Mike82ARP

I'm not sure what you mean by "self-attesting," since reason is not an "authority." Yes, reason can justify its own foundations, but if some method other than reason is proposed, then how could it be evaluated without the use of reason itself? What possible competitors could there be? Ghs By “authority” I meant the primary basis for your belief. You wrote, "how could [reason] be evaluated without the use of reason itself?” That was my question. Using reason to evaluate reason is technically circular reasoning, but it seems that at point that becomes necessary.

without engaging in circular reasoning? Or any other epistemological tenet, for that matter. It seems that once one backs up as far as one can go on the trail to epistemological origins, ultimate authorities must become self attesting.

Thanks for your comments. In the many discussion I’ve had with Objectivists elsewhere I’ve made it clear that I understand their atheism on the basis of the “supernatural” realm ascribed to it , however I do not accept their objections based on their attitudes toward altruism and mysticism which are not universal practices. Heck, even I don’t accept those as integral to Christianity and view professing Christians who espouse those behaviors as self righteous ascetics.

It doesn’t matter whether Rand was “clear as a bell” when she made her proclamation “ex cathedra". What matters is, “was she correct?” How can one say with certainty that something which cannot be proven one way or the other is in fact, true? Rand had at best a sophomoric understanding of Christianity as do the ARI and TOS gang. Her comments on the ‘sacrificial lamb” makes that clear.

David Kelley’s excellent (longish) essay, Truth and Toleration is a worthwhile read. IMO, Kelley effectively critiques Peikoff”s parochialist view of Objectivism and shows that attitude is really anti-intellectual. Here is a link to the essay: http://www.atlassociety.org/sites/default/files/The_Contested_Legacy_of_Ayn_Rand.pdf There are some other excellent articles and videos at The Atlas Society website. http://www.atlassociety.org/objectivist-movement The video Truth and Toleration: 20 years later is also a quick introduction to the schism.

That's it. Thanks.

You are correct in saying that I have offered nothing positive of my own. As I noted earlier, I am examining my own epistemology and not seeking to make a positive statement about anything. As fellow OLers posted comments, I remarked on the posts. I'm here to learn, not proselytize. My simplified use of Semmelweis was for the purpose of portraying what he had to deal with when he approached the medical deities, not a explanation of the research of the time. Sheesh! RE: electrons. Yes, we currently have the Quantum model of the atom and do manipulate electrons, but the nature of the "model" is one that allows for change as further investigation and discoveries are made. I would say the same goes for open Objectivism.

Sorry, but I'm new here. Is PAR the same book as OPAR?

What “fact” are you speaking of? You listed a bunch of hypotheticals and what ifs.

Yes, the concept of color can exist for that person. As has been pointed out by others, we need not directly perceive something to be aware of its existence and to determine its characteristics. There are all sorts of things that we can conceptualize despite not being able to perceive them directly. We'd prove it by the means already suggested by others. We'd set up equipment which measures colors (and converts the information to, say, numerical values) in a controlled environment in which the blind person could witness us accurately detecting the colors without such equipment. J "There are all sorts of things that we can conceptualize despite not being able to perceive them directly." Could the same be said about God? The rest I agree with. i.e., an analogue could be constructed to attempt to identify color, but the person would still never experience color. Sorry for the lousy use of the quote fxn. LOL! Very neat, Mike. I was wondering if you'd go there... "Could the same be said for God?" ha! Color is one characteristic of an entity, I believe. White light on it absorbs certain wavelengths, and reflects others. Therefore, color exists independently of the viewer. The (green) tree does indeed make a sound when it falls in the forest. For the concept "color", one has to have a referent in reality - sensory and perceptual. A 'concept' that by-passes these - must be rationalistic. i.e, It's a floating abstraction, with no pertinence to reality, for a blind person. Ba'al's "device" creates another concept entirely, stemming from the aural cortex - not the visual. (Same for Braille, and touch.) One could probably describe the form of a tree to a blind man; but describe a color? No way. Could just as well be describing Beethoven's Fifth to a deaf man. I thought I’d throw that in and see what response I’d get. The boilerplate arguments I get are analogous to those the medical community gave to a physician named Semmelweis who proposed the idea that bacteria might be responsible to hospital infections. Since the microscope hadn’t been invented, the would be “Randians” (medical community) of the day laughed at him saying that these could not exist as they could not be seen (perceived) when, in fact, there was a "new dimension”,i.e., the microscopic, that humans could not objectively demonstrate at the time. MSK did not reject the idea that there may be realities for which the human has yet to develop a sense. Might God exist in that reality? To categorically say “no possibility" is being as anti-intellectual and dogmatic as some fundamentalist Christians are when it comes to science. Just sayin'

Yes, the concept of color can exist for that person. As has been pointed out by others, we need not directly perceive something to be aware of its existence and to determine its characteristics. There are all sorts of things that we can conceptualize despite not being able to perceive them directly. We'd prove it by the means already suggested by others. We'd set up equipment which measures colors (and converts the information to, say, numerical values) in a controlled environment in which the blind person could witness us accurately detecting the colors without such equipment. J "There are all sorts of things that we can conceptualize despite not being able to perceive them directly." Could the same be said about God? The rest I agree with. i.e., an analogue could be constructed to attempt to identify color, but the person would still never experience color. Sorry for the lousy use of the quote fxn.

Leonid wrote, "Metaphysically speaking color doesn't exists at all. It has no existence outside of the realm of consciousness. It is an epistemic, not a metaphysical concept. So to speak about existence of color as independent entity is indeed wrong, irrational since color doesn't have a metaphysical status. However we perceive different colors because things have different properties. These properties could be perceived even by blind person by using different senses-as in Peter's example. We can explain then to the blind person that what he perceives in such a case as warm we perceive as white. The bottom line is that percepts belong to the realm of consciousness, not existence." Huh??? Are the trees really green if no one is there to look at them??? Color is objective and not dependent on consciousness to exist. Your statement reminds me of the question, "if a tree falls in the woods and no is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" None of the answers presented so far have shown that color can be known to exist to a blind person. He simply lacks the apparatus to experience sight and color and must trust what others tell him. Yes, you could use heat, taste, touch, or sound as analogues to color and their differences, but 'color' still remains an unknown. As MSK noted above, correctly in my opinion, there may be aspects of reality that we do not possess the sense organs to detect. We have to admit that "we don't know what we don't know" and therefore should not be dogmatic in those areas.

Where would he 'aim' the device? What objects is he 'viewing'? It's still a transposition of color to another medium, giving him 'blue', 'orange' -etc. The pitch of sound differentiates colors and names them, but does color "exist" for him, conceptually? No, he wouldn’t. Color would be a construct of varying loudnesses of sound, but the individual would never understand “red”, etc., and how would a variety of colors sound?

Here is the passage I was thinking about. I'll leave it to each reader to find the epistemological connections with the color-blind problem: Note that he says scientist, but this also applies to philosopher. (Or mystic for Wilber.)Michael Thank you for the informative post. I should probably put Branden on my reading list. Would this be the one book you would recommend? Mind you I have little free time with 4 kids, 13 and under including 2 Russian sisters who arrived here 6 weeks ago and a corporate exec wife who works 60+hour weeks. Hence my cooking duties.

I’m pleased to see you acknowledge reality may contain things that that humans may have not adequate sense organs to perceive. I’m sure about #1. What kind of “notion” of color could a totally blind person conceive? I’ve heard theoretical physicists speak of other dimensions. Can you conceive what these might be like?

I have stories about blind men, too. Just stories, like Wells’.

You bet! Most of what we "know" is second hand. Have you been to the Antarctic in person? Probably not, but you have no doubt it exists as a continent at the south pole. Ba'al Chatzaf But I can actually go to the Antarctica and verify its existence and there is sufficient evidence to support its existence. Not so with the blind person who cannot conceive of color. If he can't even conceive sight, he surely can't conceive color.Yes you could. But you have already accepted the existence of the place based on the testimony of a witness you trust. Much of what we "know" is of that nature. Very little of what we claim to know is gotten first from experience. And even first hand experience sometimes has to be "sanity checked" by other witnesses. That is how science works. Ba'al Chatzaf I again would say: do you believe that “trust” in a source is valid reason to believe in something? On what basis? What if the individual lacks adequate familiarity with whatever topic to discern what is being conveyed? Should he then doubt the information until he can adequately familiarize himself with the subject to discern whether it is truth or lies that are being conveyed?

I agree. Then the question becomes whether the blind person can think a seeing person irrational if he speaks of either sight or color.And why not? We don't directly perceive X-rays but talk about them all the time. We function on conceptual, not perceptual level. Blind person could perceive visual information by using other senses. He cannot see letters but could read braille prints. OK. I accept that a blind person can conceptualize information by other senses. in your case Braille prints as a form of written language, but my OP was about whether color can exist to a blind person. This example doesn’t work. From your example, all a blind person could say is that dark colors absorb more heat, but it doesn’t let him understand what "dark" is. It only lets him know what warm and less warm are. Colors do not reflect sound differently. RE: Your “trusted” machine. Are you saying that “trust” in a person or machine is a valid reason for believing something?

I agree. Then the question becomes whether the blind person can think a seeing person irrational if he speaks of either sight or color.And why not? We don't directly perceive X-rays but talk about them all the time. We function on conceptual, not perceptual level. Blind person could perceive visual information by using other senses. He cannot see letters but could read braille prints. OK. I accept that a blind person can conceptualize information by other senses. in your case Braille prints as a form of written language, but my OP was about whether color can exist to a blind person.

Thanks for the comments. I will respond to the previous posts a little later. I’m cooking dinner right now. Michael: Where I’m going with this is to examine my own epistemology.

I'm nor sure your example would work as color perception/differentiation is determined by the cones and barring these, any signal transmission would be incomprehensible, but accepting your example, what might one have said 100 years ago?It's like to insert probe inside your TV set when it runs " Gone with the wind" and learn about the movie plot and performance of actors. Perception and neurophysiological processes are connected but not identical. Perception is rather an awareness of these processes. If person is totally blind then by definition no visual perception exists for him. I agree. Then the question becomes whether the blind person can think that a seeing person is irrational if he speaks of either sight or color.

You bet! Most of what we "know" is second hand. Have you been to the Antarctic in person? Probably not, but you have no doubt it exists as a continent at the south pole. Ba'al Chatzaf But I can actually go to the Antarctica and verify its existence and there is sufficient evidence to support its existence. Not so with the blind person who cannot conceive of color. If he can't even conceive sight, he surely can't conceive color.

A rational born-blind person hearing from the sighted about color would realize that there is something that he cannot sense and he will rationally accept any analogy within his grasp that approximates the perception he cannot experience. For example: I know that I cannot see ultra violet. But I have no problem in conceiving ultra violet as a color which is analogous to the colors I -can- see. Likewise I accept the strong and weak force interactions even though all I can experience are the electromagnetic and gravitational interactions. Absence of perception is not absence of the thing not perceived. Ba'al Chatzaf Your example presupposes sight and both the knowledge and experience of various colors. This individual could contest whether the faculty of sight even exists. You then wrote, "A rational born-blind person hearing from the sighted about color would realize that there is something that he cannot sense and he will rationally accept any analogy within his grasp that approximates the perception he cannot experience." So are we then to base a belief in something we cannot perceive on the testimony of others? How can we know it to be true and not just propaganda by the masses?

I'm nor sure your example would work as color perception/differentiation is determined by the cones and barring these, any signal transmission would be incomprehensible, but accepting your example, what might one have said 100 years ago?

If a person were totally blind, say born without eyes as one individual I knew years ago, can color or even the concept of color exist for that person? I don't mean simply a definition of color as reflection of light, or a description of light as a measurement of wavelength along the electromagentic spectrum, etc. I mean the redness of red or the brownness of brown, etc.? I would assume not, as this is outside of his nature (i.e., total blindness) If the blind person then stated that color doesn't exist and anyone who believes there is such a thing as color is irrational, would he be correct? If not, how would you prove he was incorrect?