The point of thee example was - to show that there are things external to mind, which, ultimately, enable and incite perception. So, if there is something external to the mind, which causes perception, it must precede perception - hence, it's independent of perception.
But even in your example the event cannot be proven to exist until it is perceived. At which point the past is derived. I'm basically just asking you to disprove unicorns dude. I'm not trying to argue about this, because you can't prove the universe exists outside of perception, it's logically impossible. Because in order to say it exists, it has to be perceived, upon a lack of perception, there is no one to say it exists. It's a paradox. You're trying to make sense of the nonsensical.
[quote name='"Boats And Hoes"']My logic teacher believes so... I don't. Color is contingent upon light, and light is contingent upon sight. And what's light to a blind man?... nothing. [/quote] Using that logic, nothing physically exists
Uh yea... ever heard of the double slit experiment?... look it up on youtube, a 5 min. video, it's worth it.
You're making some jumps I didn't make. I just said you can't prove they're not just projections of the mind.
Yes, you can, to a degree... it's either, essence precedes perception, or, appearance/perceptual reality is a sole contrivance of the mind. U have to pick one of these two... and with the dog example I used, I'm inclined to believe there's essence independent of perception; which precedes preception, ultimately enabling and causing the existence of perception.
[quote name='"Boats And Hoes"']Uh yea... ever heard of the double slit experiment?... look it up on youtube, a 5 min. video, it's worth it.[/quote] Yeah I am familiar with this experiment. But it doesn't apply. The electrons behaved as if they were waves when they were unobserved. Photons already are waves so I'm not sure why you think this suggests that light does not exist under no observation. This is the same thing as "if a tree falls and noone is there to hear it, does it make a noise?" Sure there is no way to prove it, but when you wake up you can safely assume the sky is blue cause it has been every other time you awoke
First of all, your dog example is completely useless to this discussion. Or to any discussion for that matter. It's a completely useless example unless your point is that dogs have better hearing than humans, in which case scientific facts would be much more useful than an anecdote. Stop bringing it up. Secondly, I don't have to make any such decision. I can decide the universe is only a contrivance of my mind and it exists independent of it. The universe is full of paradoxes and beautiful things you and I don't understand. Stop trying to pin it down into your box, man.
color is light... I guess you are suggesting that since our brain is not there to perceive it as whatever colour it may be, it isnt a colour to begin with? Im sure you know about absorption and reflection of light, would something blue not reflect that wavelength because our brain is not there to convert that wavelength into what we believe to be blue?
the dog example id actually very useful, because it proves there's something external to the mind fomenting sensation. And I'm not trying to pin down anything, I'm trying to find some sort if understanding, as to why things are, the way they are(metaphysics)... It's better than what u do, man; an ambivalent devil's advocate, such as urself, u can't even decide, whether things are inside of the mind, or before the mind, are of no benefit to any philosophical discussion.
"Color is usually attributed to external bodies. However, color is actually the activity of the eye's retina. It is a sensation. The external body is perceived as the cause of the sensation of color. We say, "The body is red." In reality, though, color exists only in the retina of the eye. It is separate from the external object. Color is a mere sensation in the sense organ. The external object is perceived by the intellect's understanding as being the cause of sensations. Color theorists began by investigating light and colored bodies in order to find the cause of color. They should have started with an investigation of the effect, the given phenomenon, the changes in the eye. We can afterward investigate the external physical and chemical causes of those sensations. The eye's reaction to external stimulus is an activity, not a passive response. It is the activity of the retina. When the eye's retina receives a full impression of light, or when whiteness appears, it is fully active. When light is absent, or when blackness appears, the retina is inactive(no color). There are gradations to the intensity or strength of the retina's activity, or reaction to external stimulus. The undivided activity of the retina is divided into stronger or weaker degrees when stimulated by pure light or whiteness. When influenced by light, the degrees are: Light — Half Shade — Darkness. When influenced by whiteness, the degrees are: White — Gray — Black. In this way, grays are seen. The intensity or energy of the retina's activity increases as more light or whiteness stimulates the eye. These gradations are made possible by the quantitative intensive divisibility of the retina's activity."
The dog example states that you're still perceiving the dog, perceiving the sound. Nothing external of your own perception is proven there. Devil's advocate has plenty of benefit in philosophical discussion. If you're looking for answers go to a math forum, because answers have no place in a philosophical discussion.
The tree fell, I, the human, didn't "experience" the "sound", but, the dog did. This shows that, that noise/message isn't dependent on my perception for its manifestation, so, just as the message isn't dependent on me, it can also be that, the noise/message isn't dependent on the dog for its manifestation, and so on, and so on, infinitely; this goes to show... the thing-in-itself(atoms) is independent of perception, because it preceds it! It's really not THAT hard to comprehend. And... I never said a devils advocate is bad for philosophy. I said, an "ambivalent devils adovacte" is bad for philosophical discussions; this is because they raise questions, incessantly, WITHOUT every trying to find thee answer themselves.
this is just explaining how an eye interprets light to colour, im not suggesting that this does not occur. Regardless of what our eyes are doing, an objext is reflecting a certain wavelength which represents an area of the "visible light spectrum"
Color is not "real", without minds! BOTH the eye, by way of the mind, AND the thing-in-itself(chemical composition), are working, under clear light, in congruence, to produce color, and create reality in appearance. One without thee other, results in - NO APPEARANCE & NO COLOR!
Depends on what you consider to be reality... Is blue only that once it is being pictured in your head, or is the wave itself enough to be considered blue? And once again with your logic you are suggesting that physical reality is nothing without the mind, which may be true from a singular perspective, but i feel like moving in that direction is to suggest that whatever our mind creates IS reality.