole. Without even getting to abstract thought and higher cognition, your perception is biased and your view necessarily subjective. I will have to give my next two bits of evidence in another post as RL calls now.
Several attributes of visual information go to the primary visual cortex: motion, form or shape, and color. These aspects of the visual scene travel to different modules or groups of cortical cells (some are given names such as "columns" or "blobs.") In order for us to perceive and interpret these kinds of visual information, other brain areas beyond the primary visual cortex must process the signals and put the visual scene back together." http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/eyetr.html
I'll go over it one more time before we move on. I am not sure how many times I can say there is a difference between abstract concepts that we created and physcical nature.
You have argued from the diversity of ethical opinions,"
My evidence evil is an abstract concept and does not exist in the physical world. It is merely a quality we attribute to certain things in the physical world. If you are going to assert it does exist physically or as a property of nature, the burden is on you to show evidence. I don't mean give me examples of things you think are evil, I mean evidence as to why your particular definition of evil is the one that is true.
Several times I have asked you to provide a way we can generate hypothesis about evil and test it's truth or find for a null hypothesis. YOu have not done so. Why not?
That's only part of my argument. The main idea is that evil is an abstract concept, and a poorly defined one at that. Diversity of opinions just shows there is no evidential basis for showing one definition of evil is more accurate than the next, nor any way or scientifically choosing between the competing ideas of what is evil. If you have a scientific way of choosing one definition and testing it in a way where it could be shown to be false, please do let me know.
In my world starfish have 5 legs too. It's just that we created counting and numbers and 5. The starfish is the starfish and starfish shaped regardless. It's just that the human mind can not bring all the stimulus into conscious awareness with filtering and reassembling it at the subconscious level, recreating reality, categorizing it, quantifying, abstracting, and making conclusions and generalizations. It's what our brains do. By the time it hits our awareness (our conscious mind) quite a lot of work has gone on under the hood. There is a difference between our perceptions, our created conscious mental tools such as language and math, our abstract concepts such as evil, justice and honor, and the physical world.
I can give you evidence that the human nervous system filters stimulus and recreates the outer world as you perceive it. Three examples off the top of my head are blind spots, filtering out background noise, and conformity.There are more but 3 will take me long enough to explain. Just keep in mind there is a difference between saying reality is perceived and human s can never totally escape subjectivity and saying there is no reality and all things are equally true. You have a habit of misstating my position on that matter.
Blinds pots are cause by the way mammalian eyes work. There is an optic nerve at the back of the eye that connect it to our brains. This blocks the photo receptors at the back of our retinas. You can test for your own blind spot and see evidence of it by following the directions here: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/chvision.html. When both eyes our open, the brain can cover up the blind spots by taking information from both eyes and reassembling it. If we saw only the stimulus actually received by our eyes and carried through the optic nerves "as is" we would have all sorts of dots and little floaty bits in our vision. Our brain essentially "Photoshops" what we see for us before we see it. "Projections from the retina to the brain generate retinotopic maps...Defined groups of neurons in the primary visual cortex process different aspects of visual information. This can lead to all sorts of interesting optical illusions but I won't paste those urls here. The fact is what you think you see is limited by your abilty to pick up stimulus, processed and essentially resembled so it looks whole. Without even getting to abstract thought and higher cognition, your perception is biased and your view necessarily subjective. I will have to give my next two bits of evidence in another post as RL calls now.
Several attributes of visual information go to the primary visual cortex: motion, form or shape, and color. These aspects of the visual scene travel to different modules or groups of cortical cells (some are given names such as "columns" or "blobs.") In order for us to perceive and interpret these kinds of visual information, other brain areas beyond the primary visual cortex must process the signals and put the visual scene back together." http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/eyetr.html
Bev writes:
I am not sure how many times I can say there is a difference between abstract concepts that we created and physcical nature.
But that's just my point. I don't want you to say the same thing again. I want you to give evidence for what you said.
I will add, though, that I consider our concepts to be part of physical nature.
I have never disagreed that, e.g., a concept of a wombat is not a wombat. Most concepts are different from the objects they refer to or describe. But I can't see how this commits one to subjectivism. On the contrary, it fits in smoothly with the idea that most of reality si what it is quite independently of what we think about it.
But that's just my point. I don't want you to say the same thing again. I want you to give evidence for what you said.
I will add, though, that I consider our concepts to be part of physical nature.
I have never disagreed that, e.g., a concept of a wombat is not a wombat. Most concepts are different from the objects they refer to or describe. But I can't see how this commits one to subjectivism. On the contrary, it fits in smoothly with the idea that most of reality si what it is quite independently of what we think about it.
Exactly! That's precisely why the number of legs on a starfish is an objective fact -- it doesn't depend in any way upon how people describe the starfish, or on whether people describe it at all.
NO! You missed the point! It's only objectively 5 if you create a number system that includes 5 and apply that to the starfish. There is no 5 in the starfish. There is a concept of 5 which when we take data from the starfish deductively applies. It is an abstract concept we created to help us understand the outer world and make comparisons and predictions. 5 is a part of the concept we created called numbers, and not a part of the starfish.
Remember last time we debated this an I told you about Peano's axioms from which all math can be logically derived? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms .. If we take the following assumptions as true :
1. For every natural number x, x = x. That is, equality is reflexive.
2. For all natural numbers x and y, if x = y, then y = x. That is, equality is symmetric.
3. For all natural numbers x, y and z, if x = y and y = z, then x = z. That is, equality is transitive.
4. For all a and b, if a is a natural number and a = b, then b is also a natural number. That is, the natural numbers are closed under equality.
5. 0 is a natural number.
6. For every natural number n, S(n) is a natural number.
7. For every natural number n, S(n) ≠0. That is, there is no natural number whose successor is 0.
8. For all natural numbers m and n, if S(m) = S(n), then m = n. That is, S is an injection.
If K is a set such that:
* 0 is in K, and
* for every natural number n, if n is in K, then S(n) is in K,
then K contains every natural number.
I can tell you that it is logical to derive 5. It is abstract. It depend on those definitions and accepting those postulates. most people just don't think about it that much.
Irina, I think we have two major differences before I go back to my evidence of human limitations and subjectivity.
1) I see a difference between abstract concepts and the physical world and I do not think the two should be treated the same.
2) I see a difference between saying human limitations prevent us from ever really knowing the absolute truth and therefore we can only go by the best evidence we have at the time, accepting what we have as true until further notice but recognizing limits to that certainty and saying there is no external reality and all things are equally true. Qualified acceptance and recognition of cognitive processes does not mean there is no scientific method or logic.
1) I see a difference between abstract concepts and the physical world and I do not think the two should be treated the same.
2) I see a difference between saying human limitations prevent us from ever really knowing the absolute truth and therefore we can only go by the best evidence we have at the time, accepting what we have as true until further notice but recognizing limits to that certainty and saying there is no external reality and all things are equally true. Qualified acceptance and recognition of cognitive processes does not mean there is no scientific method or logic.
[^%$^^#%$#@*&^*&^%$#!!!!!!!! I got timed out and lost several paragraphs! Sorry, I need some sulk time!]
Back to my main evience that human perceive the outer world only thought limited, filtered, and subjectively reorganized ways. The second quick example i had thought of was background noise. Specifically, we tend to filter it out if it stays at a content level or is predictable. http://psy-101.blogspot.com/2006/12/how-brain-tunes-out-background-noise.html. "The "novelty detector neurons," as researchers call them, quickly stop firing if a sound or sound pattern is repeated. They will briefly resume firing if some aspect of the sound changes. The neurons can detect changes in pitch, loudness or duration of a single sound and can also note shifts in the pattern of a complex series of sounds." While handy in terms of not being bothered by planes when you live by an airport (or the related boon of getting used to bad smells after 7 seconds) the fact remains that even our limited awareness of the external world is filtered at a subconscious level based on previous experiences and perceived patterns. If what you see is not always what was there, neither is what you hear. Similar research could be found for any of the senses.
