The philosophy thread (reminder philosophy is not politics nor conspiracy theories)


The majority of philosophy appears an emotional response to the human condition.

Science requires no belief of the practitioner, and arguably at least suggests against the practice of it.

(That second came to mind last night in perambulations and perhaps premonition…)


@bfk : 9 hours ago…hmmmm, I do find the numbers (9 I have a SPECIAL story about…).

In any case, don’t sock it till you try it.

Also, sock side doesn’t matter until you have had them on your feet a mo. When removing, the form of each makes side obvious.


and: numbas


Hunh?! :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


Hypocrisy in sacrificing others in the struggle for social equality…

I dont think it’s right to completely destroy someone for a cause when the perception of their actions is open to interpretation…like a homeless thief getting sentenced to life in prison for stealing food so that the theifs family can eat.

But I guess this is just the strong preying on the weak…way of the world.


“Civilization starts with a mended femur.”



Well, not the majority of philosophy, but that’s existentialism in a nutshell.

If you remove emotion and focus on pure reason, then you end in monstrosity. You end up with Josef Mengele.

Much of what is useful about philosophy comes from ethics, and there can be no ethics without emotion. If injustice doesn’t piss you off, then you can have no concept of ethics.






Thanks,. Ash.



The guy in this video isn’t serious is he? This guy used “green” as his initial argument. Actual GREEN is 50/50 yellow and blue. The issue with someone determining that that color is actually green and not red is figured out at the earliest age of, what, 4? "there’s no way to delineate difference in color…Nah…We can. As a species, we differentiate color very well, basically.

And his anticipus to the argument is using the color red, a primary, with green, a secondary… Like what?

First off, you can rule out any color that’s a mixed color, to being a primary. To us, our species, we know a color is a color, at its basic level. Unless you have a disorder, which is determined early in life. We don’t just skate by into adulthood.

The only way any of this makes sense, in a normal person is the fact that we don’t all see the same shade of red. Red is still red. But if you slightly mix in orange, some people might not pick it up, until a certain ratio. The ratio buffer between colors does not represent an argument. Besides actual definciencies, as a species, that’s call subjective. We still know basic colors…


But seriously… @Marklar

I do agree.
We explored the pure reason line of idealism back at its height in the 15th through, oh…arguably through to around the 18th c CE (as seen via things like Sherlock, one could argue 19th c CE, but it had started to dwindle a bit as evident in the rise of Spiritualism and divination).
Descartes really pushed it to the extreme, and you can see European culture grip the deterministic non-emotional idealism in its music of Baroque, its obsession and design of cities around ever more grand clocks that acted out whole city life in their chimes, and in the feverish obsession with automata - a quite literal attempt to summarize living things purely through mechanical means (with quite a stunning level of success).

We saw emotion as base and vile, while logic, composure, and reason as divine. It’s a reasonable deduction given the reference frame and observations.

In this period, somewhat erroneously, but not then known to be, the orbits of the planets were shown to be calculated using music, and Kepler effectively opened up the guts of the cosmic clock and showed how planets work through a remarkably simple set of equations that were (and still are) very rigid and mechanistic.

Animals seemed to behave somewhat autonomously, impulsively without reason. They were like clocks and automata. Humans were nearly captured in automata, and indeed some thought the lowest of society were hardly better than animals and automata - nearly on an impulsive autopilot.
So emotion was seen as kin to the base mechanics, what made things not much different than clocks. Acting according to a limited design.

Reason was how humans were eventually seen to elevate beyond merely being autonomous machines.

Give this long enough and you end up with ethics suppressing emotion.

But then WW1 happened and absolutely shattered any such ideas. It violently forced emotion to the forefront and showed science and reason without emotion returned a very cruel and painful bedfellow.

We began to change this view. WW2 cemented that shift. Here, unemotional science was taken (horribly mistakingly) to the extreme and the ideal human (developed over centuries and finalizing in Nietzsche…and then taken horribly wrong) was pushed to its peak separation from the most extreme view of automatous humans who became seen, instead of as tools, now as pollutants.

It’s no wonder that Jazz exploded following WW1, and Rock following WW2.
Massive explorations into feeling and being an emotional human.

