Do animals perceive the same objects as humans perceive?

[ontological_realist]

As far as color we have no idea what color some other animal's brain creates for the animal to experience.

We don't even know what colors other people experience.

Color is a purely subjective experience.

It is impossible to look at another animal's subjective experience.

"It is impossible to look at another animal's subjective experience."

Is it impossible to look at another human's subjective experience?

(I am not saying that you are right or wrong, I am merely trying to understand your thinking as it seems to me a promising line of Inquiry)

 

[untermensche]

As far as color we have no idea what color some other animal's brain creates for the animal to experience.

We don't even know what colors other people experience.

Color is a purely subjective experience.

It is impossible to look at another animal's subjective experience.

"It is impossible to look at another animal's subjective experience."

Is it impossible to look at another human's subjective experience?

(I am not saying that you are right or wrong, I am merely trying to understand your thinking as it seems to me a promising line of Inquiry)

Unless humans are not animals it includes them as well.

Take two humans. Show them a color.

They will give that color a label.

But giving an experienced color a label tells us nothing about the experience. Just calling it the same thing in no way implies they are experiencing the same thing.

There is no way to demonstrate they are experiencing the same thing.

Color blindness is a well known phenomena. So we already have evidence that some people experience color differently.

Some of these people can just be given special glasses and see colors more vividly.

 

[ontological_realist]

"It is impossible to look at another animal's subjective experience."

Is it impossible to look at another human's subjective experience?

(I am not saying that you are right or wrong, I am merely trying to understand your thinking as it seems to me a promising line of Inquiry)

Unless humans are not animals it includes them as well.

Take two humans. Show them a color.

They will give that color a label.

But giving an experienced color a label tells us nothing about the experience. Just calling it the same thing in no way implies they are experiencing the same thing.

There is no way to demonstrate they are experiencing the same thing.

Color blindness is a well known phenomena. So we already have evidence that some people experience color differently.

Some of these people can just be given special glasses and see colors more vividly.

You said, "Take two humans. Show them a color.

They will give that color a label.

But giving an experienced color a label tells us nothing about the experience. Just calling it the same thing in no way implies they are experiencing the same thing."

I think you are right here.


You said, "Color is a purely subjective experience."

What experience is not a purely subjective experience?

 

[untermensche]

Unless humans are not animals it includes them as well.

Take two humans. Show them a color.

They will give that color a label.

But giving an experienced color a label tells us nothing about the experience. Just calling it the same thing in no way implies they are experiencing the same thing.

There is no way to demonstrate they are experiencing the same thing.

Color blindness is a well known phenomena. So we already have evidence that some people experience color differently.

Some of these people can just be given special glasses and see colors more vividly.

You said, "Take two humans. Show them a color.

They will give that color a label.

But giving an experienced color a label tells us nothing about the experience. Just calling it the same thing in no way implies they are experiencing the same thing."

I think you are right here.


You said, "Color is a purely subjective experience."

What experience is not a purely subjective experience?

The size and shape of objects is not purely subjective.

That is why we don't bump into things constantly and can manipulate objects usefully.

 

[ontological_realist]

No. That the world consists of objects is an artifact of our perception. Underlying physical reality is there, but the mapping to "objects" is done by our perception.

You seem to be suggesting that while objects are perception dependent, physical reality is not. I agree that physical reality is not perception dependent, but I disagree with the notion that where there is no perception, there is no object. Consider the earth and moon--and the space between. There is, as you say, physical reality, a clump of atoms tightly bound and another larger clump of atoms tightly bound separated by an area with no clumps of atoms tightly bound in between. Our recognition that these tightly bound clumps are objects is most certainly perception dependent, but that they are objects isn't a function of perception but the reality that they are clumped as they are.

What is your definition of "an object"? What do you mean by "object" ?

 

[ontological_realist]

You said, "Take two humans. Show them a color.

They will give that color a label.

But giving an experienced color a label tells us nothing about the experience. Just calling it the same thing in no way implies they are experiencing the same thing."

