Is a rainbow a physical object?

[untermensche]

If we want to gleefully skim the surface then yes, that rainbow is in the sky, not the mind.

So, you believe that the "sky" is something that is not "in the mind", right?

That statement is not my belief.

I don't have a belief.

I know where rainbows exist.

 

[DBT]

I voted 'yes and no' because the physical elements are there, water droplets, sunlight, but these are not in the form of a rainbow as interpreted and perceived by a brain.

The part we perceive is the light. So unless one is ready to argue that light isn't a physical object, it seems like this question is mostly wanking sophistry.

And someone wants to argue light isn't a physical object, I have some friends on a navy destroyer that I can try to arrange a demonstration for you.

It is the brain that interprets light into colour and form according to the information it receives from its senses, wavelength, etc.

I did not say that the EM spectrum is not physical. I was referring to mental representation of that physical information.

 

[fromderinside]

The OP is one of those questions that sounds deep, and invokes the emotion of awe and a feeling of being part of a great mystery; But those emotions are misplaced - the question is either simple, or based on a mere linguistic failure. Either way, like most metaphysics, it's FAR less interesting or important than those who contemplate it would like to believe.

just driving by when I got to this nice little bilby bit. Neat, concise, objective. Then I saw untermenche belief debris all over the place. It's not a pretty picture. I mean subjectives beliefs and all all that pre scientific gobbledegook scattered everywhere. It's enough to make one want to move on quickly.*

*opinion

 

[steve_bank]

You have discovered lexical ambiguity, aka homonymy. An "object" can refer to a physical thing. It can also refer to something that a feeling is directed at. I hope that you do not object to my pointing this out to you.



I am not debating whether perceptions are real, so I sympathize with your point. Nor am I claiming that a "state" of the brain is external reality. What we are discussing is the nature of so-called "external reality". It seems clear to me that the mind can only ever conceive of an external reality in terms of an idealized model of some sort--one built up out of subjective experiences. Some models are superior to others as predictors of future outcomes.

...
If we want to gleefully skim the surface then yes, that rainbow is in the sky, not the mind.

So, you believe that the "sky" is something that is not "in the mind", right?

Belly laugh.

 

[untermensche]

The OP is one of those questions that sounds deep, and invokes the emotion of awe and a feeling of being part of a great mystery; But those emotions are misplaced - the question is either simple, or based on a mere linguistic failure. Either way, like most metaphysics, it's FAR less interesting or important than those who contemplate it would like to believe.

just driving by when I got to this nice little bilby bit. Neat, concise, objective. Then I saw untermenche belief debris all over the place. It's not a pretty picture. I mean subjectives beliefs and all all that pre scientific gobbledegook scattered everywhere. It's enough to make one want to move on quickly.*

*opinion

Where do colors exist?

Prove to me you have one clue.

This drive by ignorance is stifling.

 

[Copernicus]

The OP is one of those questions that sounds deep, and invokes the emotion of awe and a feeling of being part of a great mystery; But those emotions are misplaced - the question is either simple, or based on a mere linguistic failure. Either way, like most metaphysics, it's FAR less interesting or important than those who contemplate it would like to believe.

just driving by when I got to this nice little bilby bit. Neat, concise, objective. Then I saw untermenche belief debris all over the place. It's not a pretty picture. I mean subjectives beliefs and all all that pre scientific gobbledegook scattered everywhere. It's enough to make one want to move on quickly.*

*opinion

You were caught by one of our traffic cameras. A speeding ticket has been issued and will be mailed to your home. Sorry about the untermensche potholes, but we do not pay for damaged axles.

 

[untermensche]

I am the only one that has any grasp of the situation.

Where the hell do people think color exists?

 

[fast]

I am the only one that has any grasp of the situation.

Where the hell do people think color exists?

Sometimes, the problem lies with the question. The notion that something can exist yet not exist somewhere (as in some location) doesn't bode over too well with some folk, like you and many others. If you are convinced that something exists (and think that forces a supposed fact that it must exist spatially), you will search in vane and never once, not ever, find its locale. The tendency, then, is to what? Purport it to be in the brain or mind or exist in some mental state.

 

[untermensche]

A lot of words but no answer to the question.

Where the hell do people think colors exist?

 

[fast]

A lot of words but no answer to the question.

Where the hell do people think colors exist?

"Where" and "exist" don't go together when it comes to color. It's like a category error or something.

Color is without location.

You can't smell colors, yet they exist, and if I say, "where the hell do people go to smell color,"...

 

[untermensche]

Then you understand a rainbow, which is the experience of colors, can't possibly be an object.

Things that only exist in minds cannot be objects.

 

[Copernicus]

Then you understand a rainbow, which is the experience of colors, can't possibly be an object.

Things that only exist in minds cannot be objects.

Can you tell me the difference between an object that exists in the mind and one that does not? Rainbows are not hallucinations. They are perceptual illusions that are created by physical atmospheric conditions. Why would you think that an object such as a rock or tree is not also a perceptual illusion?

 

[untermensche]

Colors are not produced by anything external to the brain.

Colors are produced by brains and experienced by minds.

They exist in no other place and in no other form.

 

[skepticalbip]

Colors are not produced by anything external to the brain.
.

games ?.... Suppose color is defined as and by the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation (which it is). That would make color completely independent of the brain. Color perception would be the mental thingy.

 

[untermensche]

Light is a stimulus for the brain to create a color.

The light is not a color. It is not colored. It is a stimulus for the production of color.

Color is something experienced.

It is only something experienced. It is nothing else.

Calling simple facts sophistry is nonsensical.

 

[Copernicus]

Colors are not produced by anything external to the brain.

Colors are produced by brains and experienced by minds.

They exist in no other place and in no other form.

I understand perfectly what you are saying, and I'm not disputing it. However, you dodged my question. You made no attempt to answer it, so I'll attempt to ask it again.

Can you tell me the difference between an object that exists in the mind and one that does not? Rainbows are not hallucinations. They are perceptual illusions that are created by physical atmospheric conditions. Why would you think that an object such as a rock or tree is not also a perceptual illusion?

 

[untermensche]

Colors are not produced by anything external to the brain.

Colors are produced by brains and experienced by minds.

They exist in no other place and in no other form.

I understand perfectly what you are saying, and I'm not disputing it. However, you dodged my question. You made no attempt to answer it, so I'll attempt to ask it again.

Can you tell me the difference between an object that exists in the mind and one that does not? Rainbows are not hallucinations. They are perceptual illusions that are created by physical atmospheric conditions. Why would you think that an object such as a rock or tree is not also a perceptual illusion?

Objects do not exist in the mind.

Rainbows are not hallucinations.

They are not perceptual illusions.

They are something the brain creates in response to stimuli.

They exist in minds and nowhere else.

A stimulus that has nothing to do with color exists in the world.

A brain transforms that stimulus that is not color into a color.

Color does not exist until the first brain that can create a color creates one.

 

[skepticalbip]

Colors are not produced by anything external to the brain.

Colors are produced by brains and experienced by minds.

They exist in no other place and in no other form.

I understand perfectly what you are saying, and I'm not disputing it. However, you dodged my question. You made no attempt to answer it, so I'll attempt to ask it again.

Fair warning....
. Don't expect a real answer or rational conversation.
. Do expect continual repetition of the same unsupported assertions plus new unsupported assertions as needed that will go on for as many pages as it takes before you realize that there will be no answer coming.

 

[untermensche]

Colors are not produced by anything external to the brain.

Colors are produced by brains and experienced by minds.

They exist in no other place and in no other form.

I understand perfectly what you are saying, and I'm not disputing it. However, you dodged my question. You made no attempt to answer it, so I'll attempt to ask it again.

Fair warning....
. Don't expect a real answer or rational conversation.
. Do expect continual repetition of the same unsupported assertions plus new unsupported assertions as needed that will go on for as many pages as it takes before you realize that there will be no answer coming.

That is an unsupported wild assertion that you can't support in any way.

...

 

[untermensche]

The issue at hand is what is a color?

I assume people know what a color is.

Colors are evolved experiences created by brains and experienced by minds. They only exist in minds.

In the external world there is light energy. It has no color and no specific color is assigned to it.

An evolved brain might make some color out of light energy. But light energy cannot cause evolving brains to create a specific color. The color created is just a random contingency. It is associated with the external stimulus but not caused by the external stimulus.

A rainbow is colors in the sky.

Color only exists in the mind.

Rainbows only exist in the mind.

Is there a rainbow if there is no observer?