This continued through into the 60’s. Aside from the obvious, you had things like Arthur Lipsett making films like 21-87. Pure cinema explorations into how humans are more than simply substance and reason; not simply machines of society, and that attempting to do so leads to a lust for sensation and wonder. Feeling.

It’s no wonder films like Logan’s Run and THX-1131 arrive a bit after this period and explore exactly this idea (not to mention a host of similar ilk like Soilent Green, Planet of the Apes, Westworld, etc…).

We grew this into its height, the emotinal human as the ideal, in Robocop where we literally watch the emotion of a man overtake his mechanistic programming of pure logic.

Now the idea has entirely flipped.
The base and unrealized life of a human is one doing things because it’s reasonable alone, and see that as more inhumane in behavior. We make our most terrifying villains cold and calculated instead where they once were psychotically crazed humans of emotional hysteria.

We now see Spock as there for Bones to show humantiy through by contrast. Something only possible in our modern era. That same setup during Descatres’ time would see Bones as there for Spock to show human divinity through by contrast.

We cannot any longer fathom an ethic of Thomas More - a perfectly reasonable and emotionlessly calculated society as ideal.
That to us today is seen as satire, but I doubt More would agree.
To us, what was utopic to More is now Orwell’s dystopia.

We are now expressed in our ethics, and to be otherwise, to be utilitarian to the extreme, is a considerable challenge to argue for in ethics.

The phrase, “Have you no humanity?!”, means so much differently today than if you had said such to Descartes.



People interpret ideas differently and come to the ir own understanding of things…pure reason would be untainted by things such as certain biases/prejudices…and it would be untainted by game…pure reason would accept emotion as legitimate basis for a position in regards to certain topics…

However when you come across a rational arguement similar to Nietzsche you have to consider the frame of mind of the propposer…for they could be a functioning psycho…or socially undeveloped…or an machiavellian asshat looking to obtain power…or whatever…point being true rationality would be able to move beyond certain fall backs…for reason and empathy are to go hand in hand…because that is what determines ethics…I think…


My take on Nietzsche is that he’s been widely misunderstood, in no small part due to his sister who was a Nazi who edited his work after his death to fit that ideology.

My reading of Nietzsche is not that he advocated amorality, but that we should find moral guidance from within rather than relying on an external authority to tell us what is right or wrong. In a way, this is a much more strict form of ethics because it puts the responsibility squarely on the individual.


Ok fine, let’s use different colors as the examples. Let’s use red and blue instead of red and green. Both primary colors. The argument is identical. Someone else’s perception of red might be your perception of blue. You missed the point about the wavelength of the light being immutable (ignoring red/blueshifting) but the magical hallucination of the experience being possibly different for everyone. Yes, everyone who isn’t colorblind can tell the difference between red and blue. Yes, any child can name most basic colors from a very young age. But as of now, no one can explain or share their own unique qualia of any color. There is currently no adequate theory of perception or method of explaining or sharing such things.

Yeah, most people might not catch subtle shifts in color like your orange in red example, some people can and are naturally more sensitive physically. Their cones and brain have a better ability to sense stuff like that. But even then, if you were magically, technologically, or otherwise, able to “switch perceptions” with someone, we cannot as of now say that the qualia of the color is the same for everyone.

This also disregards the fact that some people like certain colors and color combinations over others, because that is heavily based in memory, emotional memory, and cultural norms. Certain wavelengths have a physiological effect on us as well, due to the day night cycle. Shorter wavelengths promote nervous system stimulation and longer wavelengths promote a calming effect.

Let’s go even further. Take the mantis shrimp for example. Most advanced eyes in the animal kingdom. They can see far into the infrared and ultraviolet spectrums, because their eyes have the right equipment to sense those wavelengths. Imagine now that, through some technological miracle, you are able to augment your eyes to see those wavelengths as well.

What would happen? We don’t know. Your brain would suddenly be confronted with signals it has never had to deal with before. Is there biological space for that information to be dealt with? Or would the extra information simply be wasted, electrical signals leading to nowhere?

Or would our brains accommodate this new info? The colors would be unlike anything we had ever seen before, and as such no explanation can be given for how it might “feel” to see infrared, ultraviolet, etc.