But our cognitive processes and "mind games" go beyond just filtering and resembling stimulus. We will also alter our perceptions based on our conscious beliefs and the statements of those around us. Take, for example, Ash's conformity experiments from the 1950s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments Participants were asked to give information about visual stimuli (e.g. the length of lines) but most of the "participants" were actually in on the experiment as confederates of the researcher. The group was told to announce their answers to each question out loud and the confederates always provided their answers before the study participant. The confederates always gave the same answer. They answered a few questions correctly but eventually began providing incorrect responses. 75% of the participants gave an incorrect answer to at least one question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKivdMAgdeA There is debate whether the participants perception changed or merely their answer change to avoid conflict, but that fact remains we can't trust ourselves not to conform at times, and we can't trust other not to conform either. If our experience of objective reality is necessarily limited to our ability to perceive the outer world and subject to our interpretations colored by our own belief and those of others, then in matters of the outer world we test and accept logical conclusions from the information only until further notice because we can never be entirely sure that new information will not later be found that changes what we know.
Our ability to perceive and interpret the outer world is only part of the equation. Our self-awareness or consciousness gives us subjective experiences and what some may call internal worlds or personal reality. This persona believe or experience does not change the outer world, but it may color how that person perceives the outer world. For example, a person who comes from a culture that count only "one, two, many" (see previous post for url to article) may say a starfish has many legs and be right. The starfish doesn't change but his perception and understanding of the starfish is not the same as yours. What goes on in his head is different. People are subjective by nature.
Subjective experiences are an important part of the human experience. Many of our bonding practices and attempts to create individual and group identities are based on experiences and attempts to share part or version of our inner world with others. We have abstract concepts such as "love, justice, good and evil" that came from our abilities to think and share bits of our abstract ideas with each other. Just because these are abstract concepts and not objectively real like a starfish does not mean they are not valuable. Being in love, for example is subjective, and yet most people enjoy it (if it is requited of course). Honor is an abstract idea, but a nice one. Do not dismiss thought experiments, abstract ideas and personal experiences because they are not concrete and testable like the "real world" or you loose al arge part of what people are.
Of course ,when it comes to physical matters, like I said, I think science is the best tool. When it comes to abstract idea, many systems of philosophy with lots of healthy logic rule. When it comes to love, or poetry or art, well then there are some time world fail but somethings get shared sideways. As a rule, I don't want my poetry to run airplanes nor my mechanics to write verses. The proper tool for the job.
But our cognitive processes and "mind games" go beyond just filtering and resembling stimulus. We will also alter our perceptions based on our conscious beliefs and the statements of those around us. Take, for example, Ash's conformity experiments from the 1950s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments Participants were asked to give information about visual stimuli (e.g. the length of lines) but most of the "participants" were actually in on the experiment as confederates of the researcher. The group was told to announce their answers to each question out loud and the confederates always provided their answers before the study participant. The confederates always gave the same answer. They answered a few questions correctly but eventually began providing incorrect responses. 75% of the participants gave an incorrect answer to at least one question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKivdMAgdeA There is debate whether the participants perception changed or merely their answer change to avoid conflict, but that fact remains we can't trust ourselves not to conform at times, and we can't trust other not to conform either. If our experience of objective reality is necessarily limited to our ability to perceive the outer world and subject to our interpretations colored by our own belief and those of others, then in matters of the outer world we test and accept logical conclusions from the information only until further notice because we can never be entirely sure that new information will not later be found that changes what we know.
Our ability to perceive and interpret the outer world is only part of the equation. Our self-awareness or consciousness gives us subjective experiences and what some may call internal worlds or personal reality. This persona believe or experience does not change the outer world, but it may color how that person perceives the outer world. For example, a person who comes from a culture that count only "one, two, many" (see previous post for url to article) may say a starfish has many legs and be right. The starfish doesn't change but his perception and understanding of the starfish is not the same as yours. What goes on in his head is different. People are subjective by nature.
