How Does A Green Apple Turn To Red?

[pzkpfw]

You absolutely miss-use the words "subjective" and "objective". Which make them pointless. If you wish to communicate effectively, you need to use common language, not make up your own.

[xyz]

You absolutely miss-use the words "subjective" and "objective". Which make them pointless. If you wish to communicate effectively, you need to use common language, not make up your own.

''Subjective character of experience implies that the perception of all things, concepts, and "truths" in the universe differs between individuals: we all live in different worlds, each of which may have things in common, because of our unique perspectives on our worlds. The only thing to which one can hold oneself is something one has experienced or perceived. Until someone has had an experience of something the object or concept within itself is not real. Someone in Africa is aware of the existence of fire and sees it but for an Eskimo who has never seen fire before the fire does not exist in the same way. The idea of the subjectivity of one's reality also hints at an aspect of moral relativism, that each person's opinions are the only things they can hold themselves to.''

 

 

Have you not considered that I may have a deeper understanding of the two words than yourself?

 

 

The reason you do not understand my representation is for the reason that the two words can be ambiguously used and interwoven when related to thought. 

 

Consider these two statements - 

 

 

We are subjectively learnt by education objective thoughts from history. 

 

We are objectively learnt by education subjective thoughts from history.

 

subjective - based on personal feeling or opinion

 

objective - not influenced by personal feelings

 

see the problem when I add definition?

 

We are taught based on personal feeling or opinion by education that is  influenced by personal feelings and thought from others.

 

We are not taught based on no influence by personal feelings or opinion by education that is  influenced by personal feelings and thought from others.

 

If you ask me what do I observe, I tell you gin-clear and that is my objective thought thatis not influenced by personal belief, if you tell me there is photons that is belief and you are trying to subject me to your thoughts . 

 

So then objectively I ask to see proof of photons which science cannot provide , so they are tying to subject me to a sort of subjective ''narcissism'' by telling me my objective observation not biased by personal feelings is wrong and their ''imaginary'' perception is correct. 

 

 

I understand those words my friend. 

Edited June 24, 2016 by xyz

[exchemist]

''Subjective character of experience implies that the perception of all things, concepts, and "truths" in the universe differs between individuals: we all live in different worlds, each of which may have things in common, because of our unique perspectives on our worlds. The only thing to which one can hold oneself is something one has experienced or perceived. Until someone has had an experience of something the object or concept within itself is not real. Someone in Africa is aware of the existence of fire and sees it but for an Eskimo who has never seen fire before the fire does not exist in the same way. The idea of the subjectivity of one's reality also hints at an aspect of moral relativism, that each person's opinions are the only things they can hold themselves to.''

 

 

Have you not considered that I may have a deeper understanding of the two words than yourself?

 

 

The reason you do not understand my representation is for the reason that the two words can be ambiguously used and interwoven when related to thought. 

 

Consider these two statements - 

 

 

We are subjectively learnt by education objective thoughts from history. 

 

We are objectively learnt by education subjective thoughts from history.

 

subjective - based on personal feeling or opinion

 

objective - not influenced by personal feelings

 

see the problem when I add definition?

 

We are taught based on personal feeling or opinion by education that is  influenced by personal feelings and thought from others.

 

We are not taught based on no influence by personal feelings or opinion by education that is  influenced by personal feelings and thought from others.

 

If you ask me what do I observe, I tell you gin-clear and that is my objective thought thatis not influenced by personal belief, if you tell me there is photons that is belief and you are trying to subject me to your thoughts . 

 

So then objectively I ask to see proof of photons which science cannot provide , so they are tying to subject me to a sort of subjective ''narcissism'' by telling me my objective observation not biased by personal feelings is wrong and their ''imaginary'' perception is correct. 

 

 

I understand those words my friend. 

So you say. But you don't understand the difference between "learn" and "teach" , apparently. So perhaps it's not surprising that you cannot use the terms "subjective" and "objective" correctly.

[pzkpfw]

...

If you ask me what do I observe, I tell you gin-clear and that is my objective thought thatis not influenced by personal belief, if you tell me there is photons that is belief and you are trying to subject me to your thoughts . 

 

So then objectively I ask to see proof of photons which science cannot provide , so they are tying to subject me to a sort of subjective ''narcissism'' by telling me my objective observation not biased by personal feelings is wrong and their ''imaginary'' perception is correct. ...

None of your mangling of language provides evidence for the reality of your beliefs.

 

Science has performed actual experiments to determine the nature of light. Science has data, you have opinion.

[xyz]

So you say. But you don't understand the difference between "learn" and "teach" , apparently. So perhaps it's not surprising that you cannot use the terms "subjective" and "objective" correctly.

You assuming I do not know the difference between words is very fascinating and one might accuse you of having an over confidence in your own understanding of words. 

It is now quite clear to me that you have gone from discussion to some form of ''trolling'' with all your intent directed at me on a personal nature and avoiding the actual discussion.  You started off well in conversation and now it has gone to a ''school yard'' level of discussion in which I will not engage and ''feed'' you . 

[pzkpfw]

How about you tell us why you think an apple goes from green to red?

 

Then provide an example of an experiment with which your idea could be tested.

[xyz]

None of your mangling of language provides evidence for the reality of your beliefs.

 

Science has performed actual experiments to determine the nature of light. Science has data, you have opinion.

Science has data!   You say that but saying that does not provide evidence, the objective perception is the ''gin-clear'' it is subjective of you to try to force your ideas on me. 

 

Your personal feelings do not belong in science. 

[xyz]

How about you tell us why you think an apple goes from green to red?

 

Then provide an example of an experiment with which your idea could be tested.

If I knew the answer I would not be asking the question, I know your answer which to me is not very objective.

[pzkpfw]

Science has data!   You say that but saying that does not provide evidence, the objective perception is the ''gin-clear'' it is subjective of you to try to force your ideas on me. 

 

Your personal feelings do not belong in science.

Personal feelings?!

 

That doubly confirms you don't know the meanings of "subjective" and "objective". (Is English your first language?)

 

Your personal impression of "gin clear" space is based on your own feelings. Scientific experiments provide objective data.

 

It's your idea that doesn't belong in science. If you want to provide science, try providing some real back-up to your claims. e.g. Provide an experiment that shows how your subjective experience of "seeing" gin-clear space actually gives objective information about reality.

 

Stop playing your childish games of "I am rubber you are glue".

 

Actual experiments (it's easy to use google, I'm not wasting time doing that for you) show (A) light has a finite speed, and ( B ) sight is based on reception of photons; so while you feel as though you see source and destination of light simultaneously, it's certain that you can't. That remains nothing more than your feeling.

 

No amount of semi-cryptic posts on web forums will change that. If you want anyone to accept your ideas (and yes it's gin-clear you are not asking questions, you are pushing your ideas) then you need to provide some actual science, not stories based on your feelings.

Edited June 24, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

Personal feelings?!

 

That doubly confirms you don't know the meanings of "subjective" and "objective". (Is English your first language?)

 

Your personal impression of "gin clear" space is based on your own feelings. Scientific experiments provide objective data.

 

''Gin-clear'' is not based on personal feelings, it is of the visual reality we ''see''.  ''Gin-clear'' is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts, it is entirely objective and what I and you and all sighted observers , observe, fact ask anybody. 

 

The subjective is science telling me what I 'see' i snot what I 'see' so they need some solid hard evidence to convince me otherwise. 

 

 

I ask you for an observation picture of a Photon?  You can not provide this, therefore your evidence is incomplete without observation and no more than an idea/theory, unless you can provide hard evidence. 

 

'' e.g. Provide an experiment that shows how your subjective experience of "seeing" gin-clear space actually gives objective information about reality.''

 

I did an experiment with the laser and showed this. 

 

P.s you have it backwards, the gin clear is the objective by definition.

 

added - read your post when I edit and put in definition of objective. 

 

e.g. Provide an experiment that shows how your (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. experience of "seeing" gin-clear space actually gives based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions information about reality.''

 

and the answer is because we ask ''the question'' then make a lot of things up about the question and then ignore the objective observation of a quanta whole constant ''gin-clear'' space. 

Edited June 25, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

Nobody has argued against "the 'gin clear'" itself. It's your feelings about this, your interpretation of what it means (to you), in odds with current established science, that's subjective.

 

When actual experiments have shown light to have a finite speed: your subjective experience, your feeling that you're seeing source and destination simultaneously - is clearly wrong.

 

Other than your feelings, do you have any support for your assertions?

[xyz]

Nobody has argued against "the 'gin clear'" itself. It's your feelings about this, your interpretation of what it means (to you), in odds with current established science, that's subjective.

 

When actual experiments have shown light to have a finite speed: your subjective experience, your feeling that you're seeing source and destination simultaneously - is clearly wrong.

 

Other than your feelings, do you have any support for your assertions?

Thank you for speaking normal to me. 

 

It is not a feeling about the ''gin-clear'' , it is a perception.  I am not arguing about the finite speed of light, I know light travels without measurement of speed from A to B.  I can ''see'' this when using a laser or any light source.

 

Distance is the evidence, we can observe entire distances and ''photons'' fill the entire distance coupling eyes/brain to objects like a fibre optic link. 

 

You can indirectly ''see'' the photons in space that is not in your eyes that makes the dark space perception clear. 

 

Look just 1 ft in front of you and tell me you do not ''see'' light and air?

 

 

added - and I know science likes maths

 

x=299792458 metres 

v=c

 

+ve=c

t=1.s

 

 

-ve=c

t=1.s

 

net difference t= 0

 

You stand on a distant planet and I stand on Earth looking at each other, we see each other at the exact same time and the maths above shows this. So your clock I see the exact same as my clock. 

 

added- and is there any evidence for sciences assertions of a photons existence other than peoples thoughts and belief that is then subjected by education to us all?

 

Also we do not 'see' a single photon at any time, we always see a Quanta whole that is continuous and adjoined with no gaps of darkness. 

 

A shadow also shows us the ''truth''. 

 

A laser shows us the ''truth''. 

 

It is quite simple really, If I see you 8 minutes ago, and you see me 8 minutes ago, it is quite obvious we see each other at the same time, this cancels out a one way perspective of a photons journey. 

 

Look at it this way, you and I fire a gun aimed directly at each other at the exact same moment , both bullets travel and both bullets arrive at each other at the exact same moment, we die simultaneously. 

Edited June 25, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

:) Oh my. Somebody else can do it. I've given up trying.

[pzkpfw]

Thank you for speaking normal to me. 

 

It is not a feeling about the ''gin-clear'' , it is a perception.

Effectively, the same thing; I'm using the word "feeling" to emphasis that your idea here is subjective, it's not something objectively proven. Perception is not reality. (Perception can lead to a hypothesis, which you might then devise experiments to disprove.)

 

I am not arguing about the finite speed of light, I know light travels without measurement of speed from A to B.

This is contradictory; you're not arguing about the finite speed of light, yet you say light travels without measurement. (And then later in this post give a speed for light).

 

"I know" is not a good way to prove (or even explain) something.

 

I can ''see'' this when using a laser or any light source.

That's your perception; that's not reality. Actual experiments have shown you wrong.

 

Distance is the evidence, we can observe entire distances and ''photons'' fill the entire distance coupling eyes/brain to objects like a fibre optic link. 

 

You can indirectly ''see'' the photons in space that is not in your eyes that makes the dark space perception clear. 

 

Look just 1 ft in front of you and tell me you do not ''see'' light and air?

No, this is still rot. You have this perception, but it's wrong. 1 ft away from me, I'm not seeing anything; I'm only seeing photons that enter my eye. They happen to be coming from further than 1 ft away.

 

You are being fooled by the extremely high speed of light, it almost seems to be giving you the perception that your awareness is projected out into space.

 

added - and I know science likes maths

 

x=299792458 metres 

v=c

 

+ve=c

t=1.s

 

 

-ve=c

t=1.s

 

net difference t= 0

What utterly meaningless math! Where did x go? What are you measuring with +ve and -ve?

 

You stand on a distant planet and I stand on Earth looking at each other, we see each other at the exact same time and the maths above shows this. So your clock I see the exact same as my clock.

Your math doesn't show this. You can't just make up numbers and claim they prove your point.

 

added- and is there any evidence for sciences assertions of a photons existence other than peoples thoughts and belief that is then subjected by education to us all?

Plenty, but as I wrote previously, I'm not going to do your work for you. You have the impression you can overturn hundreds of years of science - but you don't seem to know what that science is. You've claimed that science is wrong, but you don't know what that science is! When the great (and even not so great) scientists have added to science, they knew the science they were adding to. Even when great leaps or changes have been made, they've been made by people who knew what it was they were overturning.

 

Also we do not 'see' a single photon at any time, we always see a Quanta whole that is continuous and adjoined with no gaps of darkness.

That's slightly mixed, but more or less, yeah. But that's OK. Scientists have made devices that can detect single photons.

 

A shadow also shows us the ''truth''.

No. A shadow helps show that you are wrong. They show directionality in light. i.e. something blocking light causes a shadow, it's clear light comes from something, hits the obstruction, and stops. Leaving a shadow. Couple that with the finite speed of light, as measured in actual experiments, and your magic-string like light can't exist.

 

A laser shows us the ''truth''. 

 

It is quite simple really, If I see you 8 minutes ago, and you see me 8 minutes ago, it is quite obvious we see each other at the same time, this cancels out a one way perspective of a photons journey.

Wasn't this thread about green and red apples? Anyway ... you seem to be agreeing here that we might see each other as at 8 minutes ago. In itself, that's entirely possible. If you and I were 1 AU away from each other, at rest relative to each other, and watching through telescopes, then yes - we'd both be seeing each other as at "8 minutes ago".

 

But you have to be careful what you mean by "same time". If I were looking at your watch, I'd be seeing 8:00 on your watch when mine says 8:08 (assuming we'd synchronised previously). And you'd be seeing the reverse (8:00 on mine when seeing 8:08 on yours). A minute later, I'd be seeing 8:01 on yours and 8:09 on mine.

 

And nothing's getting "cancelled out" here. If you raise your hand then put it down again after 1 minute; as noted, I'll see your hand raise 8 minutes after you raised it. Light speed is not infinite, as you noted from your Wikipedia link. So if at the moment I see your hand raise (by those photons hitting my eye, 8 minutes after you did it) I fire a laser at your hand, that laser will now spend 8 minutes travelling towards you. By the time it gets to you, even if my reactions were instant, your hand will have been down for 15 minutes. I miss.

 

Look at it this way, you and I fire a gun aimed directly at each other at the exact same moment , both bullets travel and both bullets arrive at each other at the exact same moment, we die simultaneously.

Absolutely. But the moment the bullets hit us, will be after we each fired our guns. You'd squeeze the trigger, there'd be some time pass, then your bullet would hit me. And vice versa.

 

The firing of a bullet is not simultaneous with being hit by a bullet. It would be the same with laser pistols - we'd just have to be further away from each other to notice the time delay, as light is so fast.

 

Don't let the high speed of light fool you into perceiving it as infinitely fast.

[xyz]

Effectively, the same thing; I'm using the word "feeling" to emphasis that your idea here is subjective, it's not something objectively proven. Perception is not reality. (Perception can lead to a hypothesis, which you might then devise experiments to disprove.)

 

 

This is contradictory; you're not arguing about the finite speed of light, yet you say light travels without measurement. (And then later in this post give a speed for light).

 

"I know" is not a good way to prove (or even explain) something.

 

 

That's your perception; that's not reality. Actual experiments have shown you wrong.

 

 

No, this is still rot. You have this perception, but it's wrong. 1 ft away from me, I'm not seeing anything; I'm only seeing photons that enter my eye. They happen to be coming from further than 1 ft away.

 

You are being fooled by the extremely high speed of light, it almost seems to be giving you the perception that your awareness is projected out into space.

 

 

What utterly meaningless math! Where did x go? What are you measuring with +ve and -ve?

 

 

Your math doesn't show this. You can't just make up numbers and claim they prove your point.

 

 

Plenty, but as I wrote previously, I'm not going to do your work for you. You have the impression you can overturn hundreds of years of science - but you don't seem to know what that science is. You've claimed that science is wrong, but you don't know what that science is! When the great (and even not so great) scientists have added to science, they knew the science they were adding to. Even when great leaps or changes have been made, they've been made by people who knew what it was they were overturning.

 

 

That's slightly mixed, but more or less, yeah. But that's OK. Scientists have made devices that can detect single photons.

 

 

No. A shadow helps show that you are wrong. They show directionality in light. i.e. something blocking light causes a shadow, it's clear light comes from something, hits the obstruction, and stops. Leaving a shadow. Couple that with the finite speed of light, as measured in actual experiments, and your magic-string like light can't exist.

 

 

Wasn't this thread about green and red apples? Anyway ... you seem to be agreeing here that we might see each other as at 8 minutes ago. In itself, that's entirely possible. If you and I were 1 AU away from each other, at rest relative to each other, and watching through telescopes, then yes - we'd both be seeing each other as at "8 minutes ago".

 

But you have to be careful what you mean by "same time". If I were looking at your watch, I'd be seeing 8:00 on your watch when mine says 8:08 (assuming we'd synchronised previously). And you'd be seeing the reverse (8:00 on mine when seeing 8:08 on yours). A minute later, I'd be seeing 8:01 on yours and 8:09 on mine.

 

And nothing's getting "cancelled out" here. If you raise your hand then put it down again after 1 minute; as noted, I'll see your hand raise 8 minutes after you raised it. Light speed is not infinite, as you noted from your Wikipedia link. So if at the moment I see your hand raise (by those photons hitting my eye, 8 minutes after you did it) I fire a laser at your hand, that laser will now spend 8 minutes travelling towards you. By the time it gets to you, even if my reactions were instant, your hand will have been down for 15 minutes. I miss.

 

 

Absolutely. But the moment the bullets hit us, will be after we each fired our guns. You'd squeeze the trigger, there'd be some time pass, then your bullet would hit me. And vice versa.

 

The firing of a bullet is not simultaneous with being hit by a bullet. It would be the same with laser pistols - we'd just have to be further away from each other to notice the time delay, as light is so fast.

 

Don't let the high speed of light fool you into perceiving it as infinitely fast.

Clearly there is a problem in you understanding my sentence structure and are reading the sentences ambiguously.   I know by your replies that you have done this.   Also you are not being objective you keep resorting back to saying present information, that is subjective and not objective. 

 

 

Can we try this a different way ?

 

Can you imagine I and you are  back in ''time'' before science and before any questions are asked about anything?

 

You know nothing at this point in ''time'' except for basic speech . 

 

We both decide  we want to start science, we will both be objective and not let personal feelings or thought influence our answers, ok?

 

 

You then say to me what is light and then explain you think it is made of tiny little particles and you will call them Photons!

 

 

I then ask you what is your observation and reasoning for this?

 

you reply ???????????????

 

 

Convince me with a solid argument because on the entire internet I find no solid evidence other than words of thought by people that is influenced by the personal feelings and history of thoughts.  I ''see'' that if your ''evidence'' is flawed then it must be different to how it is presently thought. 

 

 

p.s you never even asked how is the laser or a shadow evidence. But please just answer the above for now please and then I will show the errors in your logic and experiments and then go on to tell you the obvious coupling connection and how space is the connectivity of your neural network. 

But while you consider your frivolous  litigation answer consider/imagine living inside a fibre optic cable that had a constant stream of ''light''. 

Edited June 25, 2016 by xyz

[xTcHero]

To answer your question, click here.

 

Ridiculous discussion. Subjective = your own thoughts of something, ex. "I think this apple smells like bananas.". Objective = The actual answer to something, ex. "This apple smells like apple.".

 

Seriously though, a quick google search ended this discussion before it even began.

[xyz]

 

 

Seriously though, a quick google search ended this discussion before it even began.

Then you have not read the discussion.