Your Thoughts Aren't Accurate Representations of...your other thoughts.

[Chefodeath]

A serious philosophical dilemma has occured to me as of late. It's not the old problem that plagued the modern philosophy circa 1600-1800, that our thoughts of things only inaccurately represent the objective world from which they come, if there is an objective world at all. Rather its a dilemma even deeper and even more perplexing. I don't think that the abstract thought of a thing can even be said to represent the qualitative subjective experience its said to reflect.

Indulge me in a very simple thought experiment. I want you to close your eyes and just think of the color red. Meditate on it, imagine it fully.

Now here's my question. How does this thought of the color red in any way reflect the experience you have when you look on actual red? The essential nature of the color red is the visual experience you have when looking upon something red. As you meditate on your memory of red, does it replicate the experience in the same way the seeing of the color red? Are you able to see the color red when you meditate on it?

I can see only the cool black of my eyelids. In no way am I experiencing the essential nature of the color red. Therefore, lacking this essential nature, my thought of red is not even equivilent with my experience of red. So, how do I know its even a thought about red in the first place?

Edit: Here's a logical syllogism of the argument.

1: In order for a thought to be said to be "about" something, it must resemble or contain the essence of that which is it is about.
2: The essential nature of the color red is that it is in the active perception of it by the human observer. It is in the act of actually SEEING it
3: When one thinks about red, it does not cause them to in any way see the color, which is red's essential nature.

Therefore: what we say is a "thought about red" is in reality about red

 

[BouncingSoul]

you can't ever really know, that's both the problem and the fun of it.

i've often thought along similar lines about my thoughts (or, my accurately, my imaginings) and how they are, at best, shallow representations of their equivalents in reality. a good way of putting it, albeit a little immature, is to ask someone to imagine one of their exes naked. you can, of course, remember the overall shape of their body and maybe even particular details but as you go from their feet to their thighs, details of the feet start to fade. you can look at them in a whole frame shot if you choose but you can't look at a small section without some "background noise", so to speak.

colors are a problem insofar as colors, as themselves, don't exist; at least not beyond a quantifiable idea, one that is expressed only through the nature of a particular object. i.e. you can see a red flower or a red wall or even red paint or dye, but nothing is just the essence of red. i'm sure you understand that, of course, since you seem to be well spoken at the very least. still, a thought experiment in which you focus solely on "redness" is all well and good but i personally don't think there's any way to ever know the true nature of any color as, like i said, colors don't really exist. at least not in the way most people think about them on a base level.

 

[Seives-Sliver]

I have had these thoughts quite a bit while I was younger, it was really more over my perception of the world, if I looked into a really clean mirror where I could see my head and shoulder I would almost pass out sometimes just thinking about reality and how I percieve things. I have actually 'seen' the color red before when I was younger, I had an odd thought and I blinked and red flashed through my eyes, it wasn't the sun since it was night so I dunno, all of this does get a bit confusing just explaining it out. Really the world is what you make of it, it changes around you all the time to challenge you and teach you about who you really are and whatnot...I do believe I went off subject though X3

 

[TeeBs]

I have conclusive evidence of what the OP is trying to say.

Look at a bright light while your eyes are open, then close your eyes while still aiming your eye lashes at the light. You will see red.

Do I win thread now?

 

[Cat Cloud]

When I close my eyes and try to visualize something, I have a hard time doing it if I'm looking for a specific picture or image that I have not already seen in reality. I also can't do if it if I'm consciously trying to visualize the object/person/place. I need to think and concentrate on certain parts of the image (id hand, nose, sand, twigs, etc) to see anything. More often than not the image seems to 1. not as clear and defined as actually seeing thing with your eyes (it's more in the back of my mind, encased in thought and somewhat unconscious) and 2. made up from pieced together from bits of memories of images.

It is more difficult to visualize a simple object or a color. They have few details to focus on, and the shade, if I'm able to think of the color at all, depends greatly on the lighting in the area I am located. If the color is associated strongly with a memory or strong image, it may be easier in certain moments to "see" it in my mind.

Overall, I think memory and recollection play a big part in seeing an object in our head. Then the problem is that we have a tendency as humans to alter our memories unconsciously (I'm not sure how to phrase this better...). Our memories may accent a color or forget a detail. Faces may be altered to become more or less "ideal" or "pretty." The thought could be considered to be as real as your altered memory is.

I think the ability to visualize objects mentally varies from person to person. This is just based off of my own observations of myself.

/end rant unrelated to your question

 

[Erana]

Memories aren't the same as the experiences, no, but I find it fascinating that experiences can sort of dull themselves when repeated, until they fade into being about as sensational as the thought of it.
Just think of something like wearing socks. You've worn so many socks that you can perfectly imagine how it feels to wear socks, and while actually wearing socks lights up the feely-touchy part of the brain, the connotations and the entirety of the sock-wearing episode is about as enthralling as the thought of wearing socks.

I suppose I have to resort to another analogy because, as an artist, I make a conscious effort to be able to imagine colors as faithfully as possible. Other than feeling the light hit my eyes and the other sight-related sensations, I can experience red pretty well.
The idea of it being in my mind's eye, and thus free of shape or having to compete with juxtaposed objects and colors is an experience unique to my brain, though.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

Thinking about something doesn't replicate the experience of being in the presence of what you're thinking of. Of course it's thought about red - doesn't mean there's actually red there.

 

[Trolldor]

A serious philosophical dilemma has occured to me as of late. It's not the old problem that plagued the modern philosophy circa 1600-1800, that our thoughts of things only inaccurately represent the objective world from which they come, if there is an objective world at all. Rather its a dilemma even deeper and even more perplexing. I don't think that the abstract thought of a thing can even be said to represent the qualitative subjective experience its said to reflect.

Indulge me in a very simple thought experiment. I want you to close your eyes and just think of the color red. Meditate on it, imagine it fully.

Now here's my question. How does this thought of the color red in any way reflect the experience you have when you look on actual red? The essential nature of the color red is the visual experience you have when looking upon something red. As you meditate on your memory of red, does it replicate the experience in the same way the seeing of the color red? Are you able to see the color red when you meditate on it?

I can see only the cool black of my eyelids. In no way am I experiencing the essential nature of the color red. Therefore, lacking this essential nature, my thought of red is not even equivilent with my experience of red. So, how do I know its even a thought about red in the first place?

....Seriously?

A memory is not a recording. It's a recollection. Memories are unreliable and misleading at the best of times.

Of course you aren't "experiencing" red, because it's a memory. It's very different from the way your brain process red in the form of light through your eyes.

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

I don't see the dilemma here. It's a memory... What is there to not understand?
EDIT: Mabye there is another way you could reword it?

 

[FalloutJack]

-The Short Form-

Way to levy a heavy one on me in the middle of the night. You bring up thoughts of both The Giver and of certain meta-physical discussions I've had in college. Fortunately, I passed that course, so I can have a word or three on the subject.

The reason I mention The Giver is actually because of a scene where the main character (Jonas) isn't just seeing what he believes to be red, to which his perception is apparently dulled like everyone else before this, but a REAL representation of red, like the genuine article had suddenly appeared when what he thought was red was really lacking in substance or depth.

Still, literary references aside, when you ask me to think of the color red upon closing my eyes, the image comes very clearly in mind. And, in fact, I think I could probably see red behind my eyelids if I stare at the right kind of lightbulb with my eyes closed. But basically, and without even bothering to argue over shades of the red spectrum and so on, you're pretty much asking me "Well, what if that's not red and you just think that?".

This, in turn, crosses paths with another line of thinking I sometimes play with. Even supposing we're all pulling a Jonas and not seeing a real red until the genuine article magically appears before us, both the perception and the memory of red should be associated with the label 'red' because "Man calls this red".

You see, all manner of things we seek to understand in the universe, we do by measuring it according to what we think works. They're called rocks because we decided "This shall be called a rock.". The universe may not intrinsically agree with what red is, but the thing which we have labeled as red shall always be red according to our perceptions and memories, because we created them ourselves.

 

[Chefodeath]

I don't see the dilemma here. It's a memory... What is there to not understand?
EDIT: Mabye there is another way you could reword it?

Let me try hitting you with the argument compacted into a logical syllogism, see if that helps.

1: In order for a thought to be said to be "about" something, it must resemble or contain the essence of that which is it is about.
2: The essential nature of the color red is that it is in the active perception of it by the human observer. It is in the act of actually SEEING it
3: When one thinks about red, it does not cause them to in any way see the color, which is red's essential nature.

Therefore: what we say is a "thought about red" is in reality about red

 

[Anarchemitis]

The real question is whether we're human beings, or the result of electrical impulses contained in bags of flesh and bacteria.

 

[Chefodeath]

A serious philosophical dilemma has occured to me as of late. It's not the old problem that plagued the modern philosophy circa 1600-1800, that our thoughts of things only inaccurately represent the objective world from which they come, if there is an objective world at all. Rather its a dilemma even deeper and even more perplexing. I don't think that the abstract thought of a thing can even be said to represent the qualitative subjective experience its said to reflect.

Indulge me in a very simple thought experiment. I want you to close your eyes and just think of the color red. Meditate on it, imagine it fully.

Now here's my question. How does this thought of the color red in any way reflect the experience you have when you look on actual red? The essential nature of the color red is the visual experience you have when looking upon something red. As you meditate on your memory of red, does it replicate the experience in the same way the seeing of the color red? Are you able to see the color red when you meditate on it?

I can see only the cool black of my eyelids. In no way am I experiencing the essential nature of the color red. Therefore, lacking this essential nature, my thought of red is not even equivilent with my experience of red. So, how do I know its even a thought about red in the first place?

....Seriously?

A memory is not a recording. It's a recollection. Memories are unreliable and misleading at the best of times.

Of course you aren't "experiencing" red, because it's a memory. It's very different from the way your brain process red in the form of light through your eyes.

Oh, you were so close to understanding my thought, but you just missed it.

The question isn't whether the thought of red and the actual experience of red are one in the same. Obviously they are not. The question is that, given that the nature of the red is in it being perceived, and that the thought or memory of red does not cause us to perceive it, then why do we call it a thought of red? It does not contain the neccesary essence.

For all we know its a thought of purple.

 

[Verlander]

I can see red. I can think red. Everyone has a slight photographic memory, the quality of which varies between persons.

If you are worried that your thoughts represent definitions if things rather than representations or replications, maybe to you need to look up what a "definition" is. Or have I missed the point here?

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

I don't see the dilemma here. It's a memory... What is there to not understand?
EDIT: Mabye there is another way you could reword it?

Let me try hitting you with the argument compacted into a logical syllogism, see if that helps.

1: In order for a thought to be said to be "about" something, it must resemble or contain the essence of that which is it is about.
2: The essential nature of the color red is that it is in the active perception of it by the human observer. It is in the act of actually SEEING it
3: When one thinks about red, it does not cause them to in any way see the color, which is red's essential nature.

Therefore: what we say is a "thought about red" is in reality about red

Right. So I agree with your first point, but I disagree with your second and third. The memory of colors is just your brain duplicating patterns, of red, green and blue. When you see something 'red', it's just your eyes capturing different light frequencies and your brain interpreting that as a 'color'. Thus, when you remember 'red', it's your brain recalling what your eyes saw, what frequency the light that hit your eyes was.
Is that making sense?

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

For all we know its a thought of purple.

No... A thought of purple would be a thought of purple? That statement confuses me...

 

[Chefodeath]

I don't see the dilemma here. It's a memory... What is there to not understand?
EDIT: Mabye there is another way you could reword it?

Let me try hitting you with the argument compacted into a logical syllogism, see if that helps.

1: In order for a thought to be said to be "about" something, it must resemble or contain the essence of that which is it is about.
2: The essential nature of the color red is that it is in the active perception of it by the human observer. It is in the act of actually SEEING it
3: When one thinks about red, it does not cause them to in any way see the color, which is red's essential nature.

Therefore: what we say is a "thought about red" is in reality about red

Right. So I agree with your first point, but I disagree with your second and third. The memory of colors is just your brain duplicating patterns, of red, green and blue. When you see something 'red', it's just your eyes capturing different light frequencies and your brain interpreting that as a 'color'. Thus, when you remember 'red', it's your brain recalling what your eyes saw, what frequency the light that hit your eyes was.
Is that making sense?

It does, but I don't think its true. When I think of a color, try as I might, I cannot "see" the color. I can "visualize" it in a different sense, but I don't think my brain experiences the same patterns as when actually perceiving the color. We are conditioned to think that the color is synonymous with the thought of the color, but I don't believe it actually is. So when you think of the thought "red" that usually accompanies the stimulus of red, ever part of your instinct is pushing you to believe that you really are in some sense perceiving red, but in actuality, you aren't.

Now, does that make sense?

 

[Chefodeath]

So your saying that because we don't consciously shape the 'reality' as represented by our sense data simply by willing it, we aren't really thinking about things?

This seems a non-thread to me... Have I missed something?

That isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that because the thought of some qualitative experience, I.E. color, does not contain the essence of the actual experience, the actualized perception of said color, thoughts of qualitative experience cannot be properly said to be about qualitative experience.

No I'm not trying to trick you, honest. Its basically that because thinking of a color does not make me experience the color, then the thought can't really be said to be about that color.