Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Free will, perfection and limits on god
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 241 of 248 (206076)
05-08-2005 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by QBert14000
05-07-2005 8:00 PM


Re: Still struggling
QBert14000
Do you have another answer for your question?
We have instruments than can measure the wavelength of the two lights as they are reflected from the screen and the overlap area where we percieve a new color will not be different to the measuring instrument and it will still only read the two original wavelengths reflecting from that overlap.
To get a better idea of the mechanics of color vision try this website http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/...ndcolor/humanvisionintro.html
If you would like even greater depth of explanation then there is also this website here.
NameBright - Coming Soon

And since you know you cannot see yourself,
so well as by reflection, I, your glass,
will modestly discover to yourself,
that of yourself which you yet know not of

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by QBert14000, posted 05-07-2005 8:00 PM QBert14000 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 242 of 248 (206125)
05-08-2005 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by QBert14000
05-07-2005 7:57 PM


Re: Still struggling
Loss of discrimination is not the same as an error. If you didn't have colour vision at all - like a dog - would your vision be wrong ? Or just restricted ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by QBert14000, posted 05-07-2005 7:57 PM QBert14000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by QBert14000, posted 05-10-2005 11:21 AM PaulK has replied

  
QBert14000
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 248 (206753)
05-10-2005 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by PaulK
05-08-2005 2:12 PM


Re: Still struggling
PaulK writes:
If you didn't have colour vision at all - like a dog - would your vision be wrong ? Or just restricted?
It would not be wrong because right and wrong don't exist in the physical world. However, we are not dogs, so a lack of color vision is significant in humans. I might say it would be restricted. How are you defining "error?"
I have a question for you: The way I see this working is that nothing can be an error, and that could include "wrong" answers on a test, for instance. What, if anything, would you consider an error? What, if anything, would have to happen for you to say that something is an error?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2005 2:12 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2005 11:51 AM QBert14000 has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 244 of 248 (206763)
05-10-2005 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by QBert14000
05-10-2005 11:21 AM


Re: Still struggling
For a comparison imagine that I have a length of wood that is exaclty 1.006 metres long. If I say that the length to the nearest metre is 1m that is not an error. If I say that the length to the nearest centimetre is 101cm then that is a finer measurement - and still not an error. If I say that the length to the nearest millimetre is 1008mm then that IS an error, despite bieng closer to the true length than either of the previos measurements.
A lack of colour vision is like a less-fine measurement - like measuring to the nearest centimetre instead of the nearest millimetre. It is a loss of discrimination rather than an error.
And it is false to say that errors are impossible. Optical illusions are a genuine example of an error in our sensory systems. However we can tell this because the error is not so completely systematic that it cannot be detected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by QBert14000, posted 05-10-2005 11:21 AM QBert14000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by QBert14000, posted 05-23-2005 11:47 AM PaulK has replied

  
QBert14000
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 248 (210561)
05-23-2005 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by PaulK
05-10-2005 11:51 AM


Re: Still struggling
PaulK writes:
For a comparison imagine that I have a length of wood that is exaclty 1.006 metres long. If I say that the length to the nearest metre is 1m that is not an error. If I say that the length to the nearest centimetre is 101cm then that is a finer measurement - and still not an error. If I say that the length to the nearest millimetre is 1008mm then that IS an error, despite bieng closer to the true length than either of the previos measurements.
Ok, so our interpretations can be errors.
Optical illusions are a genuine example of an error in our sensory systems.
I don't quite understand. Aren't our senses sensing what is there, and isn't the error coming from our interpretation of that sensed information from our eyes? How can you say that optical illusions are errors in sensing when it is not our eyes being fooled, but our brains?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2005 11:51 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by PaulK, posted 05-23-2005 12:01 PM QBert14000 has not replied

  
QBert14000
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 248 (210562)
05-23-2005 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by New Cat's Eye
05-06-2005 4:11 AM


Re: Free Will
Hey, still waiting on your reply. Sorry again if it offended.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-06-2005 4:11 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
QBert14000
Inactive Member


Message 247 of 248 (210563)
05-23-2005 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by New Cat's Eye
05-06-2005 7:09 PM


Re: Free Will
Also waiting on a reply to 240

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-06-2005 7:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 248 of 248 (210566)
05-23-2005 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by QBert14000
05-23-2005 11:47 AM


Re: Still struggling
I don't think that it is worth continuing this, whenthi :
quote:
Ok, so our interpretations can be errors
completely misses the point.
And this:
quote:
Aren't our senses sensing what is there, and isn't the error coming from our interpretation of that sensed information from our eyes?
looks like pointless nit-picking. Since the processing in question occurs BEFORE reaching the conscious mind it has to be considered part of the sensory system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by QBert14000, posted 05-23-2005 11:47 AM QBert14000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024