[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Graybeard

Dear Michael ....

You and I both 'Know' that the two squares 'A' and 'B' are not the same colour ... its obvious ... no amount of viewing, or peering can convince my consciousness (nor yours, nor anyone else's) that they the same colour. look at them as close, and for as long as you like. This is the Noumena's interpretation



And yet, despite our conscious knowledge (Noumena) of this, Science (Phenomena) can quite easily prove they are the same colour. We have to 'Realise' this

This is a drawing from the Wiki and can be found by clicking here, no need to trust me. You can prove it to yourself by following the link. Or you can view it below where I have painted a colour band across both squares using the exact mix.

Our conscious awareness can not always be relied upon. This is a simple proof, things are not always what they seem, despite how they appear.

Our eyes don't lie, they are not the guilty ones responsible for the mis-interpretation, our Noumena is. It makes a mistake in detail, confused by the shadows. Sometimes Phenomena is more reliable than Noumena.





No amount of realising could show that they are the same colour, the true 'reality'. Without an understanding of the phenomena of colour the noumena would always be incorrect.





cool bananas ... greg

Get with it you pommy, your losing the plot. I'm going to thrash you in the upcoming exam... easy .... rotflmao

Thanks mate,very interesting,however,it is also irrelevent,colour,form,etc are also all illusions,realization reveals that at base level reality WE as individuals DO not exist,and
never have done!Drawings and nice little graphs have no-thing to do with what IS!

regards michael.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick

Thanks mate,very interesting,however,it is also irrelevent,colour,form,etc are also all illusions,realization reveals that at base level reality WE as individuals DO not exist,and
never have done!Drawings and nice little graphs have no-thing to do with what IS!

What does it take to convice you that Phenomena exists !!!!!!!!!

I even drew out the BIG GUN Robert, and you swept him aside.

What is IS ?????

cool bananas ... greg

Its midnite here mate, just finishing my shift ... have to get beauty sleep.. stay cool

(you realise that the exam is coming up don't you .... LOL)

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Graybeard

What does it take to convice you that Phenomena exists !!!!!!!!!

I even drew out the BIG GUN Robert, and you swept him aside.

What is IS ?????

cool bananas ... greg

(you realise that the exam is coming up don't you .... LOL)

Greg my old Aussie mate,I have never said that phenomena Does not exist,you misunderstand me mate,what i have said is that phenomena is a product of physical
space-universe,and is relative in nature,temporally real,relatively real,but NOT absolutely
REAL,thereby being an illusion,albeit a very persistent one!


regards michael.

[MJA]

Way to go Greg,

Beyond illusions and perceptions is a simple reality some call phenomenon that I call truth. It was a great example of the grey uncertainty of measure. Perceived difference is truly equal.
And = is truth.

I owe ya a rice beer or what ever you said you liked, for sure!

=
MJA

[N0B0DY]

Greg,

Could I ask what dictionary you've used to define noumena as being dependent upon consciousness and phenomena as science. I think according to Kant, the colors you referred us to are the result of conscious interpretations and categorizations of phenomenal interactions; whereas noumenally there wouldn't even be any possible differentiation in order to observe the squares.

So in that respect, unless I'm misunderstanding something, "looking" would be the operative word, which is based on the optical illusion of conscious observation, in lieu of actually "knowing" the actual color of the squares in question as it "really" is.

The same can be applied to: "I think; therefore I am." Noumenally, thinking cannot be a factor; therefore we can only think that we are. So, ultimately, if you want to base existence upon thought, I would agree, as well as would Michael I'm sure.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by MJA

Way to go Greg

Bugger, damn .... MJA don't tell me I've gone and kicked a home goal ....... LOL

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Greg,
Could I ask what dictionary you've used to define noumena as being dependent upon consciousness and phenomena as science.

more bugger, more damn ... Nob ..... I wasn't expecting to have to defend it against you. 'I' decided to associate (consciousness and noumena) and (science and phenomena) just to lend weight (unfairly .. LOL) to my argument.

Nob .... If you read the first 12 to 18 posts in this thread you will see that I have bravely, and courageously defended my stance. That didn't work so I resorted to dirty tricks ... after all, it is war ..... LOL

However .... .I do stick to my point above ... the eyes are not responsible for the above illusion .... our brain's interpretation is ...

cool bananas guys .... you can't win em all ... greg

[N0B0DY]

I can agree it's the brain as well, Greg, but how would the brain interpret the colors and squares if the retinae absorbed the entirety of the energy spectrum?