Subjective experiences are an important part of the human experience. Many of our bonding practices and attempts to create individual and group identities are based on experiences and attempts to share part or version of our inner world with others. We have abstract concepts such as "love, justice, good and evil" that came from our abilities to think and share bits of our abstract ideas with each other. Just because these are abstract concepts and not objectively real like a starfish does not mean they are not valuable. Being in love, for example is subjective, and yet most people enjoy it (if it is requited of course). Honor is an abstract idea, but a nice one. Do not dismiss thought experiments, abstract ideas and personal experiences because they are not concrete and testable like the "real world" or you loose al arge part of what people are.
Of course ,when it comes to physical matters, like I said, I think science is the best tool. When it comes to abstract idea, many systems of philosophy with lots of healthy logic rule. When it comes to love, or poetry or art, well then there are some time world fail but somethings get shared sideways. As a rule, I don't want my poetry to run airplanes nor my mechanics to write verses. The proper tool for the job.
I got timed out once too. Evil bastard popups.
Anyway, we are repeating ourselves at each other again.
I will try very hard to give you the last word (you know that is hard for me) and agree to disagree.
Anyway, we are repeating ourselves at each other again.
I will try very hard to give you the last word (you know that is hard for me) and agree to disagree.
Yes, at least there was a guy operating a large panel of switches and stuff built into the electric "cart" that he docked with at the end, and was driven out of the hangar on. I assume this was the control unit.
On slightly more speculative assumption (because I sadly couldn't abduct the operator and all the machinery for detailed interrogation and examination,) I assume that the show was built up from "preset routines" that could be activated with the press of a button. I saw quite a few repeats of individual sequences that appeared identical (and still appear identical when I compare video.)
Definitely pre-recorded sounds - even Loquendo voices can't sing, and I'd recognize Frank Sinatra and Louis Armstrong (that's my favourite -
Some of the clips posted on YouTube (there are LOTS of clips there if you search!) have comments attached, claiming he is just an exoskeleton with a human inside. And there was an earlier model that might have been so (the videos from ~2006 are clearly of a more primitive model.) But I'm pretty sure the motor joints and hydraulics (which can be seen working in the videos,) would make it impossible for a human to fit inside the Mk.2 (unless horribly mutated and randomly amputated.)
And more to the point, the video at
Bev writes (message 5677):
Back to my main evience that human perceive the outer world only thought limited, filtered, and subjectively reorganized ways.
But why do you present evidence for that? That is something we agree on. I never claimed that human beings were infallible or omniscient. I claimed that there is a reality is an objective reality that we are trying, not always successfully, to grasp, at least approximately and in some measure.
In fact, evidence of human fallibility is much more favorable, it seems to me, to my view; because you can't be fallible unless there is a truth that transcends your belief.
For example, to say that the human cognitive apparatus filters something is to say that there is something to be filtered. What would that be, if there is no objective reality?
If someone fails to see color in a rose, because of filtering, this can only mean that something in the rose, namely color, has been filtered out. If the rose had no color, what would have been filtered out?
More generally, if there is only truth 'for X', and X sees no color in the rose, then the rose has no color 'for X', so nothing has been filtered out.
X can never be wrong about what is true 'for X', nor can he miss anything about it.
But why do you present evidence for that? That is something we agree on. I never claimed that human beings were infallible or omniscient. I claimed that there is a reality is an objective reality that we are trying, not always successfully, to grasp, at least approximately and in some measure.
In fact, evidence of human fallibility is much more favorable, it seems to me, to my view; because you can't be fallible unless there is a truth that transcends your belief.
For example, to say that the human cognitive apparatus filters something is to say that there is something to be filtered. What would that be, if there is no objective reality?
If someone fails to see color in a rose, because of filtering, this can only mean that something in the rose, namely color, has been filtered out. If the rose had no color, what would have been filtered out?
More generally, if there is only truth 'for X', and X sees no color in the rose, then the rose has no color 'for X', so nothing has been filtered out.
X can never be wrong about what is true 'for X', nor can he miss anything about it.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar