• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What kind of dualist are you?

What kind of dualist are you?

  • Substance (Cartesian) Dualist

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Property Dualist

    Votes: 4 25.0%

  • Neither (explanation requested)

    Votes: 12 75.0%
  • Total voters
    16
There are two kinds of people: those who think there are two kinds of people and those who don't.
 
Copernicus said:
If the rainbow were to exist independently of an observer, then it would be detectable by observers from other locations. However, it can only be detected by the person or device in a specific location and with the specific sensory equipment to detect it. You can certainly photograph a rainbow, but you cannot ever budge from your position and actually see the same rainbow. There may be a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, but try to go there and get it. That is because it only exists as an interaction between an observer/sensor and the light waves/particles that activate the sensor.
Click to expand...

The conditions for a rainbow are observable. Therefor the position where a rainbow is observable is predictable. It is basic science.
 
RobertU said:
There are two kinds of people: those who think there are two kinds of people and those who don't.
Click to expand...

There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary, and those who don't
 
RAMOSS said:
yet, at the same time, it does.

For the energy will hit matter, and the different wavelengths will hit different areas.
Click to expand...

Ramoss, you originally asked "Can you show that a rainbow does not exist in absence of an observer?" I think that I have done that. Without some kind of optical sensor, they only exist in an imaginary or hypothetical sense, but every hypothetical rainbow exists from the perspective of a hypothetical observer. They are grounded in sensory experiences.
 
Copernicus said:
Ramoss, you originally asked "Can you show that a rainbow does not exist in absence of an observer?" I think that I have done that. Without some kind of optical sensor, they only exist in an imaginary or hypothetical sense, but every hypothetical rainbow exists from the perspective of a hypothetical observer. They are grounded in sensory experiences.
Click to expand...

You think you have. However, I disagree. It's a physical phenomena, and it happens if someone 'sees' it or not.
 
Copernicus said:
But a rainbow only exists within the context of an observer, as your last sentence admits. They don't exist in the absence of an observer. So, are they really physical objects? Is any physical object in human experience something that exists independently of some observer? If you give it some serious thought, you may want to keep a bottle of painkillers close by.
Click to expand...

Not everything physical can be described as an object. So rainbows are physical, but they are not objects. Are sunlight and water droplets physical? Are they objects?

Do you exist independently of some observer? Are you an object?
 
Copernicus said:
Ramoss, you originally asked "Can you show that a rainbow does not exist in absence of an observer?" I think that I have done that. Without some kind of optical sensor, they only exist in an imaginary or hypothetical sense, but every hypothetical rainbow exists from the perspective of a hypothetical observer. They are grounded in sensory experiences.
Click to expand...

Does the rainbow exist if it is observed by an insect, bird or reptile?
 
devildavid said:
Not everything physical can be described as an object. So rainbows are physical, but they are not objects. Are sunlight and water droplets physical? Are they objects?

Do you exist independently of some observer? Are you an object?
Click to expand...

Those are fascinating questions that take us far adrift from the thread topic, but I suppose we've already gone there anyway.

Whether or not anything can be described as a physical object depends on how you construe the expression "physical object", doesn't it? If you try to deconstruct the meaning of the term, the first thing that pops out is that objects are countable, but substances are not. Is gas or water countable? Not unless you quantify it into units. Rainbows are countable, but there are other properties that one associates with rainbows that might exclude them in your mind. For example, if you think of "objects" as solid things, then rainbows would not be objects. I was using the word "object" in a broad sense to refer to any physical phenomenon, but I wouldn't object if you wanted to use a broader term such as "physical phenomenon". That would include both rainbows and sunlight. Sunlight differs from a rainbow in that it has an impact on other bodily senses, e.g. warmth. My only claim here has been that a rainbow does not exist independently of an observer, because it is necessarily a visual phenomenon that requires sensation of light.

And that brings us to more complex phenomena than rainbows--e.g. physical objects that we experience. Do they have some sort of existence that is independent of an observer? This might upset folks even more than my controversial claim that rainbows don't exist independently of observers, but I would maintain that nothing in human experience exists in an absolute sense. Everything that we can conceive of is part of a model of reality constructed by our minds. That model is grounded in experience--primarily bodily sensations. Rainbows are just one type of object that exists as an entity in that model. What defines reality is how we interact with it.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
Ramoss, you originally asked "Can you show that a rainbow does not exist in absence of an observer?" I think that I have done that. Without some kind of optical sensor, they only exist in an imaginary or hypothetical sense, but every hypothetical rainbow exists from the perspective of a hypothetical observer. They are grounded in sensory experiences.
Click to expand...

You think you have. However, I disagree. It's a physical phenomena, and it happens if someone 'sees' it or not.
Click to expand...

Quite right, I do think that I have, and it doesn't bother me that you disagree. You've said nothing to refute my point, although you seem to think you have. I have never denied that rainbows are physical phenomena. Quite the opposite. I've only said that they don't exist in any coherent sense independently an observer. They are visually-determined phenomena.
 
Copernicus said:
Those are fascinating questions that take us far adrift from the thread topic, but I suppose we've already gone there anyway.

Whether or not anything can be described as a physical object depends on how you construe the expression "physical object", doesn't it? If you try to deconstruct the meaning of the term, the first thing that pops out is that objects are countable, but substances are not. Is gas or water countable? Not unless you quantify it into units. Rainbows are countable, but there are other properties that one associates with rainbows that might exclude them in your mind. For example, if you think of "objects" as solid things, then rainbows would not be objects. I was using the word "object" in a broad sense to refer to any physical phenomenon, but I wouldn't object if you wanted to use a broader term such as "physical phenomenon". That would include both rainbows and sunlight. Sunlight differs from a rainbow in that it has an impact on other bodily senses, e.g. warmth. My only claim here has been that a rainbow does not exist independently of an observer, because it is necessarily a visual phenomenon that requires sensation of light.

And that brings us to more complex phenomena than rainbows--e.g. physical objects that we experience. Do they have some sort of existence that is independent of an observer? This might upset folks even more than my controversial claim that rainbows don't exist independently of observers, but I would maintain that nothing in human experience exists in an absolute sense. Everything that we can conceive of is part of a model of reality constructed by our minds. That model is grounded in experience--primarily bodily sensations. Rainbows are just one type of object that exists as an entity in that model. What defines reality is how we interact with it.
Click to expand...

Do you exist in an absolute sense? Are you constructed by my mind?

A rainbow is a physical phenomenon that happens every time the conditions are right. Whether or not it is observed is irrelevant. Do you need to be observed to exist? If two people observe each other who is doing the observing and who is doing the existing?

Reality interacts with us just as much as we interact with it. It isn't a one way street.
 
devildavid said:
Do you exist in an absolute sense? Are you constructed by my mind?
Click to expand...

Philosophers have argued voluminously over what it means to say that we exist in an "absolute sense". Our bodies and minds are constantly undergoing change. Everything we attribute to reality is a construct of our minds. We can't perceive reality in an "absolute sense", because we necessarily model it in terms of subjective experiences.

devildavid said:
A rainbow is a physical phenomenon that happens every time the conditions are right. Whether or not it is observed is irrelevant. Do you need to be observed to exist? If two people observe each other who is doing the observing and who is doing the existing?
Click to expand...

The problem with your first point is that an observer is a necessary physical condition for a rainbow to exist. I think I've made it quite clear why I believe that. There are an infinitely large number of potential rainbows in the universe that would exist if an appropriate observer were present to perceive them. I do need to be observed in order to exist, because what I am is a self-aware biological machine. In addition to others perceiving me, I perceive myself. If two people are observing each other, they are additional observers to their own selves.

devildavid said:
Reality interacts with us just as much as we interact with it. It isn't a one way street.
Click to expand...

Yes, that would seem to be obvious. Physical reality is full of forces that attract and repel. We use the same verbs to describe both animate and inanimate interactions.
 
Copernicus said:
Philosophers have argued voluminously over what it means to say that we exist in an "absolute sense". Our bodies and minds are constantly undergoing change. Everything we attribute to reality is a construct of our minds. We can't perceive reality in an "absolute sense", because we necessarily model it in terms of subjective experiences.



The problem with your first point is that an observer is a necessary physical condition for a rainbow to exist. I think I've made it quite clear why I believe that. There are an infinitely large number of potential rainbows in the universe that would exist if an appropriate observer were present to perceive them. I do need to be observed in order to exist, because what I am is a self-aware biological machine. In addition to others perceiving me, I perceive myself. If two people are observing each other, they are additional observers to their own selves.



Yes, that would seem to be obvious. Physical reality is full of forces that attract and repel. We use the same verbs to describe both animate and inanimate interactions.
Click to expand...

A rainbow always exists when the physical conditions are met whether or not it is observed.
 
Copernicus said:
Philosophers have argued voluminously over what it means to say that we exist in an "absolute sense". Our bodies and minds are constantly undergoing change. Everything we attribute to reality is a construct of our minds. We can't perceive reality in an "absolute sense", because we necessarily model it in terms of subjective experiences.



The problem with your first point is that an observer is a necessary physical condition for a rainbow to exist. I think I've made it quite clear why I believe that. There are an infinitely large number of potential rainbows in the universe that would exist if an appropriate observer were present to perceive them. I do need to be observed in order to exist, because what I am is a self-aware biological machine. In addition to others perceiving me, I perceive myself. If two people are observing each other, they are additional observers to their own selves.



Yes, that would seem to be obvious. Physical reality is full of forces that attract and repel. We use the same verbs to describe both animate and inanimate interactions.
Click to expand...

Who is the you observing you? You cannot observe yourself into existence without a you to do the observing. So what makes this possible?
 
devildavid said:
A rainbow always exists when the physical conditions are met whether or not it is observed.
Click to expand...
Doesn't ring true to me. There is no rainbow in the sky. There are photons being skattered every which way that form concentrations in you, the observer's, retina when it is struck from a particular position relative to the source of light and high concentrations of water droplets in the air. If you move the illusion of a bow in the sky moves with you. The exact pattern of photons only exists at that moment in your retina. Someone standing next to you is seeing a different rainbow made of different photons that travelled through different water drops and hit their retinas just so. Without an observer, and an observer with a particular kind of eye, tuned to differentiate particular wave lengths of light, there is no rainbow. The best we can say is: if these particular conditions are met then an observer standing right here with the right kind of eyes will have the subjective experience of seeing a colorful illusion in the sky.



Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
 
DarthPedant said:
Doesn't ring true to me. There is no rainbow in the sky. There are photons being skattered every which way that form concentrations in you, the observer's, retina when it is struck from a particular position relative to the source of light and high concentrations of water droplets in the air. If you move the illusion of a bow in the sky moves with you. The exact pattern of photons only exists at that moment in your retina. Someone standing next to you is seeing a different rainbow made of different photons that travelled through different water drops and hit their retinas just so. Without an observer, and an observer with a particular kind of eye, tuned to differentiate particular wave lengths of light, there is no rainbow. The best we can say is: if these particular conditions are met then an observer standing right here with the right kind of eyes will have the subjective experience of seeing a colorful illusion in the sky.



Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The rainbow must occur to be observed. A rainbow is not an illusion. It is sunlight being refracted.
 
devildavid said:
The rainbow must occur to be observed. A rainbow is not an illusion. It is sunlight being refracted.
Click to expand...
And yet you view the same apparent space from any other angle and there is no rainbow there. The illusion of the rainbow is the mixed concentration of photons hitting the eye. The rainbow only exists in the eye, not in the sky. Thus the illusion. In any event, without such an eye and brain tuned to interpret different wave lengths as distinct colors, there is no rainbow. The observer is essential.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
 
Copernicus said:
Dualism is the view that there is a non-physical aspect to human beings--a mental/spiritual aspect and a physical aspect. (See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Dualism for reference.) The vast majority of people are dualists. More than that, they are what philosophers call "substance dualists" (aka Cartesian dualists) in that they believe in an immaterial spiritual plane of existence that is independent of physics. The major alternative to substance dualism is "property dualism"--the view that mental phenomena are not physical per se, but that mental/spiritual experience is a property of certain physical interactions. In modern terms, one might call it an emergent property.

Just out of curiosity, I would like to know whether you consider yourself a substance (Cartesian) or property dualist. If not, why not? So I offer two choices and an option to decline either label (with explanation).
Click to expand...

I believe in hylomorphism, which is substance dualism in the broadest sense (it posits that human souls are immaterial, while denying that any other forms are), though it isn't Cartesian in its definition of identity.
 
DarthPedant said:
And yet you view the same apparent space from any other angle and there is no rainbow there. The illusion of the rainbow is the mixed concentration of photons hitting the eye. The rainbow only exists in the eye, not in the sky. Thus the illusion. In any event, without such an eye and brain tuned to interpret different wave lengths as distinct colors, there is no rainbow. The observer is essential.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The conditions for a rainbow are essential.
 
devildavid said:
The conditions for a rainbow are essential.
Click to expand...
Of course. And one of the conditions is the observer with just such an eye and just such a brain standing at the right angles between a light source and water droplets in order to create an image of a rainbow in their brain. Otherwise you just have photons scattering every which way through water.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
 
DarthPedant said:
Of course. And one of the conditions is the observer with just such an eye and just such a brain standing at the right angles between a light source and water droplets in order to create an image of a rainbow in their brain. Otherwise you just have photons scattering every which way through water.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No, the rainbow occurs every time. Everything we see involves an image of something in our brain. To see color requires sufficient light. Is color an illusion? Is light an illusion?
 
devildavid said:
No, the rainbow occurs every time. Everything we see involves an image of something in our brain. To see color requires sufficient light. Is color an illusion? Is light an illusion?
Click to expand...
There is nothing red about red or blue about blue. Color is a sensation produced by a certain kind of eye and a certain kind of brain. Our brains evolved to create a sensation of blueness or redness based on a wavelength of photons. We experience some colors rather than others based on our evolutionary history. Even within the narrow visual spectrum our eye is taking a continuous gradient of wave lengths and grouping them into discrete bands rather than a continuous gradient.

Rainbows are not like rocks. There is no object there. The light is being skattered in every direction and a thousand different observers would see a thousand different rainbows all assembled in their brains from the light that happens to hit them in different concentrations from different angles. The rainbow exists in the brain, not in the sky. It is a 'real' phenomenon but the projection in the sky is an optical illusion. You can't walk over and find the end of a rainbow, right? The illusion just keeps moving with you.

It's not all that different from a mirage. A mirage is a real experience but the thing you are seeing isn't where you are seeing it. It is an optical illusion.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
 
DarthPedant said:
There is nothing red about red or blue about blue. Color is a sensation produced by a certain kind of eye and a certain kind of brain. Our brains evolved to create a sensation of blueness or redness based on a wavelength of photons. We experience some colors rather than others based on our evolutionary history. Even within the narrow visual spectrum our eye is taking a continuous gradient of wave lengths and grouping them into discrete bands rather than a continuous gradient.

Rainbows are not like rocks. There is no object there. The light is being skattered in every direction and a thousand different observers would see a thousand different rainbows all assembled in their brains from the light that happens to hit them in different concentrations from different angles. The rainbow exists in the brain, not in the sky. It is a 'real' phenomenon but the projection in the sky is an optical illusion. You can't walk over and find the end of a rainbow, right? The illusion just keeps moving with you.

It's not all that different from a mirage. A mirage is a real experience but the thing you are seeing isn't where you are seeing it. It is an optical illusion.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There is no illusion with the rainbow. When light is refracted you see the actual colors contained in the light. that we see it in the shape of what we call a rainbow does not change this fact. A mirage is only an illusion when you think it looks like water. When you understand what is happening, you know the phenomenon that you are observing. That we give these things names does not mean that they are illusions.
 
devildavid said:
There is no illusion with the rainbow. When light is refracted you see the actual colors contained in the light. that we see it in the shape of what we call a rainbow does not change this fact. A mirage is only an illusion when you think it looks like water. When you understand what is happening, you know the phenomenon that you are observing. That we give these things names does not mean that they are illusions.
Click to expand...
There are no 'actual colors'. There are experiences of perceiving different wavelengths as colors if you have a certain kind of eye and a certain kind of brain. Don't know how else to say it.

It seems that you deny there is any such thing as an optical illusion, since if you understand what the photons are doing you won't be tricked. Seems an odd take on the word illusion to me. Maybe you think an illusion needs to be created out of nothing or out of magic rather than out of photons?


Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
 
DarthPedant gets the point I was making--that the external physical conditions alone do not create a rainbow. It is a construct in the mind of an observer that is associated with visual sensations. Note that illusions are real and represent a mental construct caused by the observer's interaction with physical stimuli. Mirages are caused by real physical conditions. Optical illusions are a fascinating case of ambiguous perceptual phenomena. The mind is tricked into different, conflicting interpretations of the incoming visual data.

Psychologists have known for a long time now that perception is an active process. That is, what we perceive is not just a straightforward rendering of sensory data from the peripheral nervous system. The brain actually perceives an interpretation of incoming sensory information that best matches an internal model of external reality. That's why the same physical visual data can lead to conflicting interpretations--optical illusions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom