RLJ - What's the big deal?

1235

Comments

  • blu3cat
    blu3cat Posts: 1,016
    MatHammond wrote:
    How about colour - do we all see it the same? You might see what I see as red, as blue. How can you ever know we all see colour the same way? That probably sounds like nonsense, but I had a drunken debate about this with an optometrist friend once...

    You can never know you see it the same, it's all subjectivity. However as long as you recognise the difference between red and blue consistently - hey what the hell.

    Does this mean some people are BLJing? :wink:
    "Bed is for sleepy people.
    Let's get a kebab and go to a disco."

    FCN = 3 - 5
    Colnago World Cup 2
  • Headhuunter
    Headhuunter Posts: 6,494
    MatHammond wrote:
    How about colour - do we all see it the same? You might see what I see as red, as blue. How can you ever know we all see colour the same way? That probably sounds like nonsense, but I had a drunken debate about this with an optometrist friend once...

    Quite. Insects see the world completely differently to us as much of the insect world is sensitive to ultra violet and/or infra red.
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • Headhuunter
    Headhuunter Posts: 6,494
    blu3cat wrote:
    MatHammond wrote:
    How about colour - do we all see it the same? You might see what I see as red, as blue. How can you ever know we all see colour the same way? That probably sounds like nonsense, but I had a drunken debate about this with an optometrist friend once...

    You can never know you see it the same, it's all subjectivity. However as long as you recognise the difference between red and blue consistently - hey what the hell.

    Does this mean some people are BLJing? :wink:

    The green light's at the top isn't it? :wink:

    Actually, in Japan, they refer to red, amber and blue lights, not green. When I taught English in Japan my students found it bizarre that we talk about green lights...
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    Headhuunter wrote:
    blu3cat wrote:
    MatHammond wrote:
    How about colour - do we all see it the same? You might see what I see as red, as blue. How can you ever know we all see colour the same way? That probably sounds like nonsense, but I had a drunken debate about this with an optometrist friend once...

    You can never know you see it the same, it's all subjectivity. However as long as you recognise the difference between red and blue consistently - hey what the hell.

    Does this mean some people are BLJing? :wink:

    The green light's at the top isn't it? :wink:

    Actually, in Japan, they refer to red, amber and blue lights, not green. When I taught English in Japan my students found it bizarre that we talk about green lights...

    does their blue look like our green? :?
  • Headhuunter
    Headhuunter Posts: 6,494
    Porgy wrote:
    Headhuunter wrote:
    blu3cat wrote:
    MatHammond wrote:
    How about colour - do we all see it the same? You might see what I see as red, as blue. How can you ever know we all see colour the same way? That probably sounds like nonsense, but I had a drunken debate about this with an optometrist friend once...

    You can never know you see it the same, it's all subjectivity. However as long as you recognise the difference between red and blue consistently - hey what the hell.

    Does this mean some people are BLJing? :wink:

    The green light's at the top isn't it? :wink:

    Actually, in Japan, they refer to red, amber and blue lights, not green. When I taught English in Japan my students found it bizarre that we talk about green lights...

    Yes, to me, even in Japan, it was definitely a green light, but Japanese people refer to blue for go...
    does their blue look like our green? :?
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • blu3cat
    blu3cat Posts: 1,016
    Porgy wrote:
    Headhuunter wrote:
    blu3cat wrote:
    MatHammond wrote:
    How about colour - do we all see it the same? You might see what I see as red, as blue. How can you ever know we all see colour the same way? That probably sounds like nonsense, but I had a drunken debate about this with an optometrist friend once...

    You can never know you see it the same, it's all subjectivity. However as long as you recognise the difference between red and blue consistently - hey what the hell.

    Does this mean some people are BLJing? :wink:

    The green light's at the top isn't it? :wink:

    Actually, in Japan, they refer to red, amber and blue lights, not green. When I taught English in Japan my students found it bizarre that we talk about green lights...

    does their blue look like our green? :?

    As long as what you percieve as green is repeatably percieved as green, it doesn't matter how someone else percieves this, as long as they also recognise this as green. After all colour names are nothing more than names given to our eyes response to certain frequencies of light. As long as people can agree on the frequency of light being observed, doesn't matter a rats a*se how they process it internally.
    "Bed is for sleepy people.
    Let's get a kebab and go to a disco."

    FCN = 3 - 5
    Colnago World Cup 2
  • Headhuunter
    Headhuunter Posts: 6,494
    blu3cat wrote:
    Porgy wrote:
    Headhuunter wrote:
    blu3cat wrote:
    MatHammond wrote:
    How about colour - do we all see it the same? You might see what I see as red, as blue. How can you ever know we all see colour the same way? That probably sounds like nonsense, but I had a drunken debate about this with an optometrist friend once...

