@Gordan: Hi, are you in the neighbourhood?

@Chris sunami: Art thou still contemplating the void?

@HWalters Hi Mr Walters. I've just realized something. You might know that we perceive indirect reality, but subconsciously you still think (as if) we see with our eyes. Turning on the light in a room you see the objects and deduce that there must be light. After all, light (and our ability to detect light) is an essential part of vision.

But the entire purpose of vision (why it provides an evolutionary advantage) is that it allows us to see objects. Predators, food, possible mates, etc. Light allows us to do this. Detecting light is part of a process by which nouminal objects are perceived phenomenally.

You've delved deeply into the nouminal aspect of colors, but until you delve a bit deeper into their phenomenal side, you will never fully understand colors. You'll be amazed how changing your thinking process will alter forever your understanding of light and colors.

@ZaneScheepers: just saying Hi.

Salaam M :-)

@MoziburUllah pls call me Z.

@ZaneScheepers I mean this as no insult, but whereas I don't think it's possible for you to deduce the facts about me that you alleged to realize, I cannot take seriously your characterizations of me

IOW, I think I might be a better judge of the limits of my limitations of understanding of color than you :)

But in case you're interested... though perception per se doesn't need conscious awareness, perception continues as we're aware of things. There's a particular optical illusion, for example, that's modulated by what you attend to (that is, you can change a percept by shifting what you're attending to)

link

@HWalters no insult was intended. As I stated, you understand perception. But you think like a realist. This is obvious by your question "if I turn on the light in a room, surely I can detect (with my eyes) that it's on...". Yes, your eyes detect light. Your brain deduced that the light is on, because it perceives images. Light is detected, not perceived. Images are perceived, not conceived. Information (the light is on) is conceived.

Conception is deducted from perception, which is a result of detection.

Watch this clip. It will help you get a deeper understanding of vision. youtu.be/BvPu2kYstcg

In fact, if you have time, watch the whole series. Every time I watch it my understanding changes. This is because processing information is a subconscious event, which takes time. Sometimes days. The things I say now, will only register much later. Usually when we sleep.

This is because the constant noise resulting from perceptions floods our brain with information. The link between the conscious and subconscious can only handle "so much" information at a time. Give all this a day or two before responding. I know it's a lot to take in.

@ZaneScheepers In your response to me you said: "Yes, your eyes detect light." That acknowledges what I said. Everything else you're still guessing at. Shall I recommend a volume of psychology books to you?

@HWalters not right now. Wait 2 days.

No, right now. Let me re-emphasize. You're engaging me in a game I have no interest in playing. For some reason you're injected yourself into a teacher role for me, while extrapolating things you cannot possibly extrapolate.

I apologize; I must leave due to lack of time (I'm not angry, I'm just severely questioning you about your own role here)

If you want to engage me in a serious discussion, though, take me seriously. To do that, ask me questions instead of assuming things. Then, and only then, do you get to give me references.

@HWalters I completely understand.

But nothing I say will convince you

Comprehension can only come from within.

After that, I will read any book on psychology you deem relevant.

@ZaneScheepers: He is right in pointing out that what you write sounds arrogant and implies superior understanding of a matter. It is both a dangerous path to walk and one making further communication either impossible or charitable (i.e. on the other person's side, not yours). Philosophy is all about curiousity and open-mindedness.

@PhilipKlöcking. I didn't think he sounded arrogant.

@PédeLeão: repeatedly trying to make a certain point against all empirical findings given as if the other just didn't understand came over as arrogant to me (speaking of cone sensibility). That's where I've been with @HWalters. Apart from that, the chat obviously was fine for both. And I am stressing that so much because of a recent, similar incident with a different user.

@PhilipKlöcking Well, I didn't see it that way.

Hey! We got the Symposium back! When did that happen?

@JosephWeissman Are you still interested in reading my book, "The Human Future" on the relationship between cutting edge technology and ancient philosophy? It's nearing completion now. I would have sent it to you much earlier, but I have no way to contact you other than here. (My own personal contact info is in my profile.)

@ChrisSunami: We actually got something more in line to make this place more vivid

I was thinking about asking a question, on the main site, about the different types of "wisdom."

Any thoughts?

It might help to be more specific? :)

Street wise, conventional wisdom come to mind.