Banno

So what. It's speculative. Pattee is welcome to speculate.

I'm sure you will be able to explain your account without sending us off to such a text. It can't be that hard. You want to change the topic back to p...

You are no lightweight, but what you serve is also opinion, hidden. Speculative physics mixed with rewarmed dialectic. 'Tis a thing of beauty, that in...

Small steps. We might yet derail Michael's train.

Not so much. More speculation than physics. Which is not to say that it is not interesting - just that it is no where near as confirmed as you would h...

But not only a percept. Where are these percepts to be found?

Yep. So you have not explained red by equating it with a red percept. So on to the next problem. If red is a mental percept, who's mentality is it a p...

When you have no adequate response, you spit. Hegel is not physics.

Then you are using the difinendum in the definiens; defining red in terms of the red percept, with the resulting vicious circularity.

Which of the many percepts are red percepts, ? And of course, this is only the beginning of your problems.

Ok. So which ones are red? Only the red ones? Why isn't there a vicious circularity in claiming that red is the very same as red percepts?

Indeed - and educative, in explaining the use of commas. You probably know the old joke about the difference between "The wombat eats roots, shoots, a...

Ok. Explain them. You said "the red mental percept". Is there only one?

Yep. But we do not use electrons to sort tomato seeds. You want to equate the colour red with a thing you call a red mental percept. But they are not ...

"...the red mental percept..." There is only one? It is very unclear what a 'mental percept" is, when you take it out of the context of the scientific...

I like wombats.

But that's not what I have done. I have not "dismissed the scientific evidence". I accept it wholly. Have done, repeatedly, all the way through this t...

:rofl: I'll leave you to your crusade.

If the science shows that the red tomatoes are not red, then the science is wrong. But of course, it is Michael, not the science, that is in error, wi...

See how this is not physics? QED.

Yep. They really have the distinctive property that they appear to. They are red. Not I. I'm using it the way it has been used since well before recen...

...and you go over the same undisputed physiology. Again. The tomatoes are red. So is the pen. And the physiology is also correct.

It's the pretence that is irksome. Reworking Hegel is fine, if one is honest about it.

Well, yes. Tomatoes are usually red when ripe, especially the shop-bought ones. Other varieties might be orange, black or green, some with striated co...

You pretend to be doing physics; but you are merely reworking Hegel.

It seems not. :yawn:

Was that post intended to say something, ?

Notice that this is not the conclusion of your account, but a presumption. No, you aren't. They have 'determined" no such thing. You are treating the ...

Yep.

I certainly am! Threads such as this reach a point where the differences reach absurd levels. The basic point I would make is that colour is not entir...

Well, your confusing pain and touch certainly is an error. They, again, are not the same. So: This is exactly not the case with pain. It inflicts itse...

Interesting. But "there is no world sans observation", and yet "without observation/decoherence, we have the quantum state of indeterminate possibilit...

And now we have Meta claiming maps have height, but mountains do not, and AmadeusD claiming to be unable to tell colour from pain. Fine. I'll leave th...

Yes! More small steps. A small progress. One can have a conversation concerning the beetle: 'But suppose the word "beetle" had a use in these people's...

Odd. Fine. Toot toot.

I don't. And I'm not the only one. I pointed out the rather large difference between colour and pain previously. Can you pass me the red pen in your h...

Well, yes, since facts are true and hence in some way propositional. Of course what you believe is dependent on cognition, cognition being what you be...

I'm glad they made sense for you. In some ways the structure of Tibetan Buddhism was a bit too close to my lapsed catholicism, a bit too ritualistic. ...

Of course. It just seems to me that if one sets out to measure the height of a mountain, one already presumes it has a height to be measured.

Glad you said that. I thought it obvious.

Long ago, someone who has posted on this thread insisted that Mount Everest did not have a height until it was measured. Pragmatism and Pierce and stu...

Which concept? Current? Object? Conviction? Strained? Are you going to defend pressure, heat and torque in the same fashion? And just to be sure, I'm ...

Hmm. Not convinced. Seems strained.

So are you suggesting that the electric current is known distinctly by the jolt felt? And that this is much the same way we know distinctly that some ...

110v is for 'mercan big girls blouses. Real Men (or children) get the full 250v. Makes your hair stand on end, that does.

I don't think it can't be measured. I think it a curious candidate for a primary quality. "...roughly speaking, (primary qualities) are said to be rea...

The point is, colour is not a beetle. @"Lionino" cannot see your beetle, by definition, but you both see the red pen. You both see red. Indeed. And if...

Here's that search. I'm not seeing it. Distinguishing primary and secondary qualities is mostly of historical interest - perhaps except for you and ma...

It doesn't have to be left there, if you like. So long as it is noted that we do agree that tomatoes are (sometimes) red, and that a theory which cann...

There's an entry in SEP on "Primary and Secondary Qualities in Early Modern Philosophy", but no follow up with more recent comment. The interest is mo...