I think you are right here.


You said, "Color is a purely subjective experience."

What experience is not a purely subjective experience?

The size and shape of objects is not purely subjective.

That is why we don't bump into things constantly and can manipulate objects usefully.

Do you disagree that the world consists of objects is an artifact of our perception?

Also if you read carefully you will find that my question is about the experience and not about objects.

So please reply to the question which I asked.

 

[fast]

You seem to be suggesting that while objects are perception dependent, physical reality is not. I agree that physical reality is not perception dependent, but I disagree with the notion that where there is no perception, there is no object. Consider the earth and moon--and the space between. There is, as you say, physical reality, a clump of atoms tightly bound and another larger clump of atoms tightly bound separated by an area with no clumps of atoms tightly bound in between. Our recognition that these tightly bound clumps are objects is most certainly perception dependent, but that they are objects isn't a function of perception but the reality that they are clumped as they are.

What is your definition of "an object"? What do you mean by "object" ?

I use it very (very) broadly.

In fact, I use it so broadly that it's reminiscent of the logician that argues that something physically impossible is nevertheless possible since there is a broader sense of possibility, namely logical possibility. Speaking of "something", even that is broader than "some thing." For instance, if we were to speak about a chair, we would not only be speaking about something, we'd in fact be talking about some thing, but take an example like time. It's not some thing* per se, but if we were to speak about it, it would be so that we're speaking about something.

*narrow sense (for example, not including person, place, idea)

One of the cornerstone confusions surrounding the issue of abstract objects is the incorrect interpretation that to speak of abstract objects is to speak about a kind of object. Such a stance is reflective of mistakingly thinking that an imaginary object is a kind of object, when in fact it's the denial that there's an object at all. Fortunately, my use of "object" though exceedingly broad is not so broad that it includes those.

I will say this, it's with purposeful intention that I use words as lexically used. The only stipulative usages I engage in are those in common use. For the most part.

 

[untermensche]

The size and shape of objects is not purely subjective.

That is why we don't bump into things constantly and can manipulate objects usefully.

Do you disagree that the world consists of objects is an artifact of our perception?

Also if you read carefully you will find that my question is about the experience and not about objects.

So please reply to the question which I asked.

I was talking about our perceptions of shape and size. Not bumping into things should have been a clue.

These perceptions are not purely subjective. They reflect something about an object that is not just an arbitrary creation of the brain, like color.

 

[ontological_realist]

What is your definition of "an object"? What do you mean by "object" ?

I use it very (very) broadly.

In fact, I use it so broadly that it's reminiscent of the logician that argues that something physically impossible is nevertheless possible since there is a broader sense of possibility, namely logical possibility. Speaking of "something", even that is broader than "some thing." For instance, if we were to speak about a chair, we would not only be speaking about something, we'd in fact be talking about some thing, but take an example like time. It's not some thing* per se, but if we were to speak about it, it would be so that we're speaking about something.

*narrow sense (for example, not including person, place, idea)

One of the cornerstone confusions surrounding the issue of abstract objects is the incorrect interpretation that to speak of abstract objects is to speak about a kind of object. Such a stance is reflective of mistakingly thinking that an imaginary object is a kind of object, when in fact it's the denial that there's an object at all. Fortunately, my use of "object" though exceedingly broad is not so broad that it includes those.

I will say this, it's with purposeful intention that I use words as lexically used. The only stipulative usages I engage in are those in common use. For the most part.

What is your definition of a physical object?

 

[ontological_realist]

Do you disagree that the world consists of objects is an artifact of our perception?

Also if you read carefully you will find that my question is about the experience and not about objects.

So please reply to the question which I asked.

I was talking about our perceptions of shape and size. Not bumping into things should have been a clue.

These perceptions are not purely subjective. They reflect something about an object that is not just an arbitrary creation of the brain, like color.

When you see a color why do you see that color instead of some other color?

 

[untermensche]

I was talking about our perceptions of shape and size. Not bumping into things should have been a clue.