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

I can agree it's the brain as well, Greg, but how would the brain interpret the colors and squares if the retinae absorbed the entirety of the energy spectrum?

I don't know the biology, but the retina is a collective of photo electric cells that behave the same as pixels. Each pixel reports only the colour that it sees, the brain builds up the image.

This takes time, and each 'pixel' takes time to 'die down' as well. A bit like turning off a lamp, it is not instant but grows dimmer as the magnetic field dissapates. Because of this time lag we can only see at around an average of fifteen refreshed images per second. Because of the overlap we assume that we are watching continuous motion.

Movies etc can play on this defect by screening at a rate of about 25 frames per second.

However, if you were an australian salt water crocodile you would have neurons attached directly to the eyeball. This is a more primitive adaptation, (300 million years circa) which at first glance would seem to be the better evolutionary path to have followed.

We removed all our processing to the central brain when we evolved as mammals.

A salt water croc can go from a torpid comatose state to instant action much much faster than any human. (Its really really scary to see this, and I would never enter salt water more than about 500 klm north of where I live) Even if he weighs hundreds of kilos. His part of the brain attached to his eyeballs allows him to process really really quickly compared to us.

So never smile at a crocodile, he can bite you in two even before he knows what he has done. The disadvantage to this adaptation, and one that has kept them living in swamps, is that if you were to bury a spear, point outwards, in front of them, and then place prey in front of them they would instantly impale themselves on the spear.

Their part of the brain attached to their eyeballs causes them to react without consulting the rest of the thought processing. Steve irwin understood this well and could do amazing things by playing with this knowledge. So it is a disadvantage to have super sharp reactions but no flexibility in those reactions.

Crocodiles have NO, NIL, NULL, NONE Noumena. And yet they have survived increasingly well for 100s of millions of years. Which hardly agrees with Michaels proposal regarding consciousness/ noumena ....... LOL

I don't really know much about biology and may be wrong in the finer detail with this explanation.

cool bananas ... greg

[N0B0DY]

Well I think you're only a biologist in croc's clothing, so I'm smiling.

I misread your thoughts concerning noumenal consciousness. Though perhaps consciousness arising, over time, from the noumenon is acceptable?

Very good explanation btw. Thank you.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Graybeard

I don't know the biology, but the retina is a collective of photo electric cells that behave the same as pixels. Each pixel reports only the colour that it sees, the brain builds up the image.

This takes time, and each 'pixel' takes time to 'die down' as well. A bit like turning off a lamp, it is not instant but grows dimmer as the magnetic field dissapates. Because of this time lag we can only see at around an average of fifteen refreshed images per second. Because of the overlap we assume that we are watching continuous motion.

Movies etc can play on this defect by screening at a rate of about 25 frames per second.

However, if you were an australian salt water crocodile you would have neurons attached directly to the eyeball. This is a more primitive adaptation, (300 million years circa) which at first glance would seem to be the better evolutionary path to have followed.

We removed all our processing to the central brain when we evolved as mammals.

A salt water croc can go from a torpid comatose state to instant action much much faster than any human. (Its really really scary to see this, and I would never enter salt water more than about 500 klm north of where I live) Even if he weighs hundreds of kilos. His part of the brain attached to his eyeballs allows him to process really really quickly compared to us.

So never smile at a crocodile, he can bite you in two even before he knows what he has done. The disadvantage to this adaptation, and one that has kept them living in swamps, is that if you were to bury a spear, point outwards, in front of them, and then place prey in front of them they would instantly impale themselves on the spear.

Their part of the brain attached to their eyeballs causes them to react without consulting the rest of the thought processing. Steve irwin understood this well and could do amazing things by playing with this knowledge. So it is a disadvantage to have super sharp reactions but no flexibility in those reactions.

Crocodiles have NO, NIL, NULL, NONE Noumena. And yet they have survived increasingly well for 100s of millions of years. Which hardly agrees with Michaels proposal regarding consciousness/ noumena ....... LOL

I don't really know much about biology and may be wrong in the finer detail with this explanation.

cool bananas ... greg

Stay with us on this thread mate,you are going through a process of rebirth here!I
welcome you home son?

regards michael.