Now, bring that back to the standard wavelengths we can see. How are they any different in being able to be explained?

There is no proof that we all hallucinate different colors, but there is no proof that we don’t. There’s no argument over whether something is or isn’t red, “what color is the dress” be damned. There is just an inability to share what red experiences like.

In other news: all of our five senses are just variations of touch. All the five senses are particles and waves hitting other particles and waves. Hearing is air waves, made up of air which is a gas full of particles, pushing on our eardrums. Light is a wave/particle thing, hitting our rods and cones. Smell is particles hitting our olfactory nerves. Touch is particles hitting our body. And as we are aware, all particles are waves as well, so all particle collisions are waves interfering with each other, energy being exchanged. Like hot and cold, which is also impossible to truly share qualia of. In fact, none of these senses are capable of being transfered or truly understood qualia-wise.

ALSO ALSO: The cones in our eyes are red, blue, green. Green has its own wavelength. Primary colors in art and pigment are different than primary colors in physics and wavelengths. Combining yellow and blue in pigment forms does result in green. A green wavelength. Screens are RGB after all. Yellow light from such screens is made up of red and green. Some people have yellow cones as well, increasing their ability to differentiate that part of the spectrum. But everyone who isn’t colorblind can see yellow just fine, because red + green = yellow.
All light that is seen is the rejected wavelength that the object hasn’t absorbed anyway, so things that look red are intrinsically anything but red. And besides, nothing is any color if there isn’t a mind to interpret the wavelength…


–color conversation–

Theory of Mind.



@Marklar : before that. I used to say, “The majority of Philosophy [since The Enlightenment]…”, and have since re-classified.

Morality provides a crude tool to reckon the Cosmos. Dispensing with it, and hence Ethics, allows us to develop a [neutral] rendering and hence methodology for conduct.

In essence, shit-can about everything and think in new, simpler terms…such as:

Doing as, how, and when one pleases within the condition of allowing others to do as, when, and how they please.


@Tsachi: evidence. Proof = analytic. Evidence = experiential.




I get where you’re coming from. I’m not really interested in the whole philosophical side of it. Or diving much into it. I’ll admit I’m ignorant to the topic. Just someone that watched the 9 minute video. I understand that it’s something about raw feeling and the inability to properly describe the sensation without it as a reference physically. Or what it means to us. That’s a subjective nature and really can’t be argued anyway. Qualia in general isn’t related to just color, color is an example. Got it.

You can say I’m knit-picking the argument here but we have tech that allows for us to detect IR visually. It’s used for multiple applications. Nothing happened to us.

And again, I understand more about it now and I wrote my post directly during/after that video. I definitely do not want to argue this because it doesn’t interest me that much.



Not interjecting here, I never visit this thread, I just wanted to say…

How fuckin’ dope would it be if you had eyeglass lenses that’d shift to infared on a switch. Predatorvision. That’d be dope.


The technology that lets us see IR is cool right? However, we’re still not actually seeing infrared. What a FLIR camera does is it picks up the wavelengths we can’t see and transposes them into wavelengths we can see.


The interesting thing about thought experiments about sensory changes is that changing the way that you perceive the world doesn’t just change your perception. It actually changes your entire world.

A famous experiment fitted subjects with headsets that made everything appear upside-down to them. After wearing them during all waking hours for a while, they eventually not only became good at navigating an upside-down world, but the world eventually became normal and right-side-up to them. When the headsets were removed at the end of the experiment, they saw everything upside-down for a while!

The point being that the way they perceived the world was completely backwards from what everyone else experienced, but after adjusting they could not only navigate that world just fine but couldn’t even tell that anything was out of the ordinary.

So which way is the world then, right-side-up or upside down? How would we know the difference? Is there a difference?


Amazing! Worth noting as well that the image that hits our retinas are upside down due to the inversion caused by our lenses. Very cool that our minds can adapt to changes like that.


@Marklar : Their world and perception did not change. The brain changed. Put in another quarter…


@Tsachi : you had to burst nostromer’s bubble! I can see why nostromer likes the games he does. He thinks like a grunt. (Not pejorative, mind, nostromer, merely assessive.)