/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12657300
>It depends what you mean by white, but yes. Impossible colors are a concept
Nope. You're taking an already existing concept of 'color' and saying "well we can imagine that there are some that we don't know about". That doesn't equate to physical beings in a physical universe just 'thinking up' a nonphysical concept. The accurate comparison would be to say "I myself have actually thought of a new color that nobody else has ever seen".

>To the extent that whiteness exists, it's physical.
And that extent would be?

>Philosophers don't just repeat something over and over when you ask them to explain it.
That's the problem though. There are only so many words one can use to try to force enlightenment on someone. After a while, you're stuck repeating yourself. See, because this is not a science. Because consciousness is not physical and is fundamentally subjective, untestable and unobservable externally, I can't even know that you are indeed a conscious entity, and that I'm not just spewing words at a zombie who 'thinks' he's conscious. You either get it or you don't, so to speak. I was instantly enlightened at age 12 when my father explained to me that when I look at the sky, the blue IS me, and not 'out there'. I didn't even have to try to understand what he meant.

If consciousness is physical and explainable, why don't you go ahead and tell me what the physical difference between red and blue are. Do not try to tell me that one is 750nm and the other is 450nm. Wavelengths are not redness. Brain process is not redness. Redness is a process-less state of being, which one's consciousness is triggered to become by the brain interface processes.

Again I say, tell me the physical difference between redness and blueness. If something doesn't click in your mind when thinking about this, there is nothing more I can say to you.