These perceptions are not purely subjective. They reflect something about an object that is not just an arbitrary creation of the brain, like color.

When you see a color why do you see that color instead of some other color?

It is just the color your brain creates.

How the brain came to create such a color must have something to do with a survival advantage.

What color does is add further ability to distinguish between objects.

So having the colors we experience has something to do with a better ability to survive.

 

[fast]

Brains create color? Nay, they don't do that.

 

[ontological_realist]

When you see a color why do you see that color instead of some other color?

It is just the color your brain creates.

How the brain came to create such a color must have something to do with a survival advantage.

What color does is add further ability to distinguish between objects.

So having the colors we experience has something to do with a better ability to survive.

Earlier you wrote,"These perceptions are not purely subjective. They reflect something about an object that is not just an arbitrary creation of the brain, like color."

 

[untermensche]

It is just the color your brain creates.

How the brain came to create such a color must have something to do with a survival advantage.

What color does is add further ability to distinguish between objects.

So having the colors we experience has something to do with a better ability to survive.

Earlier you wrote,"These perceptions are not purely subjective. They reflect something about an object that is not just an arbitrary creation of the brain, like color."

Yes?

Color does not represent a feature of the object.

It represents a feature of evolving brains trying to survive. Brains that turn reflected light that has no color into a color.

Color is purely subjective as opposed to something like size and shape which do represent a feature of the object.

 

[Juma]

Brains create color? Nay, they don't do that.

At least some. The eyes creates the signal an the brains creates an image with colors out of that

 

[J842P]

Our perception of the world consisting of objects, i.e. things with boundaries, etc is just that, a matter of perception. A very useful model at that. And of course, the underlying physical phenomena exist, but how they would be divided into "objects" is a matter of perception.

Objects exist regardless of perception, how they are perceived is another matter.

Yes, of course. I am not arguing that the physical reality disappears without an observer. My point is merely that our *perception of the world as consisting of distinct objects* is itself, merely a model. Our visual perception, as primates, is rather evolved and advanced. Indeed, most animals have cognitive facilities built on top of our visual system that further adds a layer. My point is that physical reality itself does not consist of objects, except for maybe individual fundamental particles. However, when we see these physical aggregations, our mental/visual model is one of separate, distinct "things". But really, that is a model - a very useful one - that our perceptions build of the world.

 

[J842P]

Brains create color? Nay, they don't do that.

The brain *creates all perceptions*. Our perception of color is a model added by our visual system. It fundamentally maps the reflectivity of an object, but the actual color perceived depends on things like context, so it is not a 1:1 mapping from reflectivity and color.

It is, like all perceptions, a distillation of the very *vast* amounts of information available to our senses. Indeed, a study of the sensory systems is a study of how the nervous system keeps particular bits of information from a stimulus and throws a bunch of information away.

- - - Updated - - -

Earlier you wrote,"These perceptions are not purely subjective. They reflect something about an object that is not just an arbitrary creation of the brain, like color."

Yes?

Color does not represent a feature of the object.

It represents a feature of evolving brains trying to survive. Brains that turn reflected light that has no color into a color.

Color is purely subjective as opposed to something like size and shape which do represent a feature of the object.

Color represents the reflectivity of an object. This is an objective feature of physical systems.

 

[fromderinside]

Why do we attribute agency to aspects of the physiology of a person? It's so, so, stupid conversation making.

 

[untermensche]

Color represents the reflectivity of an object. This is an objective feature of physical systems.

Color is not being reflected. Light of different wavelengths is being reflected, but that is not color.

Color is something evolved brains create whole.

It's creation is stimulated by light but it is not a feature of light.

It is a feature of brains.

 

[untermensche]

Why do we attribute agency to aspects of the physiology of a person? It's so, so, stupid conversation making.

How does a certain wavelength of light cause a brain to create a specific color?

The eye is not seeing color.

Color is something the brain adds to increase the likelihood of survival.

Sound is the same thing.

It is something created by brains in response to energy.

Energy does not have color and it does not make sounds. These are things brains create whole in response to energy.