    You can never know you see it the same, it's all subjectivity. However as long as you recognise the difference between red and blue consistently - hey what the hell.

    Does this mean some people are BLJing? :wink:

    The green light's at the top isn't it? :wink:

    Actually, in Japan, they refer to red, amber and blue lights, not green. When I taught English in Japan my students found it bizarre that we talk about green lights...

    does their blue look like our green? :?

    As long as what you percieve as green is repeatably percieved as green, it doesn't matter how someone else percieves this, as long as they also recognise this as green. After all colour names are nothing more than names given to our eyes response to certain frequencies of light. As long as people can agree on the frequency of light being observed, doesn't matter a rats a*se how they process it internally.

    Well there are some situations in which colour perception is important, wiring up a plug for example
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • Jay dubbleU
    Jay dubbleU Posts: 3,159
    We're back to those butterflies creating storms again or one hand clapping seems to me - one hand clapping makes a noise like 'cla' :shock:
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,637
    Surely just cl...

    cla would be one hand and a couple of fingers.
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    pangolin wrote:
    Surely just cl...

    cla would be one hand and a couple of fingers.

    or ap!

    depends on which hand.
  • blu3cat
    blu3cat Posts: 1,016
    Well there are some situations in which colour perception is important, wiring up a plug for example

    agreed, but it doesn't matter what I see as green you see as blue, as long as I consistently see it as green and you as blue. You then learn the name for that colour and when wiring a plug, you would learn to put the wire which corresponds to your learnt name for the colour and your learnt perception of that colour.

    Or just get an electrician :wink:
    "Bed is for sleepy people.
    Let's get a kebab and go to a disco."

    FCN = 3 - 5
    Colnago World Cup 2
  • biondino
    biondino Posts: 5,990
    Don't colourblind people see red and green (say) as the SAME colour rather than reversed or whatever? So clearly there's a significant issue there, as my friend found out during A-level art when he painted a portrait with a beautifully subtle yet detailed green skin tone...
    My Focus / My Bob Jackson
    Blog (incl. bikes)
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    biondino wrote:
    Don't colourblind people see red and green (say) as the SAME colour rather than reversed or whatever? So clearly there's a significant issue there, as my friend found out during A-level art when he painted a portrait with a beautifully subtle yet detailed green skin tone...

    The issues in question when one asks "Do I see red as others see red?" are not in any way the same as the issues involved in colourblindness.

    Colourblindness is not being able to differentiate between colours, wheras the philosophical question at hand assumes we can differentiate colours perfectly well, but that we do not not necessarily perceive it the same, in our internal model.

    Blimey - language is completely inadequate for this sort of thing - probably why they make such infuriating and frustrating subject matters in pub converstaions.

    There is no reason to suppose that any of us sees colours as others do except possibly for the fact that it may be "built in". But as I remember there's lots of evidence that that isn;t the case at all - but I can't remember any of it without looking it up. :oops:
  • blu3cat
    blu3cat Posts: 1,016
    biondino wrote:
    Don't colourblind people see red and green (say) as the SAME colour rather than reversed or whatever? So clearly there's a significant issue there, as my friend found out during A-level art when he painted a portrait with a beautifully subtle yet detailed green skin tone...

    I think we may be talking about slightly different things here, but yes, otherwise they would see what we percieve as green as red and call it green and vice versa.


    I would say the opposite, people who DON'T RLJ are just going with the norm without any consideration. It takes more effort to think it through and put a case opposing the general consensus of opinion

    Yep it does take effort to put an argument together (both for and against),

    Headhunter, quite happy to follow the law and norm though. Also happy to have an sensible debate about it (erm, even though it may have got a little sidetracked with questions surrounding subjectivity).
    If that's your thing and you can justify it to yourself (after all who else do you have to convince), then thats your decision. If as you originally stated, there is noone around, then there could be no consequences, for me though I want to be absolutely sure there are no consequences, therefore I don't RLJ.
    "Bed is for sleepy people.
    Let's get a kebab and go to a disco."

    FCN = 3 - 5
    Colnago World Cup 2
  • Headhuunter
    Headhuunter Posts: 6,494
    blu3cat wrote:
    biondino wrote:
    Don't colourblind people see red and green (say) as the SAME colour rather than reversed or whatever? So clearly there's a significant issue there, as my friend found out during A-level art when he painted a portrait with a beautifully subtle yet detailed green skin tone...

    I think we may be talking about slightly different things here, but yes, otherwise they would see what we percieve as green as red and call it green and vice versa.


    I would say the opposite, people who DON'T RLJ are just going with the norm without any consideration. It takes more effort to think it through and put a case opposing the general consensus of opinion

    Yep it does take effort to put an argument together (both for and against),

    Headhunter, quite happy to follow the law and norm though. Also happy to have an sensible debate about it (erm, even though it may have got a little sidetracked with questions surrounding subjectivity).
    If that's your thing and you can justify it to yourself (after all who else do you have to convince), then thats your decision. If as you originally stated, there is noone around, then there could be no consequences, for me though I want to be absolutely sure there are no consequences, therefore I don't RLJ.

    Exactly, so if I RLJ when no one's around then did it really even happen?
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    Headhuunter wrote:
    blu3cat wrote:
    biondino wrote:
    Don't colourblind people see red and green (say) as the SAME colour rather than reversed or whatever? So clearly there's a significant issue there, as my friend found out during A-level art when he painted a portrait with a beautifully subtle yet detailed green skin tone...

    I think we may be talking about slightly different things here, but yes, otherwise they would see what we percieve as green as red and call it green and vice versa.


    I would say the opposite, people who DON'T RLJ are just going with the norm without any consideration. It takes more effort to think it through and put a case opposing the general consensus of opinion

    Yep it does take effort to put an argument together (both for and against),

    Headhunter, quite happy to follow the law and norm though. Also happy to have an sensible debate about it (erm, even though it may have got a little sidetracked with questions surrounding subjectivity).
    If that's your thing and you can justify it to yourself (after all who else do you have to convince), then thats your decision. If as you originally stated, there is noone around, then there could be no consequences, for me though I want to be absolutely sure there are no consequences, therefore I don't RLJ.

    Exactly, so if I RLJ when no one's around then did it really even happen?

    Did you leave any tyre tracks behind?
  • Jay dubbleU
    Jay dubbleU Posts: 3,159
    biondino wrote:
    Don't colourblind people see red and green (say) as the SAME colour rather than reversed or whatever? So clearly there's a significant issue there, as my friend found out during A-level art when he painted a portrait with a beautifully subtle yet detailed green skin tone...

    I understand from my brother who is colourblind that red and green appear as different shades of the same colour

    Of course in physics there is no such thing as colour - merely objects which absorb or reflect light in varying wavelengths - a red object is an object which has a surface that reflects light in the red area of the spectrum
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    I think blondie's right, people who are red-green colour blind see both as the same colour, indiscernible from one another. You just have to look at the colour-blindness tests to understand that...

    As for perception of colour, turquoise is always a good one - a blue-green mix. My brother had a car that was that sort of colour once, I saw it as green, he saw it as blue. It's definitions as much as anything.
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    bats probably see colour based on reflected sound waves. 8)
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    I can't see yellow. I fear nothing!!!!
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • Headhuunter
    Headhuunter Posts: 6,494
    Porgy wrote:
    Headhuunter wrote:
    blu3cat wrote:
    biondino wrote:
    Don't colourblind people see red and green (say) as the SAME colour rather than reversed or whatever? So clearly there's a significant issue there, as my friend found out during A-level art when he painted a portrait with a beautifully subtle yet detailed green skin tone...

    I think we may be talking about slightly different things here, but yes, otherwise they would see what we percieve as green as red and call it green and vice versa.


    I would say the opposite, people who DON'T RLJ are just going with the norm without any consideration. It takes more effort to think it through and put a case opposing the general consensus of opinion

    Yep it does take effort to put an argument together (both for and against),

    Headhunter, quite happy to follow the law and norm though. Also happy to have an sensible debate about it (erm, even though it may have got a little sidetracked with questions surrounding subjectivity).
    If that's your thing and you can justify it to yourself (after all who else do you have to convince), then thats your decision. If as you originally stated, there is noone around, then there could be no consequences, for me though I want to be absolutely sure there are no consequences, therefore I don't RLJ.

    Exactly, so if I RLJ when no one's around then did it really even happen?

    Did you leave any tyre tracks behind?

    No, merely vibrations in the air....
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • blu3cat
    blu3cat Posts: 1,016
    Exactly, so if I RLJ when no one's around then did it really even happen?

    ah, but you are an observer, and an observer..... (I think I'm going round in circles.........)
    "Bed is for sleepy people.
    Let's get a kebab and go to a disco."

    FCN = 3 - 5
    Colnago World Cup 2
  • Jay dubbleU
    Jay dubbleU Posts: 3,159
    Not sure about that - sound waves are too long to reflect in the visible part of the spectrum - bats are more akin to sonar - they build a mental picture based on reflected sound don't they ?
  • Headhuunter
    Headhuunter Posts: 6,494
    blu3cat wrote:
    Exactly, so if I RLJ when no one's around then did it really even happen?

    ah, but you are an observer, and an observer..... (I think I'm going round in circles.........)

    Do I count as an observer if I am the source? If I am considered an observer then can a tree also be considered an observer when it falls? Some people think that plants have feelings and sensations. Do these count as observations?
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    edited August 2009
    Headhuunter wrote:
    blu3cat wrote:
    Exactly, so if I RLJ when no one's around then did it really even happen?

    ah, but you are an observer, and an observer..... (I think I'm going round in circles.........)

    Do I count as an observer if I am the source? If I am considered an observer then can a tree also be considered an observer when it falls? Some people think that plants have feelings and sensations. Do these count as observations?

    depends - I think as long as you're not a cat, and you're not dead, then you count as an observer.

    and I don't think trees have ears...or have i missed the latest research?

    anyway there's bound to have been quite a few insexcts about, maybe a few pigeons, a rat, a live cat? But the trouble is - I don't think they'll tell you much.
  • Jay dubbleU
    Jay dubbleU Posts: 3,159
    Headhuunter wrote:
    Porgy wrote:
    Headhuunter wrote:
    blu3cat wrote:
    biondino wrote:
    Don't colourblind people see red and green (say) as the SAME colour rather than reversed or whatever? So clearly there's a significant issue there, as my friend found out during A-level art when he painted a portrait with a beautifully subtle yet detailed green skin tone...

    I think we may be talking about slightly different things here, but yes, otherwise they would see what we percieve as green as red and call it green and vice versa.


    I would say the opposite, people who DON'T RLJ are just going with the norm without any consideration. It takes more effort to think it through and put a case opposing the general consensus of opinion

    Yep it does take effort to put an argument together (both for and against),

    Headhunter, quite happy to follow the law and norm though. Also happy to have an sensible debate about it (erm, even though it may have got a little sidetracked with questions surrounding subjectivity).
    If that's your thing and you can justify it to yourself (after all who else do you have to convince), then thats your decision. If as you originally stated, there is noone around, then there could be no consequences, for me though I want to be absolutely sure there are no consequences, therefore I don't RLJ.

    Exactly, so if I RLJ when no one's around then did it really even happen?

    Did you leave any tyre tracks behind?

    No, merely vibrations in the air....

    Back to bloody butterflies and storms then - If I RLJ on Swindon does it cause a hurricane in the Bahamas ? :shock:
  • blu3cat
    blu3cat Posts: 1,016
    If a Riderless bike RLJs then did it happen?
    "Bed is for sleepy people.
    Let's get a kebab and go to a disco."

    FCN = 3 - 5
    Colnago World Cup 2
  • Jay dubbleU
    Jay dubbleU Posts: 3,159
    Porgy wrote:
    Headhuunter wrote:
    blu3cat wrote:
    Exactly, so if I RLJ when no one's around then did it really even happen?

    ah, but you are an observer, and an observer..... (I think I'm going round in circles.........)

    Do I count as an observer if I am the source? If I am considered an observer then can a tree also be considered an observer when it falls? Some people think that plants have feelings and sensations. Do these count as observations?

    depends - I think as long as you're not a cat, and you're not dead, then you count as an observer.

    and I don't think trees have ears...or have i missed the latest research?

    anyway there's bound to have been quite a few insexcts about, maybe a few pigeons, a rat, a live cat? But the trouble is - I don't think they'll tell you much.

    But thats an issue of communication not observation
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    Jay dubbleU wrote:
    Porgy wrote:
    Headhuunter wrote:
    blu3cat wrote:
    Exactly, so if I RLJ when no one's around then did it really even happen?

    ah, but you are an observer, and an observer..... (I think I'm going round in circles.........)

    Do I count as an observer if I am the source? If I am considered an observer then can a tree also be considered an observer when it falls? Some people think that plants have feelings and sensations. Do these count as observations?

    depends - I think as long as you're not a cat, and you're not dead, then you count as an observer.

    and I don't think trees have ears...or have i missed the latest research?

    anyway there's bound to have been quite a few insexcts about, maybe a few pigeons, a rat, a live cat? But the trouble is - I don't think they'll tell you much.

    But thats an issue of communication not observation

    Without the communication, how do you prove the observation?
  • Jay dubbleU
    Jay dubbleU Posts: 3,159
    The event will have a effect on the observer - the key is to interpret the effect - verbal communication is not the only form

Categories