Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 123
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Granted. However, my knowledge of the color, or ability to measure was not in question. I return to your original assertion:

    "There is no quality in this world that is not such merely by contrast"

    I think that a coat car is red by virtue of us having defined red. I need not compare red to blue. I need not even know what blue is.
    Yes but Blue is light and Red is light (anything in ANY degree of itself is still itself) and you do need to know the absence of light to know light! light is light no matter what degree (red or blue).
    See what I am saying?

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    And, my inability to carefully observe the coat (i.e. because the closet lacks illumincation) does not change its red quality.
    Are you sure? Thats just like the famous question; If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, did it make a sound?

    I say NO

    What do you say and why?
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    "There is no quality in this world that is not such merely by contrast"
    Forget my previous posts for a moment.

    What does this statement mean?
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Why isnít light the absence of darkness, or heat the absence of cold?

    Because its just not
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Forget my previous posts for a moment.

    What does this statement mean?

    Its simply to say that we as humans can't know the quality of anything without knowing the deficiency of its contrast.

    Like taste... Things only taste good because they don't taste bad. Right? If we didn't know a bad taste, how would we know what a good taste is?

    You can't measure anything without standards and there can't be standards without contrast.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Are you sure? Thats just like the famous question; If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, did it make a sound?

    I say NO

    What do you say and why?
    I say Probably The absence of detection is not necessarily the absence of existence.

    If the absence of someone being present to hear it means it did not make a sound, that same absence of observation would prevent us from knowing that it "fell".

    So to whatever extent we can positively state that it fell (i.e. we can observe the displacement of other objects and thus make a determination), we can also state that the phenomena associated with such events occured as well (i.e. resultant vibrations detectable by an eardrum).
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    But why?
    Is this new avatar also you?
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Its simply to say that we as humans can't know the quality of anything without knowing the deficiency of its contrast.

    Like taste... Things only taste good because they don't taste bad. Right? If we didn't know a bad taste, how would we know what a good taste is?

    You can't measure anything without standards and there can't be standards without contrast.
    Still forgetting the other things I posted...

    My philosophical friends might struggle with that. They suggest that A is A. Regardless of our ability to describe it, quanitify it, qualify it, measure it...

    It is what it is (quality). Our language about it is separate and distinct from it.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    So to whatever extent we can positively state that it fell (i.e. we can observe the displacement of other objects and thus make a determination), we can also state that the phenomena associated with such events occured as well (i.e. resultant vibrations detectable by an eardrum).
    i.e. resultant vibrations detectable by an eardrum

    This is the reason I say NO. I think the vibrations were definately created but sound as we know it is only our eardrums translation of those vibrations. So in the absense of an eardrum to translate those vibrations, there was no sound as we know it.

    Just as in the absense of light there is no RED (or Blue for that matter) as you know it.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Scientifically or philosophically?

    LOL...
    and I thought the references to your charming witt were nothing more than febile attempts to impress

    Its plain to see what all fuss is about
    Last edited by sxtg; 12/15/2004 at 12:08 PM.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    They suggest that A is A. Regardless of our ability to describe it, quanitify it, qualify it, measure it...

    Ok but RED does not exist without "our" translation of it. So while its physicall make up is there It is only "RED" because we see it that way and have defined it to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    It is what it is (quality). Our language about it is separate and distinct from it.
    Which I think proves my point that you are taking a degree of something and calling it something else. i.e. Red(light) and Blue(light)
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Ok but RED does not exist without "our" translation of it. So while its physicall make up is there It is only "RED" because we see it that way and have defined it to be.


    Which I think proves my point that you are taking a degree of something and calling it something else. i.e. Red(light) and Blue(light)
    I think we are coming close to violent agreement. Let's see how close we are with this question:

    Does light exist without "our" translation of it?
  12. #32  
    While I haven't thought about that one as much as the tree..

    My thought are that just like the Vibrations, Light also exist. However RED and BLUE (our translations of the different degrees of light) do not.
  13. #33  
    I say that...
    Sound is sound rather loud or quiet, just as light is light rather red or blue.
  14. #34  
    Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

    We agree
  15. #35  
    Regarding my previous comments, they were linguistic semantics.
  16. #36  
    Color (any degree of light) does in fact have a contrast- The absense of light (in any degree)
  17. #37  
    Now, back to main topic.

    clulup offered that evil could be done. This seems to infer that evil, like sound or light, exists itself.

    Right now, my thinking is that evil is more suited to the red/blue, loud/quiet characteristics.

    What think ye?
  18. #38  
    So back to original topic...

    While one could argue that Good can Exist without evil- One wouldn't know it!
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Now, back to main topic.

    clulup offered that evil could be done. This seems to infer that evil, like sound or light, exists itself.

    Right now, my thinking is that evil is more suited to the red/blue, loud/quiet characteristics.

    What think ye?
    See my post above.
  20. #40  
    I think Good Is Good and Evil is Evil.
    This comment by Clulup...
    You can walk past a person in need without helping - that is absence of good. You can kick the person and take away the only coat that person has - that would be doing bad/evil. Of course the difference is a gradual one. For instance, also negligence can reach a criminal degree and hence become evil by public definition.

    Is nothing more than the different degrees and demonstrates the "red/blue or loud/quiet" characteristics.
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions