h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Wouldn't surprise me, az

Timing would be crucial, though. Too early and the impact would be lost. Too late and a lot of people would smell a rat.

Noggin

Something tells me the timing would be perfect . . .

az

they may just create an imposter forfor propaganda purposes their still holding norriega incommunicado

and saddam

...mosey...

I believe that the question of truth is a thorny one. I feel I am constantly looking for a better truth than the one I Have at present.

There are logical ways to decide on what is true and false, but these as far as I have ever been able to tell are reliant on the original assumptions being true, since I rely on my senses I and my self awareness I have to some extent trust that what I percieve about myself and about everything which is 'not me' (Clumsy definition I know but dont feel able to do better right now)

Philosophically the problem with this is that it is a house of cards, potentially if my senses are flawed then my assumptions are wrong and the logical reasoning I have done to find out what was true is flawed from the beginning and the results obtained open to question.

BUT!!!!!

On the whole the assumptions I make and the reasoning I follow and the answers I find are consistent with each other and I dont often find myself having to reajust my world view just because I discover a new way of squeesing an orange.

Therefore there are things that I can reasonably assume are true and are unlikely to be proved false, e.g. Tables have flat surfaces to put things on.

The real difficulty comes about when the 'truths' in question tend towards being abstract, God is the most relavant to this thread, and probably represents the most abstract truth in most peoples lives. Of all things it represents something which is intensely sensitive to your point of view, This is one reason that more and bloodier wars have been fought over him/her than anything else. In this context of abstraction truth is individual and not universal, somthing that Gnostic Christians were putting into words 1800 years ago. Faith becomes it's own truth even when against reason.

NB I have to trust that the cloth on a pool table or a snooker table is green and a fire engine is red. I am colour blind, and cannot see the difference. I do however see a colour, not grey as some people would have it: I would be interested to know if anyone has a way of deducing wether I percieve what others see as green or red, or if I percieve a colour which hasn't got a name.

The qualia of the colours perceived doesn't matter, just the relations between them.

We are unaware of constructing our unfolding perceptions. Reality can be regarded as a feedback loop through this space of nonconsciousness. The coherence of our belief systems has to accommodate these "external" connections as well as the internal ones.

Noggin

Yo, Doggo.



The standard philosophical answer to this is that we have no way of knowing. Now, it depends on whether the deficiency is in the eye or the brain. If the latter, we still can't say much; but if the nerve impulses from the eye are atypical, it is a fair bet that if they correspond to the 'normal' green impulse, then you are probably seeing green.

There are simple ways of checking whether the problem is in the eye or brain. Using stereoscopic images, effects that depend on the integration of images from the two eyes must occur in the brain. The nerve pathways don't meet any earlier. I could look up what normally occurs in the most common male RG colour blindness that you appear to have. I've given you a little of the theory, so maybe you could try for yourself. I have to crash out. It's been a long day.

toxx

"I think you'll find cancer is oncology (though I'm betting you know that anyway "

Only when sober, Noggin!

As to the rest of your post (though to toxx) I agree: I would ahve thought our own epistemology cannot be detached from phenomenology: we carry our past with us at all times, and it inevitably colours the meaning we attribute to our experiences.

"Something tells me the timing would be perfect . . ."

I don't suppose they could turn up Lord Lucan at the the same time...?

i reckon the would need a shovel for that

"The real difficulty comes about when the 'truths' in question tend towards being abstract, God is the most relavant to this thread, and probably represents the most abstract truth in most peoples lives. Faith becomes it's own truth even when against reason."

I have encountered several realities regarding gods, and concluded that, at the most fundamental level, it does not matter so long as:
(a) what I believe coincides generally with basic societal behavioural norms (in other words, does not coincide with psychopathic delusion)
(b) a few others share the same thoughts (because I'm sociable and like to exchange opinions, and by so doing can test my own reactions)
(c) it gives me a personal relationship with the 'other'

"I would be interested to know if anyone has a way of deducing wether I percieve what others see as green or red, or if I percieve a colour which hasn't got a name."

I think I once read that colours occupy wavelengths, so it should be possible to test what colour you are seeing, However, I am not sure if the test is that of colours, or of intensity of colour. If the latter, then, of course, the test will be useless. But then, who knows if any of us actually see the same colour? On those signs which indicate if it is safe to cross I see the figure of a man in red and green - but I only know them as red or green because that is what I was told the colours are. I have no idea if others perceive them as the same colours. Another person may perceive my 'green' as their 'red'.

Riding Shergar's foal?

Jez

(Even I don't think Shergar is alive after all this time )

Noggin & HS. Let's suppose that someone shows the typical signs of RG colour blindness. We psychs get up to a few tricks with this kind of thing. We may assume that blue and yellow are different from each other and from red/green to the subject. So we show a yellow image to one eye and a blue one to the other. When both are presented they ought to be seeing green as we would. If what they see is the same as their red/green then we can conclude that they're seeing red as green! Various other similar tests can be done to tease out the subtleties of the person's colour vision. It might not be of philosophical interest, but its fun!

toxx

<< I would be interested to know if anyone has a way of deducing wether I percieve what others see as green or red, or if I percieve a colour which hasn't got a name.>>
My ex is colour-blind. One of my science geek friends had an idea, she said it would be a matter of finding the wavelength of "that colour" as Ross used to call it, we could then determine if it's what *I* call Red, Green, or even Yellow!
When I were a lass, I used to look at the dandelions on the lawn, and wonder if what I saw them as, the yellow I perceived, was the same thing my siblings saw...
We had all been tauught "Dandelions are yellow"... did Carol (for example) see the same thing I saw? Maybe her yellow is the same as my blue.
Oh, BTW, does anyone else have colours for alphabet letters?
That is - A=Red,B=Dark Blue, C=Peach D=Brown,E=Barbie Pink and so on...
Auckland is therefore Red, Christchurch Peach, Dunedin Brown, Rotorua and Blenheim Dark Blue and Wellington Green.
(London and Liverpool are a *very* pale Chartreuse colour, really quite nice. New York is a gunmetal grey - this is because of the colours of their initial letters.)

fascinating

Della. I must ask you about this synaesthaesia later. I'm too wrecked right now. It's very interesting. Remember Ram's Reith lectures?

toxx

The real difficulty in deciding if one persons perception is the same/similar/different/off the scale, as an others is that on a day to day basis it doesn't matter so long as we use the same symbols to describe them. It may be that If I saw through someone else's eyes that I would be startled by what to me appeard to be an orange sky, and they would equally surprised to see what to them appeared a green Sky, however communication only requires that everything I describe as Blue, are the same things that another person describes as blue.

The main difficulty is with the more abstract ideas: e.g. we assume we understand what it means when someone looks at us in the eye; BUT in european culture this is a sign of respect, particularly if that person has a role as an authority figure, in Islamic culture, or in the philipines (and other places I am sure) it is a sign of disrespect, particulalry if the person you are looking at has some authority.

Sometimes the same symbols can mean different things. It is difficult to check understanding at every step but when we are uncertain it seems to me that we have to devote as much time as possible to clarify meaning and accept that there may well be times when we are cought out. For this reason I find it difficult to assume I properly understand all that I see and hear ect, though most of the time I trust I have got it right but am open to correction.

The snippet on the rod's and cones issue was interesting, and may offer the possibility of correction, but as was pointed out doesn't address differences in the brain which may give rise to the possibilities outlined above, these differences do not necissarily mean they are problems with the brain.

bows head

SD

Ultimately the only test of whether someone is using words the same way (or differently) to ourselves is through their behaviour (including verbal behaviour), and what this shows about the structural realationships between the elements of the discourse. Meaning is always meaning within a system of meanings.